BACKGROUND: The administration of intravenous cangrelor at reperfusion achieves faster onset of platelet P2Y12 inhibition than oral ticagrelor and has been shown to reduce myocardial infarction (MI) size in the preclinical setting. We hypothesized that the administration of cangrelor at reperfusion will reduce MI size and prevent microvascular obstruction in patients with ST-segment–elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: This was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted between November 2017 to November 2021 in 6 cardiac centers in Singapore. Patients were randomized to receive either cangrelor or placebo initiated before the primary percutaneous coronary intervention procedure on top of oral ticagrelor. The key exclusion criteria included presenting <6 hours of symptom onset; previous MI and stroke or transient ischemic attack; on concomitant oral anticoagulants; and a contraindication for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. The primary efficacy end point was acute MI size by cardiovascular magnetic resonance within the first week expressed as percentage of the left ventricle mass (%LVmass). Microvascular obstruction was identified as areas of dark core of hypoenhancement within areas of late gadolinium enhancement. The primary safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium–defined major bleeding in the first 48 hours. Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U test (reported as median [first quartile–third quartile]), and categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact test. A 2-sided P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 209 recruited patients, 164 patients (78%) completed the acute cardiovascular magnetic resonance scan. There were no significant differences in acute MI size (placebo, 14.9% [7.3–22.6] %LVmass versus cangrelor, 16.3 [9.9–24.4] %LVmass; P =0.40) or the incidence (placebo, 48% versus cangrelor, 47%; P =0.99) and extent of microvascular obstruction (placebo, 1.63 [0.60–4.65] %LVmass versus cangrelor, 1.18 [0.53–3.37] %LVmass; P =0.46) between placebo and cangrelor despite a 2-fold decrease in platelet reactivity with cangrelor. There were no Bleeding Academic Research Consortium–defined major bleeding events in either group in the first 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Cangrelor administered at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention did not reduce acute MI size or prevent microvascular obstruction in patients with ST-segment–elevation MI given oral ticagrelor despite a significant reduction of platelet reactivity during the percutaneous coronary intervention procedure. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03102723.

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the performance of atrial sensing dipole in single lead implantable cardioverter defibrillator (VDD-ICD) recipients in particular diagnosing new-onset atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) defined as rate threshold of 200 beats per minute, or subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF) defined as device-detected AF without symptoms. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies comparing contemporary single- and dual-chamber ICD (VVI-/DDD-ICD) versus VDD-ICD were included. Restricted maximum likelihood method for random effect model and Mantel-Haenszel method for fixed effect model were used to estimate the effect size of new-onset AHREs, or SCAF detection in each group. Three prospective studies were identified and total of 991 participants were included. There were 330 (33.3%) in VDD-ICD and 661 (66.7%) in VVI-/DDD-ICD. Most (78%) participants were men. Median follow-up was from 365 days to 847 days. VDD-ICD has a higher likelihood of detecting AHREs or SCAF as compared to VVI-/DDD-ICD [(OR random effect : 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2, 5.8; p = .018); I-squared = 67.8%, p = .019]. This difference was more apparently seen in the comparison between VDD-ICD and VVI-ICD [(OR random effect: 3.8; 95% CI: 2.1, 6.6, p < .001), I-squared = 0.0%, p = .518]. The result is same as fixed effect. Rate of AHREs detection observed in VDD-ICD was not statistically different when compared to the only group with DDD-ICD from SENSE trial. In conclusion, this meta-analysis reveals that the use of floating atrial sensing dipole in VDD-ICD increases the detection of new-onset AHREs or SCAF when compared to VVI-ICD, with similar atrial sensing performance to DDD-ICD.

Catheter ablation is a first-line treatment for symptomatic, recurrent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). This study aims to demonstrate if 3D-electroanatomic mapping (EAM) during SVT ablation reduces fluoroscopy time (FT) and determine if further reductions in FT are observed longitudinally. All cases of SVT ablation between May 2011-May 2022 at a single tertiary centre were prospectively recruited. FT between the cohorts with and without EAM were compared. Within the EAM subset, the trend of FT across the years was analysed. There were 1758 cases included, 563 without EAM, 1195 with EAM. EAM was associated with a longer procedure time (mean + 8.8 min, p = 0.001), but with mean reductions in FT and dose area product (DAP) by 19.6 min and 18 621 mGy*cm2 respectively (p < 0.001). There was comparable efficacy without any increase in complication rates. Over time (2011-2022), further reduction in FT of 0.9 min year on year was observed (p = 0.001). Between 2011 and 2017, there was a significant reduction in FT of 1.1 min year on year (p = 0.019), which was not observed from 2017 onwards (p = 0.061). The greatest reduction in FT was after the first year of adoption. EAM in SVT ablation reduces fluoroscopy use. FT was initially observed to reduce further over time before plateauing, likely due to increased operator experience. While there is increased interest in zero fluoroscopy SVT ablation, complementary use of fluoroscopy may still be necessary in complex cases.

Regional differences in pulsed field ablation (PFA) adoption for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with additional posterior wall ablation (PWA) in Asia remains unknown. We hereby report our experience on the safety and efficacy of PFA in AF ablation. Consecutive AF patients who underwent PFA from September 2022 to January 2024 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 90-day blanking period at 12 months. Safety endpoints included 30 days of all-cause death, cardiac tamponade, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization. One hundred and one (72.3% males, 79.2% pAF) patients underwent PFA for AF. Thirty-one (30.7%) had structural heart disease with mean LVEF of 57.4 ± 8.1% and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1.4 ± 1.3. Twenty-nine (28.7%) underwent additional PWA (PVI + PWA) using PFA. PWA was acutely successful in all patients. Patients who underwent PWA were more likely to have persistent AF and require general anesthesia and electroanatomic mapping (all p < 0.05). Total PFA applications for PVI, LA dwell time, procedural time, and fluoroscopy time were similar between the PVI-only and PVI + PWA groups (all p > 0.05). The 1-year atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates were 10% for pAF and 21% for the persistent AF group. The primary efficacy endpoint was not significantly different between the PVI-only and PVI+PWA groups (12-month KM estimates 90.3% [95% CI, 83.3–97.3] and 82.8% [95% CI, 68.1–97.4], respectively). There were no complications related to PFA use. PFA can be safely, effectively, and efficiently adopted for AF ablation. Additional PWA, if pursued, had similar procedural metrics to the PVI-only strategy without increased complications.

Background and Objectives: The role of biventricular pacing (BVP) is less well-established in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) without left bundle branch block (LBBB). Conduction system pacing (CSP) has gained significant traction and may provide a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP in these patients. A few small studies studying this question have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis aims to compare procedural and clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP in this group. Materials and Methods: An online literature search was systematically conducted to retrieve studies comparing CSP and BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Four studies with 461 patients were included. Results: Implant-derived paced QRS duration was significantly shorter (mean difference [MD] −19.7 ms, 95% confidence interval [CI] −36.2 to −3.3, p = 0.0355) with CSP. Echocardiographic response with significantly greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 5.6%, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.0, p = 0.0106) was also observed with CSP. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes such as all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.53, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.60, p = 0.133) and heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56, p = 0.129). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that CSP may have better electrical synchrony and echocardiographic response compared to BVP in HFrEF patients with non-LBBB. Further randomized studies with longer follow-up may be required to elucidate potential benefits in clinical outcomes.

Conduction system pacing started with His bundle pacing (HBP) and then rapidly switched gears into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). We describe our center’s experience with LBBP using either lumenless leads (LLLs) or stylet-driven leads (SDLs). Patients who were admitted to two tertiary centers between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2024 and met the guidelines for pacing were recruited and prospectively followed up. A total of 124 patients underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation using the LBBP technique with a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 13.3 months. In total, 90 patients were implanted with LLLs and 34 with SDLs. There was no significant difference in the procedural time and final paced QRS duration, but fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the SDLs (26.2 ± 17.7 min vs. 17.5 ± 13.0 min, respectively, p = 0.026). The on-table impedance values were also significantly higher in the LLLs, and this persisted throughout the follow-up. There were no differences in the rates of complications. The success of conduction system pacing implantation with SDLs and LLLs is comparable with reasonable safety and reliable outcomes. Good pre-implant patient selection will contribute to improved outcomes.