Aims Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is effective but hampered by pulmonary vein reconnection due to insufficient ablation lesions. High-power delivery over a short period of time (HPSD) in RFA is stated to create more efficient lesions. The aim of this study was to compare intraprocedural safety and outcome of HPSD ablation to conventional power settings in patients undergoing PVI for PAF. Methods and results We included 197 patients with PAF that were scheduled for PVI. An ablation protocol with 70 W and a duration cut-off of 7 s at the anterior left atrium (LA) and 5 s at the posterior LA (HPSD group; n = 97) was compared to a conventional power protocol with 30–40 W for 20–40 s (standard group; n = 100) in terms of periprocedural complications and a 1-year outcome. The HPSD group showed significantly less arrhythmia recurrence during 1-year follow-up with 83.1% of patients free from atrial fibrillation compared to 65.1% in the standard group (P < 0.013). No pericardial tamponade, periprocedural thromboembolic complications, or atrio-oesophageal fistula occurred in either group. Mean radiofrequency time (12.4 ± 3.4 min vs. 35.6 ± 12.1 min) and procedural time (89.5 ± 23.9 min vs. 111.15 ± 27.9 min) were significantly shorter in the HPSD group compared to the standard group (both P < 0.001). Conclusion High-power short-duration ablation demonstrated a comparable safety profile to conventional ablation. High-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for 5–7 s leads to significantly less arrhythmia recurrences after 1 year. Radiofrequency and procedural time were significantly shortened.

This group included 272 consecutive patients who underwent a LA RFA procedure under continuous rivaroxaban therapy. Rivaroxaban (Xarelto) was administered at a dose of 20 or 15 mg (in case of renal impairment with a creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) orally once © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.

BackgroundThe placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized.MethodsA total of 194 ICD recipients (64±12 years, 83% male, 95% primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, 35% cardiac resynchronization therapy) were randomly assigned to one of three implantation strategies: (1) ICD implantation without any defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, (2) estimation of the DFT without arrhythmia induction (modified “upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing”) or (3) traditional safety margin testing including ventricular arrhythmia induction. High-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were determined prior to the implantation and 6 hours after.ResultsAll three groups showed a postoperative increase of hsTnT. The mean delta was 0.031±0.032 ng/ml for patients without DFT testing, 0.080±0.067 ng/ml for the modified ULV-testing and 0.064±0.056 ng/ml for patients with traditional safety margin testing. Delta hsTnT was significantly larger in both of the groups with intraoperative ICD testing compared to the non-testing strategy (p≤0.001 each). There was no statistical difference in delta hsTnT between the two groups with intraoperative ICD testing (p = 0.179).ConclusionHigh-sensitive Troponin T release during ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with intraoperative ICD testing using shock applications compared to those without testing. Shock applications, with or without arrhythmia induction, did not result in a significantly different delta hsTnT. Hence, the ICD shock itself and not ventricular fibrillation seems to cause myocardial micro-damage.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01230086