Prevalence and Assessment of Sleep-Disordered Breathing in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to estimate the prevalence of concomitant sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and to systematically evaluate how SDB is assessed in this population. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Cinahl databases through August 2020 for studies reporting on SDB in a minimum 100 patients with AF. For quantitative analysis, studies were required to have systematically assessed for SDB in consecutive AF patients. Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated with the use of the random effects model. Weighted mean differences and odds ratios were calculated when possible to assess the strength of association between baseline characteristics and SDB. RESULTS: The search yielded 2758 records, of which 33 studies (n = 23,894 patients) met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis and 13 studies (n = 2660 patients) met the meta-analysis criteria. The pooled SDB prevalence based on an SDB diagnosis cutoff of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥ 5/h was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70%-86%; P < 0.001). For moderate-to-severe SDB (AHI ≥ 15/h), the pooled SDB prevalence was 40% (95% CI 32%-48%; P < 0.001). High degrees of heterogeneity were observed (I2 = 96% and 94%, respectively; P < 0.001). Sleep testing with the use of poly(somno)graphy or oximetry was the most common assessment tool used (in 22 studies, 66%) but inconsistent diagnostic thresholds were used. CONCLUSIONS: SDB is highly prevalent in patients with AF. Wide variation exists in the diagnostic tools and thresholds used to detect concomitant SDB in AF. Prospective systematic testing for SDB in unselected cohorts of AF patients may be required to define the true prevalence of SDB in this population.

Ventricular arrhythmia burden during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

AIMS: Our objective was to determine the ventricular arrhythmia burden in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients during COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre, observational, cohort study over a 100-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA, we assessed ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients from 20 centres in 13 states, via remote monitoring. Comparison was via a 100-day control period (late 2019) and seasonal control period (early 2019). The primary outcome was the impact of COVID-19 on ventricular arrhythmia burden. The secondary outcome was correlation with COVID-19 incidence. During the COVID-19 period, 5963 ICD patients underwent remote monitoring, with 16 942 episodes of treated ventricular arrhythmias (2.8 events per 100 patient-days). Ventricular arrhythmia burden progressively declined during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmias amongst the high COVID-19 incidence states was significantly reduced compared with those in low incidence states [odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.69, P < 0.001]. Comparing patients remotely monitored during both COVID-19 and control periods (n = 2458), significantly fewer ventricular arrhythmias occurred during COVID-19 [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < 0.001]. This difference persisted when comparing the 1719 patients monitored during both the COVID-19 and seasonal control periods (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, there was a 32% reduction in ventricular arrhythmias needing device therapies, coinciding with measures of social isolation. There was a 39% reduction in the proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmias in states with higher COVID-19 incidence. These findings highlight the potential role of real-life stressors in ventricular arrhythmia burden in individuals with ICDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique Identifier: ACTRN12620000641998.

Increasing trends in hospitalisations due to atrial fibrillation in Australia from 1993 to 2013.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to characterise hospitalisations due to atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with two other common cardiovascular conditions, myocardial infarction (MI) and heart failure (HF), in addition to the associated economic burden of these hospitalisations and contribution of AF-related procedures. METHODS: The primary outcome measure was the rate of increase of AF, MI and HF hospitalisations from 1993 to 2013. The rate of increase of AF-related procedures including cardioversion and ablation were also collected, in addition to direct costs associated with hospitalisations for each of these three conditions. RESULTS: AF hospitalisations increased 295% over the 21-year period to a total of 61 424 in 2013. In comparison, MI and HF hospitalisations increased by only 73% and 39%, respectively, over the same period. Considering population changes, there was an annual increase in AF hospitalisations of 5.2% (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.052; 95% CI 1.046 to 1.059; p<0.001). In contrast, there was a 2.2% increase per annum for MI (IRR 1.022; 95% CI 1.017 to 1.027; p<0.001) and negligible annual change for HF hospitalisations (IRR 1.000; 95% CI 0.997 to 1.002; p=0.78). Cardioversion and AF ablation increased by 10% and 26% annually, respectively. AF hospitalisation costs rose by 479% over the 21-year period, an increase that was more than double that of MI and HF. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of AF hospitalisations continues to rise unabated. AF has now surpassed both MI and HF hospitalisations and represents a growing cost burden. New models of healthcare delivery are required to stem this growing healthcare burden.

Predicted longevity of contemporary cardiac implantable electronic devices: A call for industry-wide "standardized" reporting.

BACKGROUND: Battery longevity is an important factor that may influence the selection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there remains a lack of industry-wide standardized reporting of predicted CIED longevity to facilitate informed decision-making for implanting physicians and payers. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the predicted longevity of current generation CIEDs using best-matched CIEDs settings to assess differences between brands and models. METHODS: Data were extracted for current model pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-Ds) from product manuals and, where absent, by communication with the manufacturers. Pacemaker longevity estimations were based on standardized pacing outputs (2.5V, 0.40-ms pulse width, 500-Ω impedance) and pacing loads of 50% or 100% at 60 bpm. ICD and CRT-D longevity were estimated at 0% pacing and 15% atrial plus 100% biventricular pacing, with essential capacitor reforms and zero clinical shocks. RESULTS: Mean maximum predicted longevity of single- and dual-chamber pacemakers was 12.0 ± 2.1 and 9.8 ± 1.9 years, respectively. Use of advanced features such as remote monitoring, prearrhythmia electrogram storage, and rate response can result in ∼1.4 years of reduction in longevity. Mean maximum predicted longevity of ICDs and CRT-Ds was 12.4 ± 3.0 and 8.8 ± 2.1 years, respectively. Of note, there were significant variations in predicted CIED longevity according to device manufacturers, with up to 44%, 42%, and 44% difference for pacemakers, ICDs, and CRT-Ds, respectively. CONCLUSION: Contemporary CIEDs demonstrate highly variable predicted longevity according to device manufacturers. This may impact on health care costs and long-term clinical outcomes.