BackgroundStereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR) is an emerging treatment modality for patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and refractory to treatment with drugs and radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA). It is believed that up to 12–17% of patients experience recurrence of VT within 1 year of follow-up; thus, novel therapeutic options are needed. The aim of this article is to present initial experience within a novel treatment modality for VT.Case SummaryTwo patients with a medical history of coronary artery disease and heart failure with reduced left ventricle (LV) ejection fraction, after implantation of cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and previous unsuccessful RFAs owing to sustained VT were admitted to the cardiology department due to recurrence of sustained VT episodes. With electroanatomical mapping (EAM), the VT substrate in LV has been confirmed and specified. In order to determine the target volume for radioablation, contrast-enhanced computed tomography was performed and the arrhythmia substrate was contoured using EAM data. Using the Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy technique and three 6 MeV flattening filter-free photon beam fields, a single dose of 25 Gy was delivered to the target volume structure located in the apex and anterior apical segments of LV in the first patient and in the apex, anterolateral and inferior apical segments of the second patient. In both cases, volumes of the target structures were comparable. Interrogation of the implanted ICD at follow-up visits throughout 6 months after the treatment revealed no VT episodes in the first patient and sudden periprocedural increase in VT burden with a subsequent gradual decrease of ventricular arrhythmia to only two non-sustained episodes at the end of the follow-up period in case of the second patient. A significant reduction in premature ventricular contractions burden was observed compared to the pre-treatment period. No noticeable deterioration in LV function was noted, nor any adverse effects of radiosurgery associated with the implanted device.ConclusionThe early response to STAR can be unpredictable and probably does not reflect the final outcome of irradiation. Close monitoring of patients, especially in the early period after irradiation is crucial to properly handle potentially harmful early reactions to STAR.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular activation and can be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with PICM scheduled for a system upgrade to CRT were included in the prospective cohort study. Either HBP or BVP was used for CRT. Electrocardiographic, clinical, and echocardiographic measurements were recorded at baseline and six-month follow-up. HBP was successful in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Thirty-nine patients with HBP and 22 with BVP completed a 6-month follow-up. HBP led to a higher reduction in QRS duration than BVP, 118.3 ± 14.20 ms vs. 150.5 ± 18.64 ms, p < 0.0001. The improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by one or two was more common in patients with HBP than those with BiV (p = 0.04). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in BVP patients from 32.9 ± 7.93% to 43.9 ± 8.07%, p < 0.0001, and in HBP patients from 34.9 ± 6.45% to 48.6 ± 7.73%, p < 0.0001. The improvement in LVEF was more considerable in HBP patients than in BVP patients, p = 0.019. The improvement in clinical outcomes and left ventricle reverse remodeling was more significant with HBP than BVP. HBP can be a valid alternative to BVP for upgrade procedures in PICM patients.

Background: Permanent right ventricular pacing (RVP) results in cardiac dyssynchrony that may lead to heart failure and may be an indication for the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The study aimed to evaluate predictors of outcomes in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) if upgraded to CRT. Methods: One hundred fifteen patients, 75.0 years old (IQR 67.0-80.0), were upgraded to CRT due to the decline in left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) caused by the long-term RVP. A retrospective analysis was performed using data from hospital and outpatient clinic records and survival data from the National Health System. Results: The prior percentage of RVP was 100.0% (IQR 97.0-100.0), with a QRS duration of 180.0 ms (IQR 160.0-200.0). LVEF at the time of the upgrade procedure was 27.0% (IQR 21.0-32.75). The mean follow-up was 980 ± 522 days. The primary endpoint, death from any cause, was met by 26 (22%) patients. Age > 82 years (HR 5.96; 95% CI 2.24-15.89; P = .0004) and pre-CRT implantation LVEF < 20% (HR 5.63; 95%CI 2.19-14.47; P = .0003), but neither the cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) implantation (HR 1.00; 95%CI 0.45-2.22; P = 1.00), nor the presence of atrial fibrillation (HR 1.22; 95%CI 0.56-2.64; P = .62), were independently associated with all-cause mortality. Conclusion: Advanced age and an extremely low LVEF, but neither the presence of atrial fibrillation nor implanting an additional high voltage lead, influence the all-cause mortality in patients after long-term RVP, when upgraded to CRT. K E Y W O R D S cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade, chronic right ventricular pacing, defibrillator, pacinginduced cardiomyopathy

A variety of etiologies can cause erroneous detection in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICDs). Interaction between two endocardial leads is rare and uncommon in causing electrical noise. During a reimplantation procedure of an ICD system in a 68-year-old man, additional electrical signals could be detected. The interaction between two endocardial defibrillation leads was identified as the cause of sensing problems. When it is not possible to extract the nonfunctional endocardial lead during implantation of the new electrode, it should be implanted away and not in parallel from the old one to avoid interaction between them. A variety of etiologies can cause erroneous detection in patiens with ICD. Interaction between two endocardial leads is rare and uncommon to cause electrical noise.

No abstract