No abstract

No abstract

The wireless capsule video endoscopy is useful in patients with occult blood loss, but is contraindicated in patients with cardiac pacemaker (PM). No case of interference has been published. We report the case of a patient with a PM implanted in the abdominal wall. After capsule ingestion, cardiac monitoring showed no modification of the PM compartment (VOO, unipolar mode) but the capsule recording reveal more than 3 hours of loss of image. The wireless capsule endoscopy is safe in patients with PMs in VOO mode. Nevertheless important interference was noted in the recording when the capsule was near the PM.

Introduction Multiple groups have reported on the usefulness of ablating in atrial regions exhibiting abnormal electrograms during atrial fibrillation (AF). Still, previous studies have suggested that ablation outcomes are highly operator‐ and center‐dependent. This study sought to evaluate a novel machine learning software algorithm named VX1 (Volta Medical), trained to adjudicate multipolar electrogram dispersion. Methods This study was a prospective, multicentric, nonrandomized study conducted to assess the feasibility of generating VX1 dispersion maps. In 85 patients, 8 centers, and 17 operators, we compared the acute and long‐term outcomes after ablation in regions exhibiting dispersion between primary and satellite centers. We also compared outcomes to a control group in which dispersion‐guided ablation was performed visually by trained operators. Results The study population included 29% of long‐standing persistent AF. AF termination occurred in 92% and 83% of the patients in primary and satellite centers, respectively, p = 0.31. The average rate of freedom from documented AF, with or without antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), was 86% after a single procedure, and 89% after an average of 1.3 procedures per patient (p = 0.4). The rate of freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmia, with or without AADs, was 54% and 73% after a single or an average of 1.3 procedures per patient, respectively (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences between outcomes of the primary versus satellite centers were observed for one (p = 0.8) or multiple procedures (p = 0.4), or between outcomes of the entire study population versus the control group (p > 0.2). Interestingly, intraprocedural AF termination and type of recurrent arrhythmia (i.e., AF vs. AT) appear to be predictors of the subsequent clinical course. Conclusion VX1, an expertise‐based artificial intelligence software solution, allowed for robust center‐to‐center standardization of acute and long‐term ablation outcomes after electrogram‐based ablation.