Prevalence and predictors of Twiddler's syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Twiddler's syndrome is a poorly understood clinical phenomenon when patients either consciously or subconsciously rotate their cardiac device resulting in lead dislodgement. We aimed to determine the true prevalence and risk factors associated with Twiddler's syndrome in a real-world population. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent cardiac device implantation from January 1st 2017 until Jan 1st 2022. We specifically searched for the terms "Twiddler" or "Twiddler's" imbedded within the text of the medical chart. Demographic and clinical variables were collected from the electronic medical record system. We utilized multivariable logistic regression analysis as well as Kaplan-Meier prediction models to determine independent clinical predictors of Twiddler's syndrome as well as associated mortality, respectively. RESULTS: Twenty one out of 1793 patients (1.2%) were identified as having Twiddler's syndrome after chart review. Independent variables associated with Twiddler's syndrome were female sex (OR 3.76; 95% CI 1.29-10.95), antidepressant medications (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.07-11.99), and BMI (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03-1.31). There was no increased six-month mortality via Kaplan-Meier analysis. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that 1.2% of patients in our real-world population had evidence of Twiddler's syndrome. Independent predictors of Twiddler's syndrome include female sex, antidepressant medications as well as BMI.

Prevalence and predictors of inappropriate anticoagulation in patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 and atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown underutilization of anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2; however there exists little data regarding the inappropriate use of anticoagulation in patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0. We aimed to determine the true prevalence and predictors of inappropriate anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 in our institution from January 2009 to January 2016. Demographic and clinical data were collected from the electronic medical record. We utilized multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine independent clinical predictors of inappropriate anticoagulation administration. RESULTS: 512 patients were identified with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 and a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Of the 137 patients prescribed anticoagulation, 64 patients were identified as inappropriately treated with anticoagulation therapy after assessing for other indications of warfarin or novel anticoagulant therapy. Independent variables associated with inappropriate anticoagulation administration were age (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.03-1.10), body mass index (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.10), absence of current aspirin use (OR 13.50; 95% CI 6.00-30.54) and persistent atrial fibrillation (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.11-4.94). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that 12% of patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 were inappropriately prescribed anticoagulant therapy. Independent predictors of unnecessary anticoagulation were age, body mass index, absence of current aspirin use and persistent atrial fibrillation.

Patients' and Physicians' Perceptions Regarding the Benefits of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether patients and physicians understand that atrial fibrillation ablation (AFA) has been shown to only improve symptomology and not reduce morbidity or mortality. METHODS: Note that 177 of 445 (40%) consecutive patients referred to an electrophysiology clinic for atrial fibrillation (AF) management responded anonymously to our survey via mail. Note that 105 of 656 (15%) physicians responded to our survey via email. Comparisons among groups were conducted using χ2 test for categorical variables. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated by using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Almost half of patients and physicians believed AF ablation (AFA) would eliminate the need for anticoagulation (43% vs. 44%, P > 0.05) while the majority of both groups believed AFA would improve survival (58% vs. 67%, P = 0.308). The great majority of both groups believed AFA would decrease stroke rates (89% vs. 80%, P = 0.106). When comparing noncardiologists (n = 86) to cardiologists (n = 19), noncardiologists were more likely to believe that an AFA would eliminate the need for anticoagulation 49% vs. 21% (X = 4.9, P = 0.04), improve survival 80% vs. 11% (X = 30.2, P < 0.001), and decrease stroke 87% vs. 44% (X = 15.6, P < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The perceived benefit of AFA by patients and physicians is not supported by the medical literature. It is the responsibility of the electrophysiology community to educate patients and referring physicians regarding the true benefits of AFA. In addition, our study displays the great need for long-term clinical trials examining the impact AFA has on morbidity and mortality.