Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Infections after placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. There is limited evidence on prophylactic strategies, other than the use of preoperative antibiotics, to prevent such infections. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of an absorbable, antibiotic-eluting envelope in reducing the incidence of infection associated with CIED implantations. Patients who were undergoing a CIED pocket revision, generator replacement, or system upgrade or an initial implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive the envelope or not. Standard-of-care strategies to prevent infection were used in all patients. The primary end point was infection resulting in system extraction or revision, long-term antibiotic therapy with infection recurrence, or death, within 12 months after the CIED implantation procedure. The secondary end point for safety was procedure-related or system-related complications within 12 months. A total of 6983 patients underwent randomization: 3495 to the envelope group and 3488 to the control group. The primary end point occurred in 25 patients in the envelope group and 42 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 0.7% and 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.98; P = 0.04). The safety end point occurred in 201 patients in the envelope group and 236 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 6.0% and 6.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.06; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The mean (±SD) duration of follow-up was 20.7±8.5 months. Major CIED-related infections through the entire follow-up period occurred in 32 patients in the envelope group and 51 patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.98). Adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope resulted in a significantly lower incidence of major CIED infections than standard-of-care infection-prevention strategies alone, without a higher incidence of complications. (Funded by Medtronic; WRAP-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02277990.).

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias.

Background—: Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator for prevention of sudden cardiac death is deferred for 90 days after coronary revascularization, but mortality may be highest early after cardiac procedures in patients with ventricular dysfunction. We determined mortality risk in postrevascularization patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and compared survival with those discharged with a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD). Methods and Results—: Hospital survivors after surgical (coronary artery bypass graft surgery) or percutaneous (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) revascularization with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% were included from Cleveland Clinic and national WCD registries. Kaplan–Meier, Cox proportional hazards, propensity score-matched survival, and hazard function analyses were performed. Early mortality hazard was higher among 4149 patients discharged without a defibrillator compared with 809 with WCDs (90-day mortality post–coronary artery bypass graft surgery 7% versus 3%, P =0.03; post-PCI 10% versus 2%, P <0.0001). WCD use was associated with adjusted lower risks of long-term mortality in the total cohort (39%, P <0.0001) and both post–coronary artery bypass graft surgery (38%, P =0.048) and post-PCI (57%, P <0.0001) cohorts (mean follow-up, 3.2 years). In propensity-matched analyses, WCD use remained associated with lower mortality (58% post–coronary artery bypass graft surgery, P =0.002; 67% post-PCI, P <0.0001). Mortality differences were not attributable solely to therapies for ventricular arrhythmia. Only 1.3% of the WCD group had a documented appropriate therapy. Conclusions—: Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% have higher early compared to late mortality after coronary revascularization, particularly after PCI. As early hazard seemed less marked in WCD users, prospective studies in this high-risk population are indicated to confirm whether WCD use as a bridge to left ventricular ejection fraction improvement or implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation can improve outcomes after coronary revascularization.