Christian Toquica, Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri, Amit Noheria, Loren Berenbom, Martin Emert, Rhea Pimentel, Raghu Dendi, Y. Madhu Reddy, Seth H. Sheldon
{"title":"新近植入心脏植入式电子装置的患者接受导管消融术的安全性:5 年经验","authors":"Christian Toquica, Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri, Amit Noheria, Loren Berenbom, Martin Emert, Rhea Pimentel, Raghu Dendi, Y. Madhu Reddy, Seth H. Sheldon","doi":"10.1111/pace.14987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionCatheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population.ResultsWe identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (<jats:italic>n </jats:italic>= 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED‐related infection following CA was (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power‐on‐reset or CIED‐related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post‐CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.0001).ConclusionsCA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.","PeriodicalId":19650,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":"279 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety of catheter ablation in patients with recently implanted cardiac implantable electronic device: A 5‐year experience\",\"authors\":\"Christian Toquica, Mohammad‐Ali Jazayeri, Amit Noheria, Loren Berenbom, Martin Emert, Rhea Pimentel, Raghu Dendi, Y. Madhu Reddy, Seth H. Sheldon\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.14987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IntroductionCatheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population.ResultsWe identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (<jats:italic>n </jats:italic>= 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED‐related infection following CA was (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power‐on‐reset or CIED‐related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post‐CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.0001).ConclusionsCA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19650,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\"279 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14987\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14987","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Safety of catheter ablation in patients with recently implanted cardiac implantable electronic device: A 5‐year experience
IntroductionCatheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population.ResultsWe identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (n = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (n = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (n = 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (n = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED‐related infection following CA was (n = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power‐on‐reset or CIED‐related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (p = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (p = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post‐CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (p = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsCA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.