Giovanni Battista Forleo

Background. The safety and efficacy of an uninterrupted direct anticoagulation (DOAC) strategy during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has not been fully investigated with different ablation techniques. Methods. We evaluated consecutive AF patients undergoing catheter ablation with three different techniques. All patients were managed with an uninterrupted DOAC strategy. The primary endpoint was the rate of periprocedural thromboembolic and bleeding events. The secondary endpoints of the study were the rate of MACE and bleeding events at one-year follow-up. Results. In total, 162 patients were enrolled. Overall, 53 were female and the median age was 60 [55.5–69.5] years. The median CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 2 [1–4] and 2 [1–2], respectively. In total, 16 patients had a past stroke or TIA while 11 had a predisposition or a history of bleeding. The CA procedure was performed with different techniques: RF 43%, cryoballoon 37%, or laser–balloon 20%. Overall, 35.8% were on rivaroxaban, 20.4% were on edoxaban, 6.8% were on apixaban, and 3.7% were on dabigatran. All other patients were all naïve to DOACs; the first anticoagulant dose was given before the ablation procedure. As for periprocedural complications, we found three groin hematomas not requiring interventions, one ischemic stroke, and one systemic air embolism (the last two likely due to several catheter changes through the transeptal sheath). Five patients reached the secondary endpoints: one patient for a myocardial infarction while four patients experienced minor bleeding during 1-year follow-up. Conclusions. Our results corroborate the safety and the efficacy of uninterrupted DOAC strategy in patients undergoing CA for AF, regardless of the ablation technique.

The difference between subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) and transvenous ICDs (TV-ICDs) concerns a whole extra thoracic implantation, including a defibrillator coil and pulse generator, without endovascular components. The improved safety profile has allowed the S-ICD to be rapidly taken up, especially among younger patients. Reports of its role in different cardiac diseases at high risk of SCD such as hypertrophic and arrhythmic cardiomyopathies, as well as channelopathies, is increasing. S-ICDs show comparable efficacy, reliability, and safety outcomes compared to TV-ICD. However, some technical issues (i.e., the inability to perform anti-bradycardia pacing) strongly limit the employment of S-ICDs. Therefore, it still remains only an alternative to the traditional ICD thus far. This review aims to provide a contemporary overview of the role of S-ICDs compared to TV-ICDs in clinical practice, including technical aspects regarding device manufacture and implantation techniques. Newer outlooks and future perspectives of S-ICDs are also brought up to date.