DeSimone, Christopher V

ABSTRACT Introduction Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data on its efficacy in patients with sarcoidosis and HFrEF are limited. Methods Using the TriNetX network, we identified patients with sarcoidosis, heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 35%, and either left bundle branch block (LBBB) or prolonged QRS duration ( > 150 ms) between 2014 and 2019. Patients were categorized into two cohorts: (1) those who received CRT and (2) those who received an ICD‐only implant. Five‐year outcomes included all‐cause mortality, all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure exacerbation, and the proportion of patients with improvement in LVEF to greater than 40% and greater than 50%. Results Out of 245 eligible patients, we identified a cohort of 87 patients (mean age 62.6 ± 9.5 years) who received CRT and 87 patients (mean age 62.1 ± 11.1 years) who received ICD‐only implant, with similar propensity scores, and included them in a comparative analysis. At 5‐year follow‐up, the CRT group demonstrated outcomes comparable to the ICD‐only implant group for all‐cause mortality (14.9% vs. 20.7%; HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.31–1.28; p = 0.19), all‐cause hospitalization (83.9% vs. 77.0%; HR 1.24; 95% CI 0.89–1.73; p = 0.19), and heart failure exacerbation (28.7% vs. 28.7%; HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.52–1.57; p = 0.72). The proportion of patients with improvement in LVEF to greater than 40% and greater than 50% was also similar in both groups (LVEF > 40%, 43.7% vs. 33.3%; HR 1.30; 95% CI 0.80–2.10; p = 0.29; LVEF > 50%, 31.0% vs. 17.2%; HR 1.72; 95% CI 0.92–3.24; p = 0.09). Conclusion CRT implantation had similar long‐term outcomes compared to ICD‐only implantation in patients with sarcoidosis and HFrEF, particularly all‐cause mortality, all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure exacerbation, and the proportion of patients with improvement in LVEF to greater than 40% and greater than 50%.

ABSTRACT Background Early catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) improves outcomes, but the optimal timing, especially in heart failure (HF) subtypes, remains unclear. Objective To evaluate the impact of ablation timing on outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods We used the TriNetX database (2010–2024) to identify HF patients with AF who underwent ablation. Patients were classified as early ablation (≤ 1 year of first AF diagnosis) or delayed ablation (1–3 years), with propensity score matching (PSM) applied to balance the baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was AF recurrence, defined by repeat ablation, direct current cardioversion (DCCV), or antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) use after a 3‐month blanking period. Secondary outcomes included stroke, hospitalization, and mortality over 5 years. Results After PSM, delayed ablation was associated with higher AF recurrence in both HFrEF (HR = 1.28, p < 0.001) and HFpEF (HR = 1.21, p = 0.02), as seen in multivariate analysis. In HFrEF, delayed ablation was associated with higher incidence of re‐do ablation, AAD use, and DCCV, while in HFpEF, higher recurrence with delayed ablation was associated with increased AAD use. Both cohorts had similar stroke and mortality rates between early and delayed ablation. Conclusions Delayed ablation in HFrEF and HFpEF was linked to higher AF recurrence, driven by increased redo ablations, DCCV, AAD use in HFrEF, and higher AAD use in HFpEF. Stroke, HF hospitalization and mortality rates were similar, suggesting earlier ablation may enhance rhythm control over other outcomes.

ABSTRACT Background Ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a major contributor to sudden cardiac death among patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). While catheter ablation reduces the arrhythmic burden, the impact on long‐term outcomes remains uncertain. We assess the efficacy of catheter ablation in patients with IHD. Methods We performed a meta‐analysis by systematically searching electronic databases from inception to April 2025. Pairwise, reconstructed time‐to‐event data meta‐analyses and Trial Sequential analyses were conducted. Results A total of seven studies (1192 participants) were included. Among patients with IHD with ICD, VT ablation was associated with a significant reduction in ICD shocks (RR = 0.50, 95% CI = [0.34–0.74]), a trend toward reduced VT storm (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = [0.40–1.04], p = 0.07), and lower rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = [0.53–1.01], p = 0.06) compared to ICD alone. However, no significant differences were observed when compared to patients receiving ICD plus antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). VT ablation showed no significant impact on mortality or VT/VF recurrence compared to either ICD alone or ICD with AADs. Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier analysis for all‐cause mortality showed no significant difference between VT ablation and AAD + ICD. Trial Sequential Analysis provided conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while further data is required for other outcomes. Conclusion Among patients with IHD with ICD, VT ablation reduces ICD shocks, VT storm, and cardiovascular hospitalizations compared to ICD‐only therapy, but offers no significant advantage over ICD combined with AADs. VT ablation does not impact overall mortality or the recurrence of VT/VF. Trial sequential analysis confirmed conclusive evidence for VT/VF recurrence, while additional data is needed for other outcomes.

ABSTRACT Background High‐power short‐duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional power delivery (CPD) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), though its efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety profile remain uncertain. Aims To evaluate and compare the efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety of HPSD versus CPD ablation strategies for PVI in patients with AF through a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases were systematically searched for RCTs comparing HPSD with CPD ablation for PVI in patients with AF. Random‐effects models were used to pool hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). R version 4.4.2 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eight RCTs with 1094 patients (558 undergoing HPSD and 536 undergoing CPD ablation) were included. No significant differences were found in freedom from arrhythmia during the follow‐up period (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.41–1.45; p = 0.424). AF recurrence did not differ (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.59–1.16; p = 0.268) between groups. HPSD had a significantly shorter procedural (mean difference [MD]: −21.93 min; 95% CI: −31.34, −12.53; p < 0.001) and RF ablation times (MD: −13.87 min; 95% CI: −19.46, −8.27; p < 0.001). No differences were observed in fluoroscopy time and first‐pass isolation for right and left pulmonary veins. There was no difference in esophageal lesion rates, pericardial, or neurological complications, but there was a higher incidence of steam pops in HPSD (RR: 3.42; 95% CI: 1.45–8.09; p = 0.005). Discussion Although HPSD ablation did not significantly improve freedom from arrhythmia or reduce AF recurrence compared to CPD, it demonstrated enhanced procedural efficiency, with shorter procedure and RF ablation times. Despite the higher rate of steam pops, the overall safety profile was similar between both groups. Conclusion High‐power short‐duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to conventional power delivery, with the added benefit of shorter procedure and RF ablation times. However, HPSD ablation was associated with increased occurrence of steam pops.

ABSTRACTIntroductionDry epicardial access to facilitate epicardium mapping and ablation is a well described technique with increasing use in modern electrophysiology. However, traditional percutaneous access can be challenging is obese patients or those with anatomical variations.Methods and ResultsWe report on a case where a subxiphoid cut down was utilized for epicardial access in a patient with morbid obesity. This approach allows us to reach the epicardial space when traditional needles do not suffice and enables a more controlled access, potentially minimizing the risk of damage to nearby structures.ConclusionSubxiphoid cut down to facilitate percutaneous epicardial access is a simple and effective option when traditional epicardial access is not feasible due to morbid obesity or anatomical variations.

ABSTRACT Background Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is a Class I indication for patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. However, disparities in the utilization of TLR have not been fully explored, particularly concerning demographic and socioeconomic factors. Objectives This study aims to examine whether disparities exist among patients hospitalized for CIED infections with respect to the utilization of TLR, focusing on sex, race, and income characteristics. Methods We utilized the 2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to assess patients hospitalized with CIED infections and identify those who underwent TLR. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine risk factors for TLR utilization, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic characteristics. Results A total of 56 709 patients were hospitalized for CIED infection in the United States in 2019, of which 9867 (17.4%) underwent TLR. On an adjusted analysis, females and Black patients were found to have lower odds of undergoing TLR compared to males and White patients (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.59–0.78; p < 0.01; and OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.39–0.57; p < 0.01, respectively). Hispanic patients also had reduced odds of TLR (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58–0.93; p = 0.01). No significant associations were observed between income or insurance status and the likelihood of receiving TLR after adjustment. Conclusions This study identified significant disparities in the utilization of TLR among patients hospitalized for CIED infections. Female, Black, and Hispanic patients were significantly less likely to receive TLR.

ABSTRACT Background Obesity is an important risk factor associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). The impact of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RAs) on recurrent AF among patients undergoing catheter ablation is not well described. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effect of GLP‐1 RA on the recurrence of AF among obese patients after catheter ablation. Methods Utilizing the TriNetX research network, we identified patients aged over 18 with obesity (BMI ≥ 30) who underwent AF ablation from January 1, 2015, to December 1, 2022, using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Patients were categorized based on their baseline GLP‐1 RA use. Through propensity‐score matching, each cohort comprised 1558 patients. The primary outcome encompassed a composite of cardioversion, initiation of new antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, or redo AF ablation. Additional outcomes during the 12‐month follow‐up included AF readmission, heart failure readmissions, readmissions due to ischemic stroke, and mortality, with a separate analysis done for patients with BMI > 40. Results GLP‐1 RA use in patients with obesity undergoing AF ablation was linked to a significantly reduced risk of cardioversion, new AAD therapy, and the need for redo AF ablation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72 [0.65–0.80]; p < 0.001). At 12 months, individuals on GLP‐1 agonists exhibited a lower likelihood of mortality (HR 0.61 [0.40–0.93]; p < 0.001). Although all other secondary outcomes were lower in the GLP‐1 RA group, there was no significant difference in ischemic stroke between the groups. These results were consistent among patients with BMI > 40, although apart from ischemic stroke, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups. Conclusion The utilization of GLP‐1 RA in individuals with obesity is linked to a decreased likelihood of arrhythmia recurrence following AF ablation, leading to a reduced requirement for cardioversion, AAD therapy, or redo AF ablation.

ABSTRACT Background Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are a serious complication associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Despite guideline recommendations for complete device removal, disparities in healthcare access and resource availability between urban and rural settings may influence patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate rural–urban disparities in the management and outcomes of patients hospitalized with CIED infections. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the National Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2016 to 2021. Patients aged ≥ 18 years hospitalized with CIED infections were identified using ICD‐10 codes. Hospital location was categorized as urban or rural based on the Urban Influence Codes. Baseline characteristics, complications, and outcomes were compared using chi‐square and t ‐tests, and a multivariable logistic regression model was employed to assess the independent association of hospital settings with transvenous lead removal (TLR) utilization. Results A total of 288,402 patients were hospitalized for CIED infections, with 94.9% treated in urban hospitals and 5.1% in rural hospitals. Urban hospital patients had a higher prevalence of key comorbidities, including heart failure, valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation and peripheral vascular disorders. In‐hospital mortality was significantly higher in urban hospitals (6.2% vs. 4.8%, p < 0.01) likely due to higher burden of comorbidities and higher rates of acute complications such as stroke (3.1% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.01) and systemic embolism (1.4% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.01). TLR was more frequently performed in urban hospitals (20.1% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.01), with rural hospitals exhibiting 59% lower odds of receiving TLR (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.36–0.47, p < 0.01). TLR was associated with reduced in‐hospital mortality, 30‐day mortality, and 30‐day readmission rates across both hospital settings. Conclusion Our study highlights significant rural–urban disparities in CIED infection management. Despite rural hospitals admitting patients with a lower comorbidity burden, TLR utilization was significantly lower, potentially due to limited access to specialized expertise and procedural resources. Given TLR's association with improved survival and reduced readmissions, regardless of the hospital setting, targeted interventions are needed to enhance access to specialized care in rural settings. Further research is warranted to explore strategies for bridging these disparities and optimizing CIED infection outcomes nationwide.

Introduction: High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional power delivery (CPD) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its efficacy, procedural efficiency, and safety profile remain uncertain. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.Gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HPSD with CPD ablation for PVI in patients with AF. Random-effects models were used to pool hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). R version 4.4.2 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Seven RCTs with 1,006 patients (514 HPSD, 489 CPD) were included. No significant differences were found in freedom from arrhythmia during the follow-up period (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.41–1.45; p=0.424). AF recurrence did not differ (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.65–1.36; p=0.733) between groups. HPSD had a significantly shorter procedural (MD -22.61 min; 95% CI -33.18, -12.04; p<0.001) and RF ablation times (MD -15.70 min; 95% CI -20.86, -10.55; p<0.001). No differences were observed in fluoroscopy time and first-pass isolation for right and left pulmonary veins. There was no difference in esophageal lesion rates, pericardial, or neurological complications, but there was a higher incidence of steam pops in HPSD (RR 3.42; 95% CI 1.45–8.09; p=0.005). Conclusion: In patients with AF undergoing PVI, HPSD did not increase freedom from arrhythmia as compared with CPD ablation, however it was associated with shorter procedure and RF ablation times with a similar safety profile.