Cryoablation of atrial fibrillation in "very severe" obese patients (BMI ≥ 40): Indications, feasibility, procedural safety and efficacy, and clinical outcome (the ICE-Obese Extreme).

BACKGROUND: Management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in very severe obese patients is challenging. Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) represents an effective rhythm control strategy. However, data in this patient group were limited. METHODS: Highly symptomatic AF patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m2 who had failed antiarrhythmic drug therapy and electrocardioversion and failure to achieve targeted body-weight-reduction underwent CBA. RESULTS: Data of 72 very severe obese AF patients (Group A) and 129 AF patients with normal BMI (Group B, BMI < 25 kg/m2) were consecutively collected. Group A had significantly younger age (60.6 ± 10.4 vs. 69.2 ± 11.2 years), higher BMI (44.3 ± 4.3 vs. 22.5 ± 1.6 kg/m2). Procedural pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was successful in all patients (2 touch-up ablation in Group A). Compared to Group B, Group A had similar procedural (61.3 ± 22.6 vs. 57.5 ± 19 min), similar fluoroscopy time (10.1 ± 5.5 vs. 9.2 ± 4.8 min) but significantly higher radiation dose (2852 ± 2095 vs. 884 ± 732 µGym2). We observed similar rates of real-time-isolation (78.6% vs. 78.5%), single-shot-isolation (86.5% vs. 88.8%), but significantly longer time-to-sustained-isolation (53.5 ± 33 vs. 43.2 ± 25 s). There was significantly higher rate of puncture-site-complication (6.9% vs. 1.6%) in Group A. One-year clinical success in paroxysmal AF was (Group A: 69.4% vs. Group B: 80.2%; p < .001), in persistent AF was (Group A: 58.1% vs. Group B: 62.8%; p = .889). In Re-Do procedures Group A had a numerically lower PVI durability (75.0% vs. 83.6%, p = .089). CONCLUSION: For very severe obese AF patients, CBA appears feasible, leads to relatively good clinical outcome.

Cardiac, possible cardiac, and likely non-cardiac origin of chest pain : A hitherto underestimated parameter in German chest pain units.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines emphasize the diagnostic value of non-cardiac or possibly cardiac chest pain. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether German chest pain units (CPUs) adequately address conditions with "atypical" chest pain in existing diagnostic structures. METHOD: A total of 11,734 patients from the German CPU registry were included. The analyses included mode of admission, critical time intervals, diagnostic steps, and differential diagnoses. RESULTS: Patients with unspecified chest pain were younger, more often female, were less likely to have classic cardiovascular risk factors and tended to present more often as self-referrals. Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mostly had prehospital medical contact. Overall, there was no difference between these two groups regarding the time from the onset of first symptoms to arrival at the CPU. In the CPU, the usual basic diagnostic measures were performed irrespective of ACS as the primary working diagnosis. In the non-ACS group, further ischemia-specific diagnostics were rarely performed. Extra-cardiac differential diagnoses were not specified. CONCLUSION: The establishment of broader awareness programs and opening CPUs for low-threshold evaluation of self-referring patients should be discussed. Regarding the rigid focus on the clarification of cardiac causes of chest pain, a stronger interdisciplinary approach should be promoted.