Background: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) Aim: To evaluate the impact of ICE vs. TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri-device leaks and residual septal defects during follow-up. Methods: All studies comparing ICE-guided vs. TEE-guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in-room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri-device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow-up. Results: Twelve studies (n=5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success group (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27, p=0.27; I2=0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56-1.16, p=0.25; I2=0%) between the ICE-guided and TEE-guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in-room time (mean-weighted 28.6-minute reduction in in-room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri-device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, p=0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE-guided vs. TEE-guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05-4.75, p=0.04). Conclusion: ICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in-room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance.

Background: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is standard of care for the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device infection or lead related complications. Currently, objective data on TLE in Latin America is lacking. Objective: To describe the current practice standards in Latin American centers performing TLE. Methods: An online survey was sent through the mailing list of the Latin American Heart Rhythm Association (LAHRS). Online reminders were sent through the mailing list; duplicate answers were discarded. The survey was available for one month, after which no more answers were accepted. Results: A total of 48 answers were received, from 44 different institutions (39.6% from Colombia, 27,1% from Brazil), with most respondents (83%) being electrophysiologists. Twenty-nine institutions (66%) performed less than 10 lead extractions/year, with 7 (15%) institutions not performing lead extraction. Although most institutions in which lead extraction is performed reported using several tools, mechanical rotating sheaths were cited as the main tool (73%), 13.5% reported the use of mechanical extraction sheaths and only 13.5% reporting the use of laser sheaths. Management of infected leads was performed according to current guidelines. Conclusion: This survey is the first attempt to provide information on TLE procedures in Latin America and could provide useful information for future prospective registries. According to our results, the number of centers performing high volume lead extraction in Latin America is smaller than that reported in other continents, with most interventions performed using mechanical tools. Future prospective registries assessing acute and long-term success are needed.