Arrhythmic Mitral Valve Prolapse: Risk Assessment and Management.

Arrhythmic mitral valve prolapse (MVP) has gained great interest recently because of the increasing recognition of its potential role in unexplained cardiac arrest. Although evidence has accumulated to show the association of arrhythmic MVP (AMVP) with sudden cardiac death (SCD), risk stratification and management remain unclear. Physicians are faced with the challenges of screening for AMVP among MVP patients and the dilemma of when and how to intervene to prevent SCD in these patients. In addition, there is little guidance to help approach MVP patients who present with an otherwise unexplained cardiac arrest to know whether MVP was the primary cause of cardiac arrest or just an innocent bystander. Herein we review the epidemiology and definition of AMVP, the risk and mechanisms of SCD, and summarize the clinical evidence behind risk markers of SCD and therapeutic interventions that could potentially prevent it. We also propose an algorithm that provides guidance as to how to screen for AMVP and what therapeutic interventions to use. Last, we propose a diagnostic algorithm for approaching patients with otherwise unexplained cardiac arrest who are shown to have MVP.

Assessment of Radiation-Induced Malfunction in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is a standard cancer treatment modality, and an increasing number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being referred for RT. The goals of this study were as follows: (i) to determine the incidence of CIED malfunction following RT; (ii) to characterize the various types of malfunctions that occur; and (iii) to identify risk factors associated with CIED malfunction following RT. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with CIEDs who received RT between 2007 and 2018 at 4 Canadian centres (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, and University of Ottawa Heart Institute) was conducted. Patients underwent CIED interrogation after completion of RT, to assess for late damage to the CIEDs. Data on demographics, devices, and RT were compared for the primary outcome of device malfunction. RESULTS: Of 1041 patients with CIEDs who received RT, 811 patients with complete data were included. Device malfunctions occurred in 32 of 811 patients (4%). The most common device malfunctions were reduced ventricular/atrial sensing (in 13 of 32 [41%]), an increase in lead threshold (in 9 of 32 [22%]), lead noise (in 5 of 32 [16%]), and electrical reset (in 2 of 32 [6%]). Higher beam energy (≥ 10 MV) was associated with malfunction (P < 0.0001). Radiation dose was not significantly different between the malfunction and non-malfunction groups (58.3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectively, P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Although RT-induced CIED malfunctions are rare (occurring in 4% of patients with a CIED who undergo RT), collaborative efforts between radiation oncologists and cardiac rhythm device clinics to optimize CIED monitoring are needed, to detect and manage CIED malfunctions. Malfunctions are more common in patients receiving higher-beam energy ( ≥ 10 MV ) RT.

CONTEXTE: La radiothérapie (RT) est une modalité standard de traitement du cancer, et un nombre croissant de patients porteurs de dispositifs cardiaques électroniques implantables (DCEI) doivent recevoir un traitement de RT. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient les suivants : (i) déterminer l'incidence d'une défaillance du DCEI après une RT; (ii) caractériser les différents types de défaillances qui se produisent; (iii) déterminer les facteurs de risque associés à la défaillance du DCEI après une RT. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une étude rétrospective des patients avec un DCEI ayant reçu une RT entre 2007 et 2018 dans quatre centres canadiens (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre et Institut de cardiologie de l'Université d'Ottawa) a été menée. Le DCEI des patients a été interrogé après la fin de la RT, pour en évaluer les dommages tardifs. Les données sur les caractéristiques démographiques, les dispositifs et la RT ont été comparées pour le paramètre d'évaluation principal, soit la défaillance du dispositif. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1 041 patients avec un DCEI ayant reçu une RT, 811 patients avec des données complètes ont été inclus. Des défaillances du dispositif sont survenues chez 32 des 811 patients (4 %). Les défaillances les plus fréquentes du dispositif étaient une détection ventriculaire/atriale réduite (chez 13 des 32 patients [41 %]), une augmentation du seuil de la sonde (chez 9 des 32 patients [22 %]), un bruit provenant de la sonde (chez 5 des 32 patients [16 %]) et une réinitialisation électrique (chez 2 des 32 patients [6 %]). Une énergie de faisceau plus élevée (≥ 10 MV) était associée à une défaillance (p < 0,0001). La dose de rayonnement ne présentait pas de différence significative entre le groupe où une défaillance a été constatée et l'autre groupe (58,3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectivement, p = 0,71). CONCLUSIONS: Bien que les défaillances du DCEI causées par la RT soient rares (survenant chez 4 % des patients avec un DCEI qui subissent une RT), une collaboration est nécessaire entre les radio-oncologues et les cliniques de dispositifs de gestion du rythme cardiaque, afin d'optimiser la surveillance du DCEI et de détecter et de gérer ces défaillances. Les défaillances sont plus fréquentes chez les patients recevant une énergie de faisceau plus élevée au moment de la RT ( ≥ 10 MV ) .

Is Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Canadian Family Practices Cost-Effective in Patients 65 Years and Older?

We present an economic evaluation of a recently completed cohort study in which 2054 seniors were screened for atrial fibrillation (AF) in 22 Canadian family practices. Using a Markov model, trial and literature data were used to project long-term outcomes and costs associated with 4 AF screening strategies for individuals aged 65 years or older: no screening, screen with 30-second radial manual pulse check (pulse check), screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection (BP-AF), and screen with a single-lead electrocardiogram (SL-ECG). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 1.5% and the model used a lifetime horizon from a public payer perspective. Compared with no screening, screening for AF in Canadian family practice offices using pulse check or screen with a blood pressure machine with AF detection is the dominant strategy whereas screening with SL-ECG is a highly cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of CAD$4788. When different screening strategies were compared, screening with pulse check had the lowest expected costs ($202) and screening with SL-ECG had the highest expected costs ($222). The no-screening arm resulted in the lowest number of QALYs (8.74195) whereas pulse check and SL-ECG resulted in the highest expected QALYs (8.74362). Probabilistic analysis confirmed that pulse check had the highest probability of being cost-effective (63%) assuming a willingness to pay of $50,000 per QALY gained. Screening for AF in seniors during routine appointments with Canadian family physicians is a cost-effective strategy compared with no screening. Screening with a pulse check is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy.

Cost Effectiveness of Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy: The VANISH Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis uses the data from the randomized controlled trial to assess the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation (n = 132) versus escalated antiarrhythmic therapy (n = 127). BACKGROUND: For survivors of myocardial infarction with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks despite antiarrhythmic drugs, the VANISH (Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Versus Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Ischemic Heart Disease) trial demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with catheter ablation compared with more aggressive antiarrhythmic pharmacotherapy. METHODS: Health care resource use and quality-of-life data were used to determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation. Published references were used to estimate costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars). The analysis was over 3 years, with a 5% discount rate. Adjustment was made for censoring and baseline utilities. RESULTS: Ablation resulted in greater quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than escalated drug therapy did (1.63 vs. 1.49; difference: 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.20 to 0.46) and higher cost ($65,126 vs. $60,269; difference: $4,857; 95% CI: -$19,757 to $27,106); with an incremental cost per QALY gained for ablation versus escalated drug therapy of $34,057 primarily due to the initial costs of ablation, which were partially offset by the costs of subsequent ablations and adverse outcomes in the escalated drug therapy arm. For patients with amiodarone-refractory ventricular tachycardia, ablation dominated escalated drug therapy, with greater QALYs (1.48 vs. 1.26; difference: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.19 to 0.59) and lower costs ($67,614 vs. $68,383; difference: -$769; 95% CI: -$35,330 to $27,092). For those with sotalol-refractory ventricular tachycardia, ablation resulted in similar QALYs (1.90 vs. 1.90; difference: -0.00; 95% CI: -0.59 to 0.62) and higher costs ($60,455 vs. $45,033; difference: $15,422; 95% CI: -$10,968 to $48,555). CONCLUSIONS: For the total trial population, results are suggestive that ablation is cost effective compared with escalation of drug therapy. This result was only manifest for the subgroup of patients whose qualifying arrhythmia occurred despite amiodarone.

Systematic assessment of patients with unexplained cardiac arrest: Cardiac Arrest Survivors With Preserved Ejection Fraction Registry (CASPER).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest without evident cardiac disease may be caused by subclinical genetic conditions. Provocative testing to unmask a phenotype is often necessary to detect primary electrical disease, direct genetic testing, and perform family screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with apparently unexplained cardiac arrest and no evident cardiac disease (normal cardiac function on echocardiogram, no evidence of coronary artery disease, and a normal ECG) underwent systematic evaluation that included cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, signal-averaged ECG, exercise testing, drug challenge, and selective electrophysiological testing. Diagnostic criteria were based on accepted criteria or provocation of the characteristic clinical features for long-QT syndrome, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, Brugada syndrome, early repolarization, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, and myocarditis. Sixty-three patients in 9 centers were enrolled (age 43.0+/-13.4 years, 29 women). A diagnosis was obtained in 35 patients (56%): Long-QT syndrome in 8, catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in 8, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in 6, early repolarization in 5, coronary spasm in 4, Brugada syndrome in 3, and myocarditis in 1. Targeted genetic testing demonstrated evidence of causative mutations in 9 (47%) of 19 patients. Screening of 64 family members of these patients identified 15 affected individuals who were treated (24%). The remaining 28 patients (44%) were considered to have idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic clinical testing, including drug provocation and advanced imaging, results in unmasking of the cause of apparently unexplained cardiac arrest in >50% of patients. This approach assists in directing genetic testing to diagnose genetically mediated arrhythmia syndromes, which results in successful family screening.

Bridge or continue Coumadin for device surgery: a randomized controlled trial rationale and design.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many patients requiring cardiac arrhythmia device surgery are on chronic oral anticoagulation therapy. The periprocedural management of their anticoagulation presents a dilemma to physicians, particularly in the subset of patients with moderate-to-high risk of arterial thromboembolic events. Physicians have responded by treating patients with bridging anticoagulation while oral anticoagulation is temporarily discontinued. However, there are a number of downsides to bridging anticoagulation around device surgery; there is a substantial risk of significant device pocket hematoma with important clinical sequelae; bridging anticoagulation may lead to more arterial thromboembolic events and bridging anticoagulation is expensive. RECENT FINDINGS: In response to these issues, a number of centers have explored the option of performing device surgery without cessation of oral anticoagulation. The observational data suggest a greatly reduced hematoma rate with this strategy. Despite these encouraging results, most physicians are reluctant to move to operating on continued Coumadin in the absence of confirmatory data from a randomized trial. SUMMARY: We have designed a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial to address this clinical question. In the conventional arm, patients will be bridged. In the experimental arm, patients will continue on oral anticoagulation and the primary outcome is clinically significant hematoma. Our study has clinical relevance to at least 70 000 patients per year in North America.