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.

Introduction: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown improved outcomes in patients undergoing first-line catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). Herein, outcomes were stratified based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: RCTs evaluating first-line ablation versus medical therapy in patients with VT and ICM were included. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured. Results: Four RCTs with a total of 505 patients (mean age 66 ± 9 years, 89% male, 80% with previous revascularization) were included. Mean LVEF was 35 ± 8%. At a mean follow-up of 24 ± 9 months, a significant benefit in survival-free from appropriate ICD therapies was observed in all patients undergoing first-line catheter ablation compared to medical management (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.86). In patients with moderately depressed LVEF (>30-50%), first line VT ablation was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the composite endpoint of survival-free VT/VF and appropriate ICD therapies (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.36-0.76), whereas there was no difference in patients with severely depressed LVEF (30-50%).