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 Transvenous lead removal (TLR) in patients with a history of mediastinal radiation poses unique challenges due to potential radiation‐induced fibrosis, vascular changes, and anatomical distortion, which may increase procedural complexity and complication risk. However, contemporary data on clinical outcomes in this population remain limited. Methods We analyzed the National Readmissions Database (2016–2021) to identify adults (≥ 18 years) undergoing TLR. Patients were stratified by prior mediastinal radiation. Baseline characteristics were compared using standard statistical tests. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between prior mediastinal radiation and in‐hospital outcomes, 30‐day mortality, and 30‐day readmissions after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. Results A total of 48,985 patients underwent TLR, of whom 735 (1.5%) had a history of mediastinal radiation. Compared with patients without radiation, those with prior radiation were older (70.1 vs. 66.2 years, p < 0.01), were more frequently females (38.2% vs. 31.6%, p < 0.01), and had higher rates of valvular heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease. Adjusted analyses demonstrated no increased risk of in‐hospital mortality (2.3% vs. 3.4%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41–1.18, p = 0.29) or major complications, including cardiac arrest, pericardial complications, vascular injury, pulmonary complications, or embolic events. Similarly, (3.6% vs. 5.3%; aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48–1.43, p = 0.35) and 30‐day all‐cause readmissions (8.7% vs. 9.1%; aOR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64–1.28, p = 0.70) were not significantly different between groups. Subgroup analyses by indication for TLR (infection vs. mechanical complication) revealed no differences in outcomes. Conclusion Despite theoretical concerns, prior mediastinal radiation was not associated with excess procedural risk or worse short‐term outcomes after TLR. These findings may inform procedural planning and risk counseling in clinical practice.

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.

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 1.25, p < 0.001) and HFpEF (HR 1.27, p = 0.01), 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 and mortality rates were similar, suggesting earlier ablation may enhance rhythm control without affecting long-term survival.

Background: Leadless pacemaker has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional transvenous pacemaker (PM) among elderly patients who are at high risk of complications. Objective: This study aims to assess and compare 5-year clinical outcomes of leadless PM versus transvenous single-chamber PM in elderly patients using a multi-national dataset. Methods: Using the TriNetX Analytics Research Network, we included patients aged ≥65 years who underwent leadless versus transvenous single-chamber PM implantation between 1/1/2014 and 1/1/2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by using patient’s demographic, LVEF, cardiac comorbidities, and medications. The study outcomes included all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events over a 5-year follow-up period. Results: After PSM, 7,501 patients in each group were analyzed. Leadless PM was associated with a significantly lower odds of 5-year all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.534; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.497-0.575), heart failure exacerbation (OR: 0.779, 95% CI: 0.721-0.841), major bleeding (OR: 0.666, 95% CI: 0.604-0.734), cardiac arrest (OR: 0.747, 95% CI: 0.646-0.864) and stroke (OR: 0.825, 95% CI: 0.750-0.908) compared to transvenous single-chamber PM. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in all-cause hospitalization (OR: 1.006, 95%CI: 0.938-1.079), cardiac thrombus (OR: 1.077, 95%CI: 0.791-1.465) or venous thromboembolism (OR: 1.028, 95%CI: 0.916-1.153). Conclusion: Leadless PM was associated with significantly improved mortality and cardiovascular outcomes compared to transvenous single-chamber PM in elderly patients. These findings support the strong consideration of leadless pacing as a strategy to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.

ABSTRACT Background The efficacy and safety of PolarX cryoballoon for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. Methods PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for studies comparing the PolarX vs. standard cryoballoon (CB‐2/CB‐4). Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were computed for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results This systematic review and meta‐analysis included 2 randomized controlled trials and 18 observational studies with a total of 7107 patients, of whom 3.188 (44.8%) underwent ablation with PolarX. When compared to standard cryoablation, PolarX had similar incidence of atrial arrhythmias recurrence (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82–1.32; p = 0.73), acute PVI success (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.31–2.68; p = 0.98), and procedural duration (MD 3.41; 95% CI ‐2.89 to 9.71; p = 0.29). However, PolarX was associated with higher persistent phrenic nerve palsy (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.26–3.74; p = 0.005) and a lower nadir temperature in all veins. Additionally, in a subgroup analysis of randomized trials and propensity score matching studies, similar findings were noted for recurrence of atrial arrhythmias. Conclusion In patients with AF undergoing PVI, PolarX had similar acute PVI success, procedural duration, and recurrence of atrial arrhythmias as compared with standard cryoballoon technology, however, was associated with a lower nadir temperature, and higher rates of persistent nerve palsy.

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.