Continuous low-level vagus nerve stimulation reduces stellate ganglion nerve activity and paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias in ambulatory canines.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesize that left-sided low-level vagus nerve stimulation (LL-VNS) can suppress sympathetic outflow and reduce atrial tachyarrhythmias in ambulatory dogs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We implanted a neurostimulator in 12 dogs to stimulate the left cervical vagus nerve and a radiotransmitter for continuous recording of left stellate ganglion nerve activity, vagal nerve activities, and ECGs. Group 1 dogs (N=6) underwent 1 week of continuous LL-VNS. Group 2 dogs (N=6) underwent intermittent rapid atrial pacing followed by active or sham LL-VNS on alternate weeks. Integrated stellate ganglion nerve activity was significantly reduced during LL-VNS (7.8 mV/s; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.94 to 8.66 versus 9.4 mV/s [95% CI, 8.5 to 10.3] at baseline; P=0.033) in group 1. The reduction was most apparent at 8 am, along with a significantly reduced heart rate (P=0.008). Left-sided low-level vagus nerve stimulation did not change vagal nerve activity. The density of tyrosine hydroxylase-positive nerves in the left stellate ganglion 1 week after cessation of LL-VNS were 99 684 µm(2)/mm(2) (95% CI, 28 850 to 170 517) in LL-VNS dogs and 186 561 µm(2)/mm(2) (95% CI, 154 956 to 218 166; P=0.008) in normal dogs. In group 2, the frequencies of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and tachycardia during active LL-VNS were 1.4/d (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.1) and 8.0/d (95% CI, 5.3 to 12.0), respectively, significantly lower than during sham stimulation (9.2/d [95% CI, 5.3 to 13.1]; P=0.001 and 22.0/d [95% CI, 19.1 to 25.5], P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Left-sided low-level vagus nerve stimulation suppresses stellate ganglion nerve activities and reduces the incidences of paroxysmal atrial tachyarrhythmias in ambulatory dogs. Significant neural remodeling of the left stellate ganglion is evident 1 week after cessation of continuous LL-VNS.

Randomized Comparison of a CrossBoss First Versus Standard Wire Escalation Strategy for Crossing Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: The CrossBoss First Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a multicenter, randomized-controlled, clinical trial comparing upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter versus antegrade wire escalation for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions. BACKGROUND: There is equipoise about the optimal initial strategy for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions. METHODS: The primary endpoints were the time required to cross the chronic total occlusion or abort the procedure and the frequency of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary endpoints were technical and procedural success, total procedure time, fluoroscopy time required to cross and total fluoroscopy time, total air kerma radiation dose, total contrast volume, and equipment use. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 246 patients were randomized to the CrossBoss catheter (n = 122) or wire escalation (n = 124) at 11 U.S. centers. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the study groups were similar. Technical and procedural success were 87.8% and 84.1%, respectively, and were similar in the 2 groups. Crossing time was similar: 56 min (interquartile range: 33 to 93 min) in the CrossBoss group and 66 min (interquartile range: 36 to 105 min) in the wire escalation group (p = 0.323), as was as the incidence of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events (3.28% vs. 4.03%; p = 1.000). There were no significant differences in the secondary study endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with wire escalation, upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions was associated with similar crossing time, similar success and complication rates, and similar equipment use and cost.

Unanswered questions in patients with concurrent atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome.

The best regimen for the long-term management of patients with atrial fibrillation who present with an acute coronary syndrome or require placement of a coronary stent remains unclear. Clinicians need to understand the risk of stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding associated with treating these patients. Numerous studies and risk assessment schemes provide clinicians with an estimation of the risk of stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding that may be associated with the use or avoidance of dual antiplatelet therapy with concurrent anticoagulation therapy (triple therapy). This review discusses the special antithrombotic needs in patients who have atrial fibrillation and either acute coronary syndrome or a requirement for percutaneous coronary intervention, including the published evidence for non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants, and the unanswered questions in this patient population. In conclusion, until the results of additional ongoing or planned randomized trials are known, clinicians must continue to rely on expert opinion and their own clinical judgment when treating these patients.