Background: Large-scale studies evaluating long-term recurrence rates in both idiopathic and non-idiopathic PVC catheter ablation (CA) patients have not been reported. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of idiopathic and non-idiopathic PVC CA, investigating the predictors of acute and long-term efficacy. Methods: This retrospective multicentric study included 439 patients who underwent PVC CA at three institutions from April-2015 to December-2021. Clinical success at 6 months’ follow-up, defined as a reduction of at least 80% of the pre-procedural PVC burden, was deemed the primary outcome. The secondary aims of the study were: clinical success at the last available follow-up, predictors of arrhythmic recurrences at long-term follow-up, and safety outcomes. Results: The median age was 51 years, with 24.9% patients being affected suffering from structural heart disease. The median pre-procedural PVC burden was 20.1%. PVCs originating from the RVOT were the most common index PVC observed (29.1%), followed by coronary cusp (CC) and non-outflow tract (OT) LV PVCs (23.1% and 19.0%). The primary outcome at 6 months was reached in 85.1% cases, with a significant reduction in the 24 h% PVC burden (−91.4% [−83.4; −96.7], p < 0.001); long-term efficacy was observed in 82.1% of cases at almost 3-year follow-up. The presence of underlying structural heart disease and non-OT LV region origin (aHR 1.77 [1.07–2.93], p = 0.027 and aHR = 1.96 [1.22–3.14], p = 0.005) was independently associated with recurrences. Conclusion: CA of both idiopathic and non-idiopathic PVCs showed a very good acute and long-term procedural success rate, with an overall low complication. Predictors of arrhythmic recurrence at follow-up were underlying structural heart disease and non-OT LV origin.

A previously healthy 17-year-old male presented with palpitations and documented recurrent episodes of narrow QRS complex reciprocating atrioventricular (AV) tachycardia. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram was consistent with pre-excitation from an anteroseptal pathway. Detailed three-dimensional Carto™ map through a 7-Fr open-irrigated ablation contact force catheter (Thermocool^® SmartTouch™, D type, Biosense Webster) demonstrated earliest ventricular activation at close proximity with His bundle (Panel A). Although good catheter stability was achieved, initial radiofrequency (RF) ablation (42°C, 30 W with 17 mL/min flow, contact force of 4 g, duration of 30 s) had no effect on accessory pathway (AP) conduction (Panel B). Subsequently, a second RF pulse was applied with a contact force of 16 g (42°C, 30 W with 17 mL/min flow, duration of 120 s) and AP block occurred within <5 s of RF delivery (Panel C).

Background. Data on leadless pacemaker (LPM) implantation in an emergency setting are currently lacking. Objective. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of LPM implantation for emergency bradyarrhythmia, in patients referred for urgent PM implantation, in a large, multicenter, real-world cohort of LPM recipients. Methods. Two cohorts of LPM patients, stratified according to the LPM implantation scenario (patients admitted from the emergency department (ED+) vs. elective patients (ED−)) were retrieved from the iLEAPER registry. The primary outcome of the study was a comparison of the peri-procedural complications between the groups. The rates of peri-procedural characteristics (overall procedural and fluoroscopic duration) were deemed secondary outcomes. Results. A total of 1154 patients were enrolled in this project, with patients implanted due to an urgent bradyarrhythmia (ED+) representing 6.2% of the entire cohort. Slow atrial fibrillation and complete + advanced atrioventricular blocks were more frequent in the ED+ cohort (76.3% for ED+ vs. 49.7% for ED−, p = 0.025; 37.5% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). The overall procedural times were longer in the ED+ cohort (60 (45–80) mins vs. 50 (40–65) mins, p < 0.001), showing higher rates of temporary pacing (94.4% for ED+ vs. 28.9% for ED−, p < 0.001). Emergency LPM implantation was not correlated with an increase in the rate of major complications compared to the control group (6.9% ED+ vs. 4.2% ED−, p = 0.244). Conclusion. LPM implantation is a feasible procedure for the treatment of severe bradyarrhythmia in an urgent setting. Urgent LPM implantation was not correlated with an increase in the rate of major complications compared to the control group, but it was associated with longer procedural times.