Analysis of Atrial Fibrillation Treatment Regimes in a Multicenter Cohort of Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Mitral Valve Repair Patients.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a highly prevalent comorbidity in patients with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR). Recent studies show a deleterious outcome of patients with concomitant AF after transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVR). This underlines the essential need for additional strategies that ameliorate the prognosis of these patients. Fundamental data on AF characteristics and treatment regimes in this special cohort of patients are lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 542 consecutive patients with severe MR undergoing TMVR in three tertiary heart centers with special focus on AF type and underlying treatment strategies. RESULTS: The prevalence of concomitant AF was 73.3%, and AF did not affect the procedural success or the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The patients with AF were more frequently >75 years, had more tricuspid regurgitation, and less coronary artery disease than non-AF patients. The distribution of AF types was 32% paroxysmal AF, 27% persistent AF, and 41% permanent AF. Except for a higher degree in severe tricuspid regurgitation and a higher likelihood of male sex, no substantial differences were observed while comparing permanent and nonpermanent AF patients. The predominant treatment regime was rate control (57%), with only beta blockers (BB) in the majority of persistent and permanent AF patients, while additional digitalis or a pacemaker was used infrequently. Rhythm control was mainly achieved with BB alone in paroxysmal AF patients and with additional antiarrhythmic drugs in the majority of persistent AF patients. Interventional rhythm control therapy was performed in 2.5% and 30.9% of paroxysmal and persistent AF patients, respectively. The guideline-adherent use of oral anticoagulants was comparable and high in both groups (91.9% in nonpermanent vs. 90.1% in permanent AF). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to provide necessary information for the understanding of the current clinical practice in dealing with TMVR patients. Since evidence suggests that AF is not a benign concomitant disease, further investigations are needed to assess the prognostic impact of these different AF treatment strategies.

Home monitoring after ambulatory implanted primary cardiac implantable electronic devices: The home ambulance pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The Home Monitoring (HM) system of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) permits early detection of arrhythmias or device system failures. The aim of this pilot study was to examine how the safety and efficacy of the HM system in patients after ambulatory implanted primary CIEDs compare to patients with a standard procedure and hospitalization. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that HM and their modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluates telemetric data obtained from 364 patients in an ambulatory single center over 6 years. Patients were assigned to an active group (n = 217), consisting of those who were discharged early on the day of implantation of the primary CIED, or to a control group (n = 147), consisting of those discharged and followed up with the HM system according to usual medical practices. RESULTS: The mean duration of hospitalization was 73.2% shorter in the active group than in the control group, corresponding to 20.5 ± 13 fewer hours (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.3-29.5; P < 0.01) spent in the hospital (7.5 ± 1.5 vs 28 ± 4.5 h). This shorter mean hospital stay was attributable to a 78.8% shorter postoperative period in the active group. The proportion of patients with treatment-related adverse events was 11% (n = 23) in the active group and 17% (n = 25) in the control group (95% CI: 5.5-8.3; P = 0.061). This 6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI: 3.3-9.1; P = 0.789) confirmed the noninferiority of the ambulatory implanted CIED when compared with standard management of these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge with the HM system after ambulatory CIED implantation was safe and not inferior to the classic medical procedure. Thus, together with lower costs, HM and its modifications would be a useful extension of the present concepts for ambulatory implanted CIEDs.