Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Prognostic value of chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) often coexist and share an increased risk of thrombo-embolism (TE). CKD concomitantly predisposes towards a pro-haemorrhagic state. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of CKD in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2124 consecutive AF patients undergoing LAAO were categorized into CKD stage 1+2 (n = 1089), CKD stage 3 (n = 796), CKD stage 4 (n = 170), and CKD stage 5 (n = 69) based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline. The primary endpoint included cardiovascular (CV) mortality, TE, and major bleeding. The expected annual TE and major bleeding risks were estimated based on the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. A non-significant higher incidence of major peri-procedural adverse events (1.7 vs. 2.3 vs. 4.1 vs. 4.3) was observed with worsening CKD (P = 0.14). The mean follow-up period was 13 ± 7 months (2226 patient-years). In comparison to CKD stage 1+2 as a reference, the incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in CKD stage 3 (log-rank P-value = 0.04), CKD stage 4 (log-rank P-value = 0.01), and CKD stage 5 (log-rank P-value = 0.001). Left atrial appendage occlusion led to a TE risk reduction (RR) of 72, 66, 62, and 41% in each group. The relative RR of major bleeding was 58, 44, 51, and 52%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-to-severe CKD had a higher incidence of the primary composite endpoint. The relative RR in the incidence of TE and major bleeding was consistent across CKD groups.

Atrial Fibrillation can adversely impact Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction by its association with Heart Failure Progression and Mortality: A Post-Hoc Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the TOPCAT Americas Trial.

AIMS: Prevalent atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with excess cardiovascular (CV) death (D) and hospitalizations (H) in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (pEF). We evaluated if it had an independent role in excess CVD in HFpEF and studied its impact on cause-specific mortality and HF morbidity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts from the TOPCAT Americas trial to account for confounding by other co-morbidities. Two prevalent AF presentations at study entry were compared: (i) subjects with Any AF event by history or on electrocardiogram (ECG) with PSM subjects without an AF event and (ii) subjects in AF on ECG with PSM subjects in sinus rhythm. We analyzed cause-specific modes of death and HF morbidity during a mean follow-up period of 2.9 years. A total of 584 subjects with Any AF event and 418 subjects in AF on ECG were matched. Any AF was associated with increased CVH [hazard ratio (HR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.61, P = 0.003], HFH (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.86, P = 0.004), pump failure death (PFD) (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05-3.62, P = 0.035), and HF progression from New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes I/II to III/IV (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04-1.62, P = 0.02). Atrial fibrillation on ECG was associated with increased risk of CVD (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.09, P = 0.039), PFD (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.11-4.40, P = 0.024), and CVH and HFH (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.72, P = 0.006 and HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.23, P = 0.001, respectively). Atrial fibrillation was not associated with risk of sudden death. Both Any AF and AF on ECG cohorts were associated with PFD in NYHA class III/IV HF. CONCLUSION: Prevalent AF can be an independent risk factor for adverse CV outcomes by its selective association with worsening HF, HFH, and PFD in HFpEF. Prevalent AF was not associated with excess sudden death risk in HFpEF. Atrial fibrillation was also associated with HF progression in early symptomatic HFpEF and PFD in advanced HFpEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TOPCAT trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov:identifier NCT00094302.

Early Lead Extraction for Infected Implanted Cardiac Electronic Devices: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Infection remains a serious complication associated with the cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), leading to substantial clinical and economic burden globally. This review assesses the burden of cardiac implantable electronic device infection (CIED-I), evidence for treatment recommendations, barriers to early diagnosis and appropriate therapy, and potential solutions. Multiple clinical practice guidelines recommended complete system and lead removal for CIED-I when appropriate. CIED extraction for infection has been consistently reported with high success, low complication, and very low mortality rates. Complete and early extraction was associated with significantly better clinical and economic outcome compared with no or late extraction. However, significant gaps in knowledge and poor recommendation compliance have been reported. Barriers to optimal management may include diagnostic delay, knowledge gaps, and limited access to expertise. A multipronged approach, including education of all stakeholders, a CIED-I alert system, and improving access to experts, could help bring paradigm shift in the treatment of this serious condition.

Postoperative Coagulation Changes in Patients after Epicardial Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Varies Based on the Left Atrial Appendage Size.

Left atrial appendage occlusion affects systemic coagulation parameters, leading to additional patient-related benefits. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in coagulation factor changes 6 months after epicardial left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with different LAA morphometries. This is the first study to analyze these relationships in detail. A prospective study of 22 consecutive patients was performed. Plasminogen, fibrinogen, tPA concentration, PAI-1, TAFI and computed tomography angiograms were performed. Patients were divided into subgroups based on left atrial appendage body and orifice diameter enlargement. The results of blood tests at baseline and six-month follow-up were compared. In a population with normal LAA body size and normal orifice diameter size, a significant decrease in analyzed clotting factors was observed between baseline and follow-up for all parameters except plasminogen. A significant decrease between baseline and follow-up was observed with enlarged LAA body size in all parameters except TAFI, in which it was insignificant and plasminogen, in which a significant increase was observed. Occlusion of the left atrial appendage is beneficial for systemic coagulation. Patients with a small LAA may benefit more from LAA closure in terms of stabilizing their coagulation factors associated with potential thromboembolic events in the future.

Arrhythmias in Pregnancy.

Increasing maternal mortality and incidence of arrhythmias in pregnancy have been noted over the past 2 decades in the United States. Pregnancy is associated with a greater risk of arrhythmias, and patients with a history of arrhythmias are at significant risk of arrhythmia recurrence during pregnancy. The incidence of atrial fibrillation in pregnancy is rising. This review discusses the management of tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias in pregnancy, including management of cardiac arrest. Management of fetal arrhythmias are also reviewed. For patients without structural heart disease, ß-blocker therapy, especially propranolol and metoprolol, and antiarrhythmic drugs, such as flecainide and sotalol, can be safely used to treat tachyarrhythmias. As a last resort, catheter ablation with minimal fluoroscopy can be performed. Device implantation can be safely performed with minimal fluoroscopy and under echocardiographic or ultrasound guidance in patients with clear indications for devices during pregnancy. Because of rising maternal mortality in the United States, which is partly driven by increasing maternal age and comorbidities, a multidisciplinary and/or integrative approach to arrhythmia management from the prepartum to the postpartum period is needed.

Managing Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction are increasing in prevalence worldwide. Atrial fibrillation can precipitate and can be a consequence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and cardiomyopathy. Atrial fibrillation and heart failure, when present together, are associated with worse outcomes. Together, these 2 conditions increase the risk of stroke, requiring oral anticoagulation in many or left atrial appendage closure in some. Medical management for rate and rhythm control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure remain hampered by variable success, intolerance, and adverse effects. In multiple randomized clinical trials in recent years, catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction has shown superiority in improving survival, quality of life, and ventricular function and reducing heart failure hospitalizations compared with antiarrhythmic drugs and rate control therapies. This has resulted in a paradigm shift in management toward nonpharmacological rhythm control of atrial fibrillation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. The primary objective of this American Heart Association scientific statement is to review the available evidence on the epidemiology and pathophysiology of atrial fibrillation in relation to heart failure and to provide guidance on the latest advances in pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The writing committee's consensus on the implications for clinical practice, gaps in knowledge, and directions for future research are highlighted.

Uninterrupted versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the safety of uninterrupted versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) for patients undergoing catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing uninterrupted versus interrupted DOAC for patients undergoing CA of AF. Primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included minor bleeding, stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) or thromboembolism (TE), silent cerebral ischemic events, and cardiac tamponade. Meta-analysis was stratified by study design. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects model and Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool RR. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (7 randomized, 6 observational) comprising 3595 patients were included. The RCT restricted analysis did not show any difference in terms of major bleeding (risk ratio [RR] = 0.79; [0.35-1.79]), minor bleeding (RR = 0.99 [0.68-1.43]), stroke or TIA or TE (RR = 0.80 [0.19-3.32]), silent cerebral ischemic events (RR = 0.64 [0.32-1.28]), and cardiac tamponade (RR = 0.61 [0.20-1.92]). Observational study restricted analysis showed a protective effect of uninterrupted DOAC on silent cerebral ischemic events (RR = 0.45 [0.31-0.67]) and no difference in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes with uninterrupted versus interrupted DOAC for CA of AF and observational data suggests that uninterrupted DOACs are protective against silent cerebral ischemic lesions.

Predictors of permanent pacemaker insertion after TAVR: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the predictors associated with increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: While TAVR has evolved as the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis, conduction abnormalities leading to the need for PPMI is one of the most common postprocedural complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant trials from inception to May 2020. Summary effects were calculated using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model as odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals for all the clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Thirty-seven observational studies with 71 455 patients were identified. The incidence of PPMI following TAVR was 22%. Risk was greater in men and increased with age. Patients with diabetes mellitus, presence of right bundle branch block, baseline atrioventricular conduction block, and left anterior fascicular block were noted to be at higher risk. Other significant predictors include the presence of high calcium volume in the area below the left coronary cusp and noncoronary cusp, use of self-expandable valve over balloon-expandable valve, depth of implant, valve size/annulus size, predilatation balloon valvuloplasty, and postimplant balloon dilation. CONCLUSION: Fourteen factors were found to be associated with increased risk of PPMI after TAVR, suggesting early identification of high-risk populations and targeting modifiable risk factors may aid in reducing the need for this post TAVR PPMI.

Preventing Arrhythmic Death in Patients With Tetralogy of Fallot: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Patients with tetralogy of Fallot are at risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. These abnormalities are associated with pulmonary regurgitation, right ventricular enlargement, and a substrate of discrete, slowly-conducting isthmuses. Although these arrhythmic events are rare, their prediction is challenging. This review will address contemporary risk assessment and prevention strategies. Numerous variables have been proposed to predict who would benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Current risk stratification models combine independently associated factors into risk scores. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, QRS fragmentation assessment, and electrophysiology testing in selected patients may refine some of these models. Interaction between right and left ventricular function is emerging as a critical factor in our understanding of disease progression and risk assessment. Multicenter studies evaluating risk factors and risk mitigating strategies such as pulmonary valve replacement, ablative strategies, and use of implantable cardiac-defibrillators are needed moving forward.

Predictors of myocardial recovery in arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is characterized by improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following arrhythmia treatment. Predictors of recovery in LVEF are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated predictors of AIC recovery in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: In total, 243 patients (age 65 ± 11, 73% male) with AIC caused by atrial fibrillation (49%), atrial tachycardia (20%), and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs; 31%) were treated and included. LVEF was assessed before and after treatment. Patients were stratified by arrhythmia duration (known [KN, n = 132] vs. unknown [UKN, n = 111]), arrhythmia type, LVEF, and presence of structural heart disease (SHD). RESULTS: Arrhythmia treatment was rhythm control in 95%. Median arrhythmia duration in the KN group was 47 months (25-75th percentile, 24-80 months). Post treatment LVEF was higher in KN group (55.9 ± 7 vs. 46.2 ± 12%; p < .0001) but the degree of LVEF improvement was similar (21.2 ± 9 vs. 19.4 ± 11; p = .16). Comparing highest quartile (longest arrhythmia duration) versus the rest of the KN group, the extent of LVEF improvement was similar (21.5 ± 8 vs. 21 ± 9%; p = .1). Patients in lowest index LVEF quartile (n = 74) had more PVC-induced AIC, greater EF improvement after treatment (24 ± 17 vs. 19 ± 7%; p < .0001) but lower post treatment EF (45 ± 14 vs. 54 ± 8%; p < .0001) versus other patients. Patients with SHD had lower index EF (28 ± 8 vs. 34 ± 8%; p < .0001) and lower final EF (47 ± 12 vs. 56 ± 7; p ≪ .0001). In multivariate regression, low index LVEF predicted myocardial recovery (odds ratio, 11.4; p < .005). CONCLUSIONS: In this AIC cohort, LVEF improved regardless of arrhythmia duration or type but those with PVCs had lower index LVEF and had less recovery. Low index LVEF predicted LVEF recovery following arrhythmia treatment.

Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted health care delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for arrhythmia patients. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

COVID-19 and cardiac arrhythmias: a global perspective on arrhythmia characteristics and management strategies.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular and arrhythmic events have been reported in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, arrhythmia manifestations and treatment strategies used in these patients have not been well-described. We sought to better understand the cardiac arrhythmic manifestations and treatment strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 patients through a worldwide cross-sectional survey. METHODS: The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) sent an online survey (via SurveyMonkey) to electrophysiology (EP) professionals (physicians, scientists, and allied professionals) across the globe. The survey was active from March 27 to April 13, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1197 respondents completed the survey with 50% of respondents from outside the USA, representing 76 countries and 6 continents. Of respondents, 905 (76%) reported having COVID-19-positive patients in their hospital. Atrial fibrillation was the most commonly reported tachyarrhythmia whereas severe sinus bradycardia and complete heart block were the most common bradyarrhythmias. Ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation arrest and pulseless electrical activity were reported by 4.8% and 5.6% of respondents, respectively. There were 140 of 631 (22.2%) respondents who reported using anticoagulation therapy in all COVID-19-positive patients who did not otherwise have an indication. One hundred fifty-five of 498 (31%) reported regular use of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (HCQ) + azithromycin (AZM); concomitant use of AZM was more common in the USA. Sixty of 489 respondents (12.3%) reported having to discontinue therapy with HCQ + AZM due to significant QTc prolongation and 20 (4.1%) reported cases of Torsade de Pointes in patients on HCQ/chloroquine and AZM. Amiodarone was the most common antiarrhythmic drug used for ventricular arrhythmia management. CONCLUSIONS: In this global survey of > 1100 EP professionals regarding hospitalized COVID-19 patients, a variety of arrhythmic manifestations were observed, ranging from benign to potentially life-threatening. Observed adverse events related to use of HCQ + AZM included prolonged QTc requiring drug discontinuation as well as Torsade de Pointes. Large prospective studies to better define arrhythmic manifestations as well as the safety of treatment strategies in COVID-19 patients are warranted.

Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.