Spyridon Deftereos

Transseptal puncture constitutes the foundational step required for left atrial access, serving as the critical gateway for pulmonary vein isolation, left-sided electrophysiological ablations, and percutaneous structural heart interventions. Although fluoroscopically guided transseptal puncture demonstrates high technical success rates alongside low reported complication rates, procedural training historically relies on unstructured apprenticeship models where overlooked mechanical nuances generate the majority of periprocedural adverse events. Methodological execution demands precise interatrial septal mapping, preprocedural left atrial thrombus screening, systemic anticoagulation, and rigorous hardware de-airing protocols. Real-time imaging using transesophageal or intracardiac echocardiography enhances fluoroscopic landmarks, facilitating precise localized puncture at the thin fossa ovalis while safeguarding adjacent anatomical structures such as the aortic root, posterior left atrial wall, and pericardial space. Modern auxiliary technologies, including radiofrequency crossing devices, provide systematic escalation strategies for fibrotic or altered septal substrates. Left atrial access must be unequivocally confirmed before dilator or sheath advancement using appropriate imaging, hemodynamic, or other procedural confirmation methods according to the technique employed. Ultimate procedural safety and operator competence depend on maintaining rigorous multi-modality confirmation protocols rather than relying on technical improvisation.

Inadequate vein access is a frequent obstacle during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) upgrade procedures; thus, bail-out strategies are employed. A 71-year-old male with dilated cardiomyopathy bearing a 7-year-old right-sided dual-chamber pacemaker was scheduled for upgrade to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The case presented two main challenges—first, pacemaker dependency, and second, an occluded right subclavian vein. In a shared decision-making approach, the decision was made to “abandon” the right-sided ventricular lead in situ, reposition the right-sided atrial lead by tunneling over the sternum into the left pectoral area, and implant a new left-sided defibrillator lead. During the 2-year follow-up our patient remained clinically stable and the CIED fully functional. Herein, beyond case presentation we also elaborate on individualized alternative treatment strategies for patients with venous access site occlusion in a literature review.

Background: Ultrasound (US)-guided axillary vein puncture (AVP) is an established technique for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Yet real-world data concerning shifting from conventional venous access into US-guided AVP are not widely available. Methods: This is a single-center prospective registry reporting safety (complications) and efficacy (success rate: i.e., accomplishment of the vein access utilizing only the initially employed approach) of self-taught US-guided AVP integration into the standard workflow of CIED procedures. Results: A total of 539 patients (mean age 71.5 ± 12.4 years old, 78.7% males) were treated in our institution over a three-year period. Regarding CIED type and lead number, 58.3% used an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, 32% used permanent pacemakers, and two leads were involved in 65.8% of the cases and three leads in 8.9%. Before integration of US-guided AVP, the venous access success rate was 93.5%. The US-guided AVP success rate was 377/400 procedures (94.2%). After the first semester of US-guided AVP utilization, a pattern of increased success rate was observed (p = 0.002) and remained stable over the following semesters. No major complication (periprocedural or 30-day mortality, hemothorax, pneumothorax and tamponade) occurred after US AVP integration in our workflow. Conclusions: The integration of US-guided AVP in a self-taught manner is feasible among electrophysiologists with experience in US-guided vascular access. A high success rate can be reached quickly and safely.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular arrhythmia and is associated with an impaired prognosis. Studies using implantable cardiac monitors suggest that this association is closely linked to AF burden, defined as the percentage of time spent in AF. Consequently, there is a growing need for affordable and comfortable alternative devices, such as wearables, capable of reliably monitoring AF burden in patients with AF. Methods: Major electronic databases were searched for studies comparing AF burden quantification using wearables and reference ECG monitoring methods. A Bayesian approach was adopted for the final analysis. Results: Six studies, including a total of 448 patients and 36,978 h of valid simultaneous recordings, were analyzed. Bayesian analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between wearables and reference methods in AF burden quantification. The mean error was 1% (95% CrIs: −4% to 7%). Similar findings were observed in the subgroup analysis of studies assessing only smartwatches. Between-study heterogeneity was low, and no evidence of publication bias was detected. Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that AF burden quantification using wearables is comparable to reference ECG monitoring methods. These findings support the potential role of wearables in clinical practice, particularly for research and prognostic purposes. However, more studies are needed to determine whether the observed statistical equivalence translates to clinical significance, thereby supporting the widespread use of wearables in the assessment of rhythm control therapeutic strategies.

Introduction: Obesity is an important risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) development. Data on cryoballoon ablation (CBA) outcomes in obese patients have so far been scarce. We reviewed the existing literature to compare the efficacy and safety of CBA in obese versus non-obese AF patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing clinical outcomes (arrhythmia recurrence and/or procedural data and/or safety outcomes) between obese and non-obese patients undergoing CBA for AF. Statistical pooling was performed according to a random-effects model with generic inverse-variance weighting of relative risks (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) computing risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Obese and non-obese patients had comparable arrhythmia recurrence rates (normal versus overweight, RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82–1.11, p = 0.55, I²% = 91%; normal versus class I obesity, RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.82–1.13, p = 0.68, I²% = 87%; normal versus class II obesity, RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91–1.07, p = 0.29, I²% = 65%). Procedure time was marginally increased in obese patients compared to non-obese counterparts (normal versus overweight, SMD = 0.05, 95% CI: −0.15–0.26, p = 0.62, I²% = 74%; normal versus class I obesity, SMD = 0.10, 95% CI: −0.00–0.19, p = 0.06, I²% = 2%; overweight versus class I obesity, SMD = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01–0.21, p = 0.048, I²% = 25%). Regarding radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time was increased in patients with class I obesity compared to normal-weight or overweight patients and dose area product was also increased in obese patients compared to non-obese patients. Lastly, the risk of complications did not differ between obese and non-obese patients. Statistical heterogeneity and the small number of patients included are the main limitations of this study. Conclusion: CBA seems to be effective for obese patients suffering from AF, featuring also similar safety outcomes with non-obese individuals. Radiation exposure was increased in obese patients.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is prevalent among obese patients, and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is an effective strategy for the rhythm control of AF. The impact of body mass index (BMI) on the clinical outcomes of CBA for AF is not fully explored. Methods: 85 consecutive patients with paroxysmal AF were enrolled and were categorized into three groups as per their BMI: normal weight (BMI 18.5–25 kg/m²), overweight (BMI 25–30 kg/m²), and obese patients (BMI > 30 kg/m²). The primary study endpoint was a late (12 month) recurrence of AF. Early recurrence of AF, symptom improvement, and procedural outcomes were some key secondary outcomes. Results: 20 patients had normal weight, 35 were overweight, and 30 were obese. Obese patients featured a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, heavier exposure to smoking, and worse baseline symptoms (as assessed through EHRA class at admission and 12 months before CBA) compared to overweight and normal weight patients. Both late and early (<3 months) AF recurrence rates were comparable across the three groups. Of note, obese patients showed greater improvement in their symptoms post-CBA, defined as improvement by at least one EHRA class, compared to normal weight patients; this might be explained by improved diastolic function. Total procedure time and dose area product were significantly increased in obese patients. The multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that early AF recurrence and the duration of hypertension are independent predictors of late AF recurrence. Conclusion: CBA is effective in overweight and obese patients with paroxysmal AF. Procedure time and radiation exposure are increased in obese patients undergoing CBA.

(1)Introduction: Catheter ablation has become a cornerstone for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, recurrence rates remain high. Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) has been associated with AF pathogenesis and maintenance. However, the literature has provided equivocal results regarding the relationship between EAT and post-ablation recurrence.(2) Purpose: to investigate the relationship between total and peri-left atrium (peri-LA) EAT with post-ablation AF recurrence. (3) Methods: major electronic databases were searched for articles assessing the relationship between EAT, quantified using computed tomography, and the recurrence of AF following catheter ablation procedures. (4) Results: Twelve studies (2179 patients) assessed total EAT and another twelve (2879 patients) peri-LA EAT. Almost 60% of the included patients had paroxysmal AF and recurrence was documented in 34%. Those who maintained sinus rhythm had a significantly lower volume of peri-LA EAT (SMD: −0.37, 95%; CI: −0.58–0.16, I2: 68%). On the contrary, no significant difference was documented for total EAT (SMD: −0.32, 95%; CI: −0.65–0.01; I2: 92%). No differences were revealed between radiofrequency and cryoenergy pulmonary venous isolation. No publication bias was identified. (5) Conclusions: Only peri-LA EAT seems to be predictive of post-ablation AF recurrence. These findings may reflect different pathophysiological roles of EAT depending on its location. Whether peri-LA EAT can be used as a predictor and target to prevent recurrence is a matter of further research.

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation; yet, the role of arrhythmogenic superior vena cava (SVC) is increasingly recognized and different ablation strategies have been employed in this context. SVC can act as a trigger or perpetuator of AF, and its significance might be more pronounced in patients undergoing repeated ablation. Several cohorts have examined efficacy, safety and feasibility of SVC isolation (SVCI) among AF patients. The majority of these studies explored as-needed SVCI during index PVI, and only a minority of them included repeated ablation subjects and non-radiofrequency energy sources. Studies of heterogeneous design and intent have explored both empiric and as-needed SVCI on top of PVI and reported inconclusive results. These studies have largely failed to demonstrate any clinical benefit in terms of arrhythmia recurrence, although safety and feasibility are undisputable. Mixed population demographics, small number of enrollees and short follow-up are the main limitations. Procedural and safety data are comparable between empiric SVCI and as-needed SVCI, and some studies suggested that empiric SVCI might be associated with reduced AF recurrences in paroxysmal AF patients. Currently, no study has compared different ablation energy sources in the setting of SVCI, and no randomized study has addressed as-needed SVCI on top of PVI. Furthermore, data regarding cryoablation are still in their infancy, and regarding SVCI in patients with cardiac devices more safety and feasibility data are needed. PVI non-responders, patients undergoing repeated ablation and patients with long SVC sleeves could be potential candidates for SVCI, especially via an empiric approach. Although many technical aspects remain unsettled, the major question to answer is which clinical phenotype of AF patients might benefit from SVCI?

This letter to the editor refers to “The blanking period after atrial fibrillation ablation: an European Heart Rhythm Association survey on contemporary definition and management.” by Stefano Bordignon et al. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac131 and the response to this letter ‘Don’t lose the ground: the EHRA blanking period survey’, by S. Bordignon et al., https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euac287.