- Length of hospital stay for elective electrophysiological procedures: results of an EHRA survey (October 2023)
- Electrophysiology fellowship experience and requirements: results of an EHRA survey (September 2023)
- Occupational radiation exposure of electrophysiology staff with reproductive potential and during pregnancy: results of an EHRA survey (July 2023)
- Diagnostic and therapeutic pathways for the malignant left atrial appendage: results of an EHRA survey (July 2023)
- Conduction system pacing in everyday clinical practice: results for an EHRA survey (October 2022)
- Patient selection, peri-procedural management, and ablation techniques for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: results of an EHRA survey (December 2022)
- Contemporary management of ventricular electrical storm in Europe: results of an EHRA survey (October 2022)
- Reimbursement practices for use of digital devices in atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias: results of an EHRA survey (August 2022)
- Current practices and expectations to reduce environmental impact of electrophysiology catheters: results from an EHRA/LIRYC European physician survey (August 2022)
- The blanking period after atrial fibrillation ablation: results of an EHRA survey on contemporary definition and management (August 2022)
- Management of Conduction Disorders after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: results of an EHRA Survey (March 2022)
- Contemporary clinical management of monomorphic idiopathic premature ventricular contractions: results of an EHRA survey (January 2022)
EP snapshot survey
What is the EP snapshot survey?
This 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 maximum) including consecutive patients for a period of 6-8 weeks on average.
The 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, access the summary protocol.
Previous snapshot survey
- Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation survey (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 utilisation 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.