Radial artery (RA) access has been increasingly utilized for coronary procedures because of lower rates of access-site complications and improved patient satisfaction. However, limited data are available for RA access for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI). We performed a retrospective review of 143 patients who underwent PVI through RA access from February 2020 to September 2022 at a single institution. Baseline characteristics and follow-up data were ascertained from a prospectively maintained institutional database. Of 491 PVI, 156 (31.8%) were performed through the RA. Anatomical locations for intervention were the femoral (44.8%), iliac (31.1%), popliteal (9.6%) peroneal (2.7%), tibial (9.9%), and subclavian (1.9%) arteries. Procedural access was obtained through the right RA (92.9%), left RA (4.5%), or right ulnar artery (2.6%) using the 6 French R2P Destination Slender sheath in 85, 105, and 119 cm lengths. Atherectomy was used in 34.7%. Mean contrast volume was 105.5 ml and the average fluoroscopy time was 18.5 minutes. Conversion to femoral access occurred in 3 cases (1.9%) because of arterial spasm and noncrossable lesions. Concomitant pedal access occurred in 2 cases (1.3%). Periprocedural complication rate was 3.84%, of which access-site hematoma was most common (3.2%); none required blood transfusion, surgical intervention, or additional hospital stay. There was 1 case (0.64%) of in-hospital stroke. The mortality rate at 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year was 1.4%, 2.8%, and 4.2%, respectively. In conclusion, RA access is feasible for diverse PVI, and future studies are needed to assess safety and benefit compared with femoral artery access.

BACKGROUND: The safety and long-term efficacy of radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation (CA) of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) has been well established. Contemporary techniques to optimize ablation delivery, reduce fluoroscopy use, and improve clinical outcomes have been developed.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the contemporary real-world practice approach and short and long-term outcomes of RF CA for PAF through a prospective multicenter registry.
METHODS: Using the REAL-AF (Real-world Experience of Catheter Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation; ClincalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04088071) Registry, patients undergoing RF CA to treat PAF across 42 high-volume institutions and 79 experienced operators were evaluated. The procedures were performed using zero or reduced fluoroscopy, contact force sensing catheters, wide area circumferential ablation, and ablation index as a guide with a target of 380-420 for posterior and 500-550 for anterior lesions. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence at 12 months.
RESULTS: A total of 2470 patients undergoing CA from January 2018 to December 2022 were included. Mean age was 65.2 ±11.14 years, and 44% were female. Most procedures were performed without fluoroscopy (71.5%), with average procedural and total RF times of 95.4 ± 41.7 minutes and 22.1±11.8 minutes, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, freedom from all-atrial arrhythmias was 81.6% with 89.7% of these patients off antiarrhythmic drugs. No significant difference was identified comparing pulmonary vein isolation vs pulmonary vein isolation plus ablation approaches. The complication rate was 1.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Refinement of RF CA to treat PAF using contemporary tools, standardized protocols, and electrophysiology laboratory workflows resulted in excellent short- and long-term clinical outcomes.

UNASSIGNED: Oral soft lesions represent a diverse array of pathological conditions that necessitate precise and effective treatment. Laser-assisted excision has gained prominence due to its purported benefits in terms of reduced procedural time, decreased bleeding, and improved aesthetic outcomes. However, conventional excision remains a common practice.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 100 patients with clinically diagnosed oral soft lesions were enrolled in this prospective study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: the laser-assisted excision group and the conventional excision group. Demographics, lesion characteristics, and medical histories were recorded for each patient. Procedural parameters such as operative time and intraoperative bleeding were meticulously documented.
UNASSIGNED: The laser-assisted excision group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in procedural duration compared to the conventional excision group (P < 0.05), with mean operative times of 15.2 and 20.8 min, respectively. Intraoperative bleeding was significantly reduced in the laser-assisted group (P < 0.01), with an average blood loss of 15.7 ml, while the conventional excision group reported an average blood loss of 28.6 ml. Postoperative complications analysis demonstrated that the laser-assisted group had a lower incidence of wound infections (P < 0.05) compared to the conventional excision group (5% vs. 15%). Additionally, the laser-assisted group exhibited significantly reduced scarring (P < 0.01) as reported by both patients and clinicians. Patient satisfaction scores were consistently higher in the laser-assisted excision group, with 85% of patients reporting contentment with the procedure, in contrast to 65% in the conventional excision group.
UNASSIGNED: In light of the results obtained from this study, laser-assisted excision emerges as a favorable approach for the management of oral soft lesions.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The VASCADE closure device deploys an extravascular collagen plug. Its use in those with access site disease undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the VASCADE closure device compared to manual compression (MC) in patients with moderate femoral access site disease.
METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective review of patients undergoing PVI with at least moderate access site disease. Our institutional database was linked to the Vascular Quality Initiative database, and 200 patients were selected from a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. Data on procedural metrics and outcomes up to 30-days were abstracted.
RESULTS: There were 103 procedures that used VASCADE and 97 used MC. Baseline variables were similar between groups. The mean age was 68.2 ± 11.2 years and 37.6% were women. Closing mean activated clotting time (ACT) was shorter in VASCADE (198 s VASCADE vs. 213 s MC; p = 0.018). There was a nonsignificant decrease in external compression device use with VASCADE (VASCADE 19.0% vs. MC 28.1%; p = 0.15). At 30-days, there was a nonsignificant reduction in hematoma with VASCADE (3.8% vs. 7.8% MC; p = 0.25) and no difference in retroperitoneal bleeding (0.5%). Pseudoaneurysm rate was similar (1.3% VASCADE vs. 1.7% MC; p = 0.79). The 30-day mortality rate was similar between the two groups and not related to the procedure (1.3% VASCADE vs. 0.9% MC; p = 0.79).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PVI with at least moderate access site disease, safety and efficacy after using VASCADE was comparable with MC.

Mixed reality head-mounted displays (MR-HMD) are a novel and emerging tool in healthcare. There is a paucity of data on the safety and efficacy of the use of MR-HMD in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). We sought to analyze and compare fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and complication rates with right heart catheterizations (RHCs) and coronary angiographies (CAs) performed with MR-HMD versus standard LCD medical displays.
This is a non-randomized trial that included patients who underwent RHC and CA with MR-HMD between August 2019 and January 2020. Their outcomes were compared to a control group during the same time period. The primary endpoints were procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product (DAP). The secondary endpoints were contrast volume and intra and postprocedural complications rate.
50 patients were enrolled in the trial, 33 had a RHC done, and 29 had a diagnostic CA performed. They were compared to 232 patients in the control group. The use of MR-HMD was associated with a significantly lower procedure time (20 min (IQR 14-30) vs. 25 min (IQR 18-36), p = 0.038). There were no significant differences in median fluoroscopy time (1.5 min (IQR 0.7-4.9) in the study group vs. 1.3 min (IQR 0.8-3.1), p = 0.84) or median DAP (165.4 mGy·cm2 (IQR 13-15,583) in the study group vs. 913 mGy·cm2 (IQR 24-6291), p = 0.17). There was no significant increase in intra- or post-procedure complications.
MR-HMD use is safe and feasible and may decrease procedure time in the CCL.

OBJECTIVE: Catheter ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF) were significantly curtailed during the peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to conserve healthcare resources and limit exposure. There is little data regarding peri-procedural outcomes of medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. We enacted protocols to safely reboot AF ablation while limiting healthcare resource utilization. We aimed to evaluate acute and subacute outcomes of protocols instituted for reboot of AF ablation during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: Perioperative healthcare utilization and acute procedural outcomes were analyzed for consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation under COVID-19 protocols (2020 cohort; n=111) and compared to those of patients who underwent AF ablation during the same time period in 2019 (2019 cohort; n=200). Newly implemented practices included preoperative COVID-19 testing, selective transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), utilization of venous closure, and same-day discharge when clinically appropriate.
RESULTS: Pre-ablation COVID-19 testing was positive in 1 of 111 patients. There were 0 cases ablation-related COVID-19 transmission and 0 major complications in either cohort. Pre-procedure TEE was performed in significantly fewer 2020 cohort patients compared to the 2019 cohort patients (68.4% vs. 97.5%, p <0.001, respectively) despite greater prevalence of persistent arrhythmia in the 2020 cohort. Same-day discharge was achieved in 68% of patients in the 2020 cohort, compared to 0% of patients in the 2019 cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of safe resumption of complex electrophysiology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing healthcare utilization and maintaining quality of care. Protocols instituted may be generalizable to other types of procedures and settings.

To compare multiple-procedure catheter ablation outcomes of a stepwise approach versus left atrial posterior wall isolation (LA PWI) in patients undergoing nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF) ablation.
Unfavorable outcomes for stepwise ablation of NPAF in large clinical trials may be attributable to proarrhythmic effects of incomplete ablation lines. It is unknown if a more extensive initial ablation strategy results in improved outcomes following multiple ablation procedures.
Two hundred twenty two consecutive patients with NPAF underwent first-time ablation using a contact-force sensing ablation catheter utilizing either a stepwise (Group 1, n = 111) or LA PWI (Group 2, n = 111) approach. The duration of follow-up was 36 months. The primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia >30 s. Secondary endpoints were freedom from persistent arrhythmia, repeat ablation, and recurrent arrhythmia after repeat ablation.
There was similar freedom from atrial arrhythmias after index ablation for both stepwise and LA PWI groups at 36 months (60% vs. 69%, p = .1). The stepwise group was more likely to present with persistent recurrent arrhythmia (29% vs. 14%, p = .005) and more likely to undergo second catheter ablation (32% vs. 12%, p < .001) compared to LA PWI patients. Recurrent arrhythmia after repeat ablation was more likely in the stepwise group compared to the LA PWI group (15% vs. 4%, p = .003).
Compared to a stepwise approach, LA PWI for patients with NPAF resulted in a similar incidence of any atrial arrhythmia, lower incidence of persistent arrhythmia, and fewer repeat ablations. Results for repeat ablation were not improved with a more extensive initial approach.

Managing elderly patients with infection or malfunction deriving from a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) may be challenging. The aim of this study was to evaluate safety and efficacy of mechanical transvenous lead extraction (TLE) in elderly patients.
Patients who had undergone TLE in single tertiary referral center were divided in two groups (group 1: ≥ 80 years; group 2: < 80 years) and their acute and chronic outcomes were compared. All patients were treated with manual traction or mechanical dilatation.
Our analysis included 1316 patients (group 1: 202; group 2: 1114 patients), with a total of 2513 leads extracted. Group 1 presented more comorbidities, more pacemakers than implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, whereas the dwelling time of the oldest lead and the number of leads were similar, irrespective of patient\'s age. In group 1, the radiological success rate for lead was higher (99.0% vs 95.9%; P < .001) and the fluoroscopy time lower (13.0 vs 15.0 min; P = .04) than in group 2. Clinical success was reached in 1273 patients (96.7%), without significant differences between groups (group 1: 98.0% vs group 2: 96.4%; P = .36). Major complications occurred in 10 patients (0.7%) without significative differences between patients with more or less than 80 years (group 1: 1.5% vs group 2: 0.6%; P = .24) and with no procedure-related deaths in elderly group.
Mechanical TLE in elderly patients is a safe and effective procedure. In the over-80s, a comparable incidence of major complications with younger patients was observed, with at least a similar efficacy of the procedure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have failed to reliably show improved outcomes with utilization of contact-force sensing (CFS) radiofrequency (RF) ablation catheters. It is unknown whether the unfavorable outcomes observed in these trials are attributable to inexperience with CFS technology.
OBJECTIVE: To compare catheter ablation outcomes of stepwise linear ablation with versus without CFS technology and to assess the impact of operator experience with CFS technology on procedural outcomes.
METHODS: Clinical outcomes were evaluated in 228 consecutive NPAF patients undergoing first-time left atrial ablation using a stepwise linear approach. Arrhythmia recurrence was assessed using 2-week event monitors at 3-month intervals following index ablation.
RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were included in our study. There was no statistically significant difference in risk of recurrent atrial arrhythmias at 12 and 24 months between CFS and non-CFS patients (p = 0.5 and p = 0.169). The time to recurrence of atrial arrhythmias at 24 months in the second half of CFS patients was significantly lower when compared to both the first half of CFS patients (p = 0.002) and non-CFS patients (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: While there was no difference in overall outcomes between CFS and non-CFS ablation using a stepwise linear approach in patients with NPAF, procedural efficacy of the second half of CFS patients was significantly improved compared to both the first half of CFS patients and all non-CFS patients. Lack of benefit seen in clinical trials using CFS technology may be related to operator inexperience with CFS ablation catheters at the time of the trials.