Dual vs Single Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Obesity: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Atrial fibrillation and obesity are common, and both are increasing in prevalence. Obesity is associated with failure of cardioversion of atrial fibrillation using a standard single set of defibrillator pads, even at high output. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of dual direct-current cardioversion (DCCV) using 2 sets of pads, with each pair simultaneously delivering 200 J, with traditional single 200-J DCCV using 1 set of pads in patients with obesity and atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a prospective, investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized clinical trial spanning 3 years from August 2020 to 2023. As a multicenter trial, the setting included 3 sites in Louisiana. Eligibility criteria included body mass index (BMI) of 35 or higher (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared), age 18 years or older, and planned nonemergent electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation. Patients who met inclusion criteria were randomized 1:1. Exclusions occurred due to spontaneous cardioversion, instability, thrombus, or BMI below threshold. Interventions: Dual DCCV vs single DCCV. Main Outcomes and Measures: Return to sinus rhythm, regardless of duration, immediately after the first cardioversion attempt of atrial fibrillation, adverse cardiovascular events, and chest discomfort after the procedure. Results: Of 2079 sequential patients undergoing cardioversion, 276 met inclusion criteria and were approached for participation. Of these, 210 participants were randomized 1:1. After exclusions, 200 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.6 [60.1-72.4] years; 127 male [63.5%]) completed the study. The mean (SD) BMI was 41.2 (6.5). Cardioversion was successful more often with dual DCCV compared with single DCCV (97 of 99 patients [98%] vs 87 of 101 patients [86%]; P = .002). Dual cardioversion predicted success (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% CI, 3.3-13.6; P = .01). Patients in the single cardioversion cohort whose first attempt failed underwent dual cardioversion with all subsequent attempts (up to 3 total), all of which were successful: 12 of 14 after second cardioversion and 2 of 14 after third cardioversion. There was no difference in the rating of postprocedure chest discomfort (median in both groups = 0 of 10; P = .40). There were no cardiovascular complications. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with obesity (BMI ≥35) undergoing electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, dual DCCV results in greater cardioversion success compared with single DCCV, without any increase in complications or patient discomfort. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539158.

The role of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in patients with heart failure.

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic options for patients with AF and HFrEF are limited due to few antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) choices and historically equivocal effects of procedural interventions on mortality. However, recent randomized trials examining catheter ablation (CA) in AF patients with HFrEF have shown a beneficial effect on arrhythmic burden and HF symptoms, as well as an improvement in mortality. This review focuses on the role of CA for AF patients with HFrEF.

Epidemiology, evaluation, and management of conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvulopathy requiring replacement by means of the surgical or transcatheter approach. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has quickly become a viable and often preferred treatment strategy compared to surgical aortic valve replacement. However, transcatheter heart valve system deployment not infrequently injures the specialized electrical system of the heart, leading to new conduction disorders including high-grade atrioventricular block and complete heart block (CHB) necessitating permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), which may lead to deleterious effects on cardiac function and patient outcomes. Additional conduction disturbances (e.g., new-onset persistent left bundle branch block, PR/QRS prolongation, and transient CHB) currently lack clearly defined management algorithms leading to variable strategies among institutions. This article outlines the current understanding of the pathophysiology, patient and procedural risk factors, means for further risk stratification and monitoring of patients without a clear indication for PPI, our institutional approach, and future directions in the management and evaluation of post-TAVR conduction disturbances.