Deshmukh, Abhishek J

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 Valve‐in‐valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV‐TAVR) is increasingly used to treat structural valve degeneration. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, yet predictors specific to ViV‐TAVR remain poorly defined. Objective To identify clinical and procedural predictors of PPI in patients undergoing ViV‐TAVR. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive ViV‐TAVR cases at the Mayo Clinic from 2012 to 2022. Clinical, ECG, procedural data and fluoroscopic measurements were analyzed, and propensity score matching was used to adjust for confounding. Predictors of PPI were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 261 patients, 24 (9.2%) underwent PPI. Balloon‐expandable valves were used in 66.7% and self‐expanding valves in 33.3%. Predictors of PPI included Preprocedural bifascicular block (OR 12.15, 95% CI: 2.52–68.89, p = 0.003), greater septal implantation depth (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04–1.65, p = 0.019), and post‐procedural new left (OR 23.56, 95% CI: 4.91–48.52, p = 0.0004) and right bundle branch blocks (OR 24.4, 95% CI: 3.82–30.51, p = 0.001). Aortic regurgitation as the mechanism of prosthetic valve failure was associated with reduced PPI odds (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.76, p = 0.014). Pacing requirement—defined as > 90% ventricular pacing—increased from 25% at 3 months to 56.25% at 12 months. At a median follow‐up of 962.5 days (IQR 481.5–1555.3), adjusted mortality was significantly higher in the PPI group (aOR 9.4, 95% CI: 1.9–60.4, p = 0.028). Conclusion Bifascicular block, greater septal depth, and new bundle branch blocks predict PPI post‐ViV‐TAVR, while aortic regurgitation appears protective. Risk stratification and procedural planning are critical.

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundEsophageal‐pericardial fistula (EPF) is rare with an incidence of 0.016%–0.04%. With novel procedures involving intracardiac or esophageal instrumentation in the last few decades, including atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, further understanding of this unique entity is warranted. In this systematic review, we summarize the etiology, diagnostic features, management, and outcomes of EPF.MethodsA librarian conducted a systematic literature review of case reports/series describing adults diagnosed with EPF through 7 major databases/registries from inception to 7/30/2024.ResultsOne hundred twenty patients from 115 papers met the inclusion criteria. Median age(IQR) was 57(44–67) years, with a male predominance (73.7%). The primary etiology of EPF shifted from benign esophageal diseases before 2000 to AF ablation on/after 2000. Median time(IQR) from AF ablation to EPF presentation/diagnosis was 17(13–23) days. Chest pain (70.8%) and pneumopericardium (90.0%) were, respectively, the most common presenting symptom and pericardial finding. Water‐soluble contrast esophagram (WSCE) had the highest diagnostic sensitivity (82.8%). Management included surgery (47.5%), stent placement (22.5%), combined surgery/stenting (19.2%), and conservative (10.8%). Overall mortality was 37.5%; median(IQR) time to death was 20(9–41) days. EPF from malignancy had poorer survival than those from benign esophageal causes (HR 2.65 [1.36–5.17]; p = 0.004) and cardiac ablation (HR 5.74 [2.41–13.65]; p < 0.0001). Patients who received any intervention (HR 0.28 [0.13‐0.57]; p = 0.0005) or had confirmed EPF resolution (HR 0.27 [0.12–0.59]; p = 0.0009) demonstrated better survival. There was no difference in survival between surgery and stenting alone (p = 0.91).ConclusionsAF ablation is now the leading etiology of EPF. Given its high mortality, a high degree of clinical suspicion is essential in those presenting with key signs/symptoms following AF ablation to enable urgent diagnosis and multi‐disciplinary management. WSCE may be the diagnostic modality to perform, given its high sensitivity. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether stenting should be the primary management given possible non‐inferiority to surgery.