Clinical Guidelines & Documents
2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation
During the past three decades, catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard, minimally invasive, or hybrid techniques, is available in most major hospitals throughout the world. Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available, and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure.2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing
Document Reviewers: Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD (Italy); Michele Brignole, MD, FESC (Italy); Alan Cheng, MD, FHRS (USA); Thomas C. Crawford, MD, FACC, FHRS (USA); Luigi Di Biase, MD, PhD, FACC, FHRS (USA); Kevin Donahue, MD (USA); Andrew E. Epstein, MD, FAHA, FACC, FHRS (USA); Michael E. Field, MD, FACC, FHRS (USA); Bulent Gorenek, MD, FACC, FESC (Turkey); Jin-Long Huang, MD, PhD (China); Julia H. Indik, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS (USA); Carsten W. Israel, MD (Germany); Mariell L. Jessup MD, FACC, FAHA, FESC (USA); Christophe Leclercq, MD, PhD (France); Robert J.HRS/ACCF Expert Consensus Statement on Pacemaker Device and Mode Selection: Developed in partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons
The most recent American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association/Heart Rhythm Society (ACCF/AHA/HRS) guidelines related to pacemaker implantation were published as part of a larger document related to device-based therapy.1 While this document provides some comments on pacemaker mode selection and algorithms to guide selection, it does not provide specific recommendations regarding choices for single- or dual-chamber devices. Over the past 15 years multiple randomized trials have compared a number of cardiovascular outcomes among patients randomized to atrial or dual-chamber pacing vs those randomized to ventricular pacing.
