- The use of social media for professional purposes by healthcare professionals: the #intEHRAct survey (October 2021)
- The use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices during the COVID-19 pandemic: an EHRA physician survey (August 2021)
- Investigation on Sudden Unexpected Death in the Young (SUDY) in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association Survey (August 2021)
- Worldwide sedation strategies for atrial fibrillation ablation: current status and evolution over the last decade (July 2021)
- Antithrombotic treatment management in low stroke risk patients undergoing cardioversion of atrial fibrillation <48 h duration: results of an EHRA survey (May 2021)
- Current perspectives on wearable rhythm recordings for clinical decision-making: the wEHRAbles 2 survey (April 2021)
- Use and misuse of instant messaging in clinical data sharing: the EHRA-SMS survey (March 2021)
- Antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation who survive an intracerebral haemorrhage: results of an EHRA survey (January 2021)
- The interpretation of CHA2DS2-VASc score components in clinical practice: A joint survey by European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) Scientific Initiatives Committee, EHRA Young Electrophysiologists, Association of Cardiovascular Nursing and Allied Professionals and the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke (December 2020)
EP Snapshot Survey
What is a Snapshot Survey?
The Snapshot Survey is used to map the daily Cardiac Electrophysiology (EP) practice in Europe, but unlike other online EP Surveys, the Snapshot Survey is based on an individual study and at an individual level.
It is a limited survey (25 questions max) including consecutive patients for a period of 6-8 weeks on average.
Latest Snapshot Survey
- EHRA European Snapshot Survey on Leadless Pacemaker Implantation (ESSS-LLPM)
In November 2019, the EHRA Scientific Initiatives Committee launched a snapshot survey studying the use of leadless or transvenous pacemakers in the following countries: France, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and UK.
Implantable transvenous pacemakers (TV-PMs) have been used for more than 50 years for the management of bradycardias. Whereas the efficacy and overall safety of these devices is high, it has been shown that almost 90% of TV-PM complications are related to the presence of endovascular leads and device pocket issues, such as erosion and infection. In addition, the extraction of endovascular leads, most commonly for infection, is challenging and fraught with risks. Lastly, transvenous pacing may sometimes be very difficult or impossible because of venous thrombosis or occlusions.
The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey was to study the proportion of leadless pacemaker (LL-PM) implants and the factors influencing the choice of LL-PM vs. transvenous pacemaker (TV-PM) across tertiary cardiac pacing centres in Europe with routine availability of the LL-PM as well as to anticipate future trends.
In addition this survey enabled to assess procedural settings, safety measures, and short-term outcomes associated with implantation of leadless pacemakers (LLPM).
- Peri-procedural management, implantation feasibility, and short-term outcomes in patients undergoing implantation of leadless pacemakers: European Snapshot Survey (February 2020)
- Factors influencing the use of leadless or transvenous pacemakers (January 2020)
Participating centres included patients between November 2018 and January 2019.
For further information, you can acces the summary protocol here.
Previous Snapshot Survey
- Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (2017)
In April 2017, the EHRA Scientific Initiatives Committee launched a snapshot survey over a period of 2 months in the 6 following countries : France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Netherlands and UK.
The aim of this prospective snapshot survey was to provide better insight into ICD utilization across a broad range of European tertiary centres, and to try to identify some important factors that could direct the choice towards the use of an S-ICD or a TV-ICD in a particular patient.