Fertility preservation for non-medical reasons: controversial, but increasingly common.

BACKGROUND Fertility-preserving measures for women are increasingly being performed for non-medical reasons in Germany. This is now a controversial matter. METHODS The authors searched the PubMed database for pertinent publications on the basis of their clinical and scientific experience and evaluated relevant data from the registry of the German FertiPROTEKT network (www.fertiprotekt. com). The various fertility-preserving measures that are available are described and critically discussed. RESULTS In most cases, the creation of a fertility reserve currently involves the cryopreservation of unfertilized oocytes, rather than of ovarian tissue. Most of the women who decide to undergo this procedure are over 35 years old. According to data from the FertiPROTEKT registry, most such procedures carried out in the years 2012 and 2013 involved a single stimulation cycle. The theoretical probability of childbirth per stimulation is 40% in women under age 35 and 30% in women aged 35 to 39. If the oocytes are kept for use at a later date, rather than at once, the maternal risk is higher, because the mother is older during pregnancy. The risk to the child may be higher as well because of the need for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Pregnancy over age 40 often leads to complications such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. IVF may be associated with a higher risk of epigenetic abnormalities. Ethicists have upheld women's reproductive freedom while pointing out that so-called social freezing merely postpones social problems, rather than solving them. CONCLUSION Fertility preservation for non-medical reasons should be critically discussed, and decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Epicardial Radiofrequency Ablation Failure During Ablation Procedures for Ventricular Arrhythmias: Reasons and Implications for Outcomes.

BACKGROUND Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) from the epicardial space for ventricular arrhythmias is limited or impossible in some cases. Reasons for epicardial ablation failure and the effect on outcome have not been systematically analyzed. METHODS AND RESULTS We assessed reasons for epicardial RFA failure relative to the anatomic target area and the type of heart disease and assessed the effect of failed epicardial RFA on outcome after ablation procedures for ventricular arrhythmias in a large single-center cohort. Epicardial access was attempted during 309 ablation procedures in 277 patients and was achieved in 291 procedures (94%). Unlimited ablation in an identified target region could be performed in 181 cases (59%), limited ablation was possible in 22 cases (7%), and epicardial ablation was deemed not feasible in 88 cases (28%). Reasons for failed or limited ablation were unsuccessful epicardial access (6%), failure to identify an epicardial target (15%), proximity to a coronary artery (13%), proximity to the phrenic nerve (6%), and complications (<1%). Epicardial RFA was impeded in the majority of cases targeting the left ventricular summit region. Acute complications occurred in 9%. The risk for acute ablation failure was 8.3× higher (4.5-15.0; P<0.001) after no or limited epicardial RFA compared with unlimited RFA, and patients with unlimited epicardial RFA had better recurrence-free survival rates (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Epicardial RFA for ventricular arrhythmias is often limited even when pericardial access is successful. Variability of success is dependent on the target area, and the presence of factors limiting ablation is associated with worse outcomes.