Urgent catheter ablation for treatment refractory symptomatic atrial fibrillation: Health care utilization and outcomes
Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
BACKGROUND:Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most prevalent inherited cardiomyopathy. Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) is important for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients at high risk. In recent years the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) has emerged as a viable alternative to the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD). The S-ICD does not require intravascular access, but cannot provide antitachycardia pacing therapy (ATP). OBJECTIVE:To assess the real world incidence of ICD therapy in patients with HCM implanted with TV-ICD versus S-ICD. METHODS:We compared the incidence of ATP and shock therapies between all HCM patients with S-ICD and TV-ICD enrolled in the Boston Scientific ALTITUDE database. Cumulative Kaplan Meier incidence was used to compare therapy free survival and Cox proportional hazard ratios were calculated. We performed an unmatched as well as propensity match analysis. RESULTS:We included 2047 patients with TV-ICD and 626 patients with S-ICD followed for an average of 1650.5Â±1038.5 and 933.4Â±550.6 days, respectively. Patients with HCM and TV-ICD had significantly higher rate of device therapy as compared to those with S-ICD (32.7 vs. 14.5 therapies /100 patient year; p<0.001), driven by a high incidence of ATP therapy in the TV-ICD group which accounted for more than 67% of therapies delivered. Shock incidence was similar between groups, both in the general and in the matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with HCM and S-ICD had significantly lower therapy rate than patients with TV-ICD without difference in shock therapy, suggesting potentially unnecessary ATP therapy. Empiric ATP programing in patients with HCM may be unbeneficial.
Outcomes of posterior wall isolation with pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
BACKGROUND:Prior studies have shown that addition of posterior wall isolation (PWI) may reduce atrial fibrillation recurrence in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. No data on PWI in paroxysmal AF (pAF) patients with normal left atrial voltage is available, to date. OBJECTIVE:This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of PWI in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients presenting with pAF and normal left atrial voltage. METHODS:Consecutive patient registry analysis was performed on all patients with pAF and normal left atrial voltage undergoing initial radiofrequency ablation from November 1, 2018 to November 15, 2019. Primary endpoint was recurrence of atrial arrhythmia including AF, atrial tachycardia (AT) or atrial flutter (AFL). RESULTS:A total of 321 patients were studied, 214 in the PVI group and 107 in the PWI+PVI group. Recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia occurred in 18.2% of patients in the PVI group and 16.8% in the PVI+PWI cohort (p=0.58). At one year, recurrence was 14.0% in the PVI group and 15.0% in the PWI+PVI group (p=0.96). There was a lower AT/AFL recurrence in the PVI+PWI group, not reaching significance (3.7% in the PWI+PVI group vs. 7.9% in PVI group, p=0.31). Need for carina lesions predicted recurrence in the PVI-only group. CONCLUSIONS:Addition of PWI to PVI in pAF patients undergoing their first ablation did not reduce the frequency of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. This warrants further study in a prospective trial. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Reply: Navigating a Career in Innovation [Comment]
Rebooting atrial fibrillation ablation in the COVID-19 pandemic
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Catheter ablation procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF) were significantly curtailed during the peak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to conserve healthcare resources and limit exposure. There is little data regarding peri-procedural outcomes of medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. We enacted protocols to safely reboot AF ablation while limiting healthcare resource utilization. We aimed to evaluate acute and subacute outcomes of protocols instituted for reboot of AF ablation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:Perioperative healthcare utilization and acute procedural outcomes were analyzed for consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation under COVID-19 protocols (2020 cohort; n=111) and compared to those of patients who underwent AF ablation during the same time period in 2019 (2019 cohort; n=200). Newly implemented practices included preoperative COVID-19 testing, selective transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), utilization of venous closure, and same-day discharge when clinically appropriate. RESULTS:Pre-ablation COVID-19 testing was positive in 1 of 111 patients. There were 0 cases ablation-related COVID-19 transmission and 0 major complications in either cohort. Pre-procedure TEE was performed in significantly fewer 2020 cohort patients compared to the 2019 cohort patients (68.4% vs. 97.5%, p <0.001, respectively) despite greater prevalence of persistent arrhythmia in the 2020 cohort. Same-day discharge was achieved in 68% of patients in the 2020 cohort, compared to 0% of patients in the 2019 cohort. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of safe resumption of complex electrophysiology procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing healthcare utilization and maintaining quality of care. Protocols instituted may be generalizable to other types of procedures and settings.
Time to diagnosis of acute complications after cardiovascular implantable electronic device insertion and optimal timing of discharge within the first 24 hours
BACKGROUND:More than 3 million cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are implanted annually. There are minimal data regarding the timing of diagnosis of acute complications after implantation. It remains unclear whether patients can be safely discharged less than 24 hours postimplantation. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine the precise timing of acute complication diagnosis after CIED implantation and optimal timing for same-day discharge. METHODS:A retrospective cohort analysis of adults 18 years or older who underwent CIED implantation at a large urban quaternary care medical center between June 1, 2015, and March 30, 2020, was performed. Standard of care included overnight observation and chest radiography 6 and 24 hours postprocedure. Medical records were reviewed for the timing of diagnosis of acute complications. Acute complications included pneumothorax, hemothorax, pericardial effusion, lead dislodgment, and implant site hematoma requiring surgical intervention. RESULTS:A total of 2421 patients underwent implantation. Pericardial effusion or cardiac tamponade was diagnosed in 13 patients (0.53%), pneumothorax or hemothorax in 19 patients (0.78%), lead dislodgment in 11 patients (0.45%), and hematomas requiring surgical intervention in 5 patients (0.2%). Of the 48 acute complications, 43 (90%) occurred either within 6 hours or more than 24 hours after the procedure. Only 3 acute complications identified between 6 and 24 hours required intervention during the index hospitalization (0.12% of all cases). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Most acute complications are diagnosed either within the first 6 hours or more than 24 hours after implantation. With rare exception, patients can be considered for discharge after 6 hours of appropriate monitoring.
ICD shocks and complications in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes
Background/UNASSIGNED:There is limited information on the long-term outcomes of ICDs in patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Prospective registry study of inherited arrhythmia patients with an ICD. Incidence of therapies and complications were measured as 5-year cumulative incidence proportions and analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method. Incidence was compared by device indication, diagnosis type and device type. Cox-regression analysis was used to identify predictors of appropriate shock and device complication. Results/UNASSIGNED:123 patients with a mean follow up of 6.4Â Â±Â 4.8Â years were included. The incidence of first appropriate shock was 56.52% vs 24.44%, pÂ <Â 0.05 for cardiomyopathy and channelopathy patients, despite similar ejection fraction (61% vs 60%, pÂ =Â 0.6). The incidence of first inappropriate shock was 13.46% vs 56.25%, pÂ <Â 0.01 for single vs. multi-lead devices. The incidence of first lead complication was higher for multi-lead vs. single lead devices, 43.75% vs. 17.31%, pÂ =Â 0.04. Patients with an ICD for secondary prevention were more likely to receive an appropriate shock than those with primary prevention indication (HR 2.21, CI 1.07-4.56, pÂ =Â 0.03). Multi-lead devices were associated with higher risk of inappropriate shock (HR 3.99, CI 1.27-12.52, pÂ =Â 0.02), with similar appropriate shock risk compared to single lead devices. In 26.5% of patients with dual chamber devices, atrial sensing or pacing was not utilized. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:The rate of appropriate therapies and ICD complications in patients with inherited arrhythmia is high, particularly in cardiomyopathies with multi-lead devices. Risk-benefit ratio should be carefully considered when assessing the indication and type of device in this population.
Atrial Fibrillation in COVID-19: Therapeutic Target or Grave Omen? [Editorial]
Becoming an Early-Career Inventor [Editorial]
High-power, short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: Pros and cons
This article reviews and compares the rationale and evidence supporting high-power, short-duration radiofrequency (RF) ablation with those of conventional-power, conventional-duration RF ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The pros and cons of each approach, biophysics of ablation, pre-clinical studies informing clinical utilization, and the accumulated clinical evidence are presented. Both conventional-power, conventional-duration RF ablation and high-power, short-duration ablation are similarly safe, and effective approaches for AF ablation. Theoretical advantages of high-power, short-duration ablation, including greater procedure efficiency and limited conductive heating of collateral structures, must be weighed against the narrower safety margin related to rapid energy delivery during high power ablation.