Long-Term Outcomes of Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed a greater benefit with respect to mortality at 5 years among patients who received cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) than among those who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the effect of CRT on long-term survival is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more (or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more) to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). We assessed long-term outcomes among patients at the eight highest-enrolling participating sites. The primary outcome was death from any cause; the secondary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1798 patients, of whom 1050 were included in the long-term survival trial; the median duration of follow-up for the 1050 patients was 7.7 years (interquartile range, 3.9 to 12.8), and the median duration of follow-up for those who survived was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 12.8 to 15.7). Death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. The time until death appeared to be longer for those assigned to receive a CRT-D than for those assigned to receive an ICD (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P = 0.002). A secondary-outcome event occurred in 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group and in 392 (75.4%) in the CRT-D group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and NYHA class II or III heart failure, the survival benefit associated with receipt of a CRT-D as compared with ICD appeared to be sustained during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up. (RAFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).

Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: patterns of recurrence and impact on quality of life and health care utilisation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patterns of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence post catheter ablation for persistent AF are not well described. This study aimed to describe the pattern of AF recurrence seen following catheter ablation for persistent AF (PsAF) and the implications for healthcare utilisation and quality of life. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the CAPLA study, an international, multi-centre study that randomised patients with symptomatic PsAF to pulmonary vein isolation plus posterior wall isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Patients underwent twice daily single lead ECG, implantable device monitoring or three monthly Holter monitoring. RESULTS: 154 of 333 (46.2%) patients (median age 67.3 years, 28% female) experienced AF recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Recurrence was paroxysmal in 97 (63%) patients and persistent in 57 (37%). Recurrence type did not differ between randomisation groups (p=0.508). Median AF burden was 27.4% in PsAF recurrence and 0.9% in paroxysmal AF (PAF) recurrence (p<0.001). Patients with PsAF recurrence had lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (PsAF 50% vs PAF 60%, p<0.001) and larger left atrial volume (PsAF 54.2±19.3 ml/m² vs PAF 44.8±11.6 ml/m², p=0.008). Healthcare utilisation was significantly higher in PsAF (45 patients [78.9%]) vs PAF recurrence (45 patients [46.4%], p<0.001) and lowest in those without recurrence (17 patients [9.5%], p<0.001). Patients without AF recurrence had greater improvements in quality of life as assessed by the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire (Δ33.3±25.2 points) compared to those with PAF (Δ24.0±25.0 points, p=0.012) or PsAF (Δ13.4±22.9 points, p<0.001) recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: AF recurrence is more often paroxysmal after catheter ablation for PsAF irrespective of ablation strategy. Recurrent PsAF was associated with higher AF burden, increased healthcare utilisation and antiarrhythmic drug use. The type of AF recurrence and AF burden may be considered important endpoints in clinical trials investigating ablation of PsAF.

Randomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the RAFT-AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and can be challenging to treat. Pharmacologically based rhythm control of AF has not proven to be superior to rate control. Ablation-based rhythm control was compared with rate control to evaluate if clinical outcomes in patients with HF and AF could be improved. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded outcome evaluation using a central adjudication committee. Patients with high-burden paroxysmal (>4 episodes in 6 months) or persistent (duration <3 years) AF, New York Heart Association class II to III HF, and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide) were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control or rate control. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and all HF events, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary outcomes included left ventricular ejection fraction, 6-minute walk test, and NT-proBNP. Quality of life was measured using the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire and the AF Effect on Quality of Life. The primary analysis was time-to-event using Cox proportional hazards modeling. The trial was stopped early because of a determination of apparent futility by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee. RESULTS: From December 1, 2011, to January 20, 2018, 411 patients were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control (n=214) or rate control (n=197). The primary outcome occurred in 50 (23.4%) patients in the ablation-based rhythm-control group and 64 (32.5%) patients in the rate-control group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.49-1.03]; P=0.066). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased in the ablation-based group (10.1±1.2% versus 3.8±1.2%, P=0.017), 6-minute walk distance improved (44.9±9.1 m versus 27.5±9.7 m, P=0.025), and NT-proBNP demonstrated a decrease (mean change -77.1% versus -39.2%, P<0.0001). Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire demonstrated greater improvement in the ablation-based rhythm-control group (least-squares mean difference of -5.4 [95% CI, -10.5 to -0.3]; P=0.0036), as did the AF Effect on Quality of Life score (least-squares mean difference of 6.2 [95% CI, 1.7-10.7]; P=0.0005). Serious adverse events were observed in 50% of patients in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-burden AF and HF, there was no statistical difference in all-cause mortality or HF events with ablation-based rhythm control versus rate control; however, there was a nonsignificant trend for improved outcomes with ablation-based rhythm control over rate control. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01420393.

Effect of Catheter Ablation Using Pulmonary Vein Isolation With vs Without Posterior Left Atrial Wall Isolation on Atrial Arrhythmia Recurrence in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: The CAPLA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is less effective in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with paroxysmal AF. The left atrial posterior wall may contribute to maintenance of persistent AF, and posterior wall isolation (PWI) is a common PVI adjunct. However, PWI has not been subjected to randomized comparison. Objective: To compare PVI with PWI vs PVI alone in patients with persistent AF undergoing first-time catheter ablation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Investigator initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 11 centers in 3 countries (Australia, Canada, UK). Symptomatic patients with persistent AF were randomized 1:1 to either PVI with PWI or PVI alone. Patients were enrolled July 2018-March 2021, with 1-year follow-up completed March 2022. Interventions: The PVI with PWI group (n = 170) underwent wide antral pulmonary vein isolation followed by posterior wall isolation involving linear ablation at the roof and floor to achieve electrical isolation. The PVI-alone group (n = 168) underwent wide antral pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmia of more than 30 seconds without antiarrhythmic medication at 12 months, after a single ablation procedure. The 23 secondary outcomes included freedom from atrial arrhythmia with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures, freedom from symptomatic AF with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures, AF burden between study groups at 12 months, procedural outcomes, and complications. Results: Among 338 patients randomized (median age, 65.6 [IQR, 13.1] years; 76.9% men), 330 (97.6%) completed the study. After 12 months, 89 patients (52.4%) assigned to PVI with PWI were free from recurrent atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic medication after a single procedure, compared with 90 (53.6%) assigned to PVI alone (between-group difference, -1.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73-1.36]; P = .98). Of the secondary end points, 9 showed no significant difference, including freedom from atrial arrhythmia with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures (58.2% for PVI with PWI vs 60.1% for PVI alone; HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.79-1.55]; P = .57), freedom from symptomatic AF with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures (68.2% vs 72%; HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.80-1.78]; P = .36) or AF burden (0% [IQR, 0%-2.3%] vs 0% [IQR, 0%-2.8%], P = .47). Mean procedural times (142 [SD, 69] vs 121 [SD, 57] minutes, P < .001) and ablation times (34 [SD, 21] vs 28 [SD, 12] minutes, P < .001) were significantly shorter for PVI alone. There were 6 complications for PVI with PWI and 4 for PVI alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing first-time catheter ablation for persistent AF, the addition of PWI to PVI alone did not significantly improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months compared with PVI alone. These findings do not support the empirical inclusion of PWI for ablation of persistent AF. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001436460.

Augmented wide area circumferential catheter ablation for reduction of atrial fibrillation recurrence (AWARE) trial: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after a pulmonary vein isolation procedure is often due to electrical reconnection of the pulmonary veins. Repeat ablation procedures may improve freedom from AF but are associated with increased risks and health care costs. A novel ablation strategy in which patients receive "augmented" ablation lesions has the potential to reduce the risk of AF recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The Augmented Wide Area Circumferential Catheter Ablation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence (AWARE) Trial was designed to evaluate whether an augmented wide-area circumferential antral (WACA) ablation strategy will result in fewer atrial arrhythmia recurrences in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF, compared with a conventional WACA strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: The AWARE trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that has completed recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02150902). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control arm (single WACAlesion set) or the interventional arm (augmented- double WACA lesion set performed after the initial WACA). The primary outcome was atrial tachyarrhythmia (AA; atrial tachycardia [AT], atrial flutter [AFl] or AF) recurrence between days 91 and 365 post catheter ablation. Patient follow-up included 14-day continuous ambulatory ECG monitoring at 3, 6, and 12 months after catheter ablation. Three questionnaires were administered during the trial- the EuroQuol-5D (EQ-5D) quality of life scale, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Severity of Atrial Fibrillation scale, and a patient satisfaction scale. DISCUSSION: The AWARE trial was designed to evaluate whether a novel approach to catheter ablation reduced the risk of AA recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF.

Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: A multicenter randomized trial of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) versus PVI with posterior left atrial wall isolation (PWI) - The CAPLA study.

BACKGROUND: The success of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is reduced in persistent AF (PsAF) compared to paroxysmal AF. Adjunctive ablation strategies have failed to show consistent incremental benefit over PVI alone in randomized studies. The left atrial posterior wall is a potential source of non-PV triggers and atrial substrate which may promote the initiation and maintenance of PsAF. Adding posterior wall isolation (PWI) to PVI had shown conflicting outcomes, with earlier studies confounded by methodological limitations. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether combining PWI with PVI significantly improves freedom from AF recurrence, compared to PVI alone, in patients with PsAF. METHODS: This is a multi-center, prospective, international randomized clinical trial. 338 patients with symptomatic PsAF refractory to anti-arrhythmic therapy (AAD) will be randomized to either PVI alone or PVI with PWI in a 1:1 ratio. PVI involves wide antral circumferential pulmonary vein (PV) isolation, utilizing contact force sensing ablation catheters. PWI involves the creation of a floor line connecting the inferior aspect of the PVs, and a roof line connecting the superior aspect of the PVs. Follow up is for a minimum of 12 months with rhythm monitoring via implantable cardiac device and/or loop monitor, or frequent intermittent monitoring with an ECG device. The primary outcome is freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmia of > 30 seconds off AAD at 12 months, after a single ablation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized study aims to determine the success and safety of adjunctive PWI to PVI in patients with persistent AF.

Comparative effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy by location of myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VANISH trial.

AIMS: Complexity of the ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate and the size and thickness of infarction area border zones differ based on location of myocardial infarctions (MIs). These differences may translate into heterogeneity in the effectiveness of treatments. This study aims to examine the influence of infarct location on the effectiveness of VT ablation in comparison with escalated pharmacological therapy in patients with prior MI and antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory VT. METHODS AND RESULTS: VANISH trial participants were categorized based on the presence or absence of an inferior MI scar. Inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox models were calculated for each subgroup. Of 259 randomized patients (median age 69.8 years, 7.0% women), 135 had an inferior MI and 124 had a non-inferior MI. Among patients with an inferior MI, no statistically significant difference in the composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock, and VT storm was detected between treatment arms [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-1.20]. In contrast, patients with non-inferior MIs had a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the primary outcome with ablation (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.86). In a sensitivity analysis of anterior MI patients (n = 83), a trend towards a reduction in the primary outcome with ablation was detected (aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.23-1.09). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of VT ablation versus escalated AADs varies based on the location of the MI. Patients with MI scars located only in non-inferior regions of the ventricles derive greater benefit from VT ablation in comparison to escalation of AADs in reducing VT-related events.

Ventricular tachycardia characteristics and outcomes with catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic therapy: insights from the VANISH trial.

AIMS: Catheter ablation is superior to escalated antiarrhythmic drugs among patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) and prior myocardial infarction (MI). However, it is uncertain whether clinical VT characteristics, should influence choice of therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether presentation with electrical storm and the clinical VT cycle length predicted response to ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients enrolled in the Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation vs. Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Ischaemic Heart Disease (VANISH) trial were included. The association between VT cycle length and presentation with electrical storm and the primary outcome of death, subsequent VT storm or appropriate ICD shock was evaluated. Among the study population of 259 patients, escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy had worse outcomes for those presenting with a VT cycle length >400 ms [<150 b.p.m., 89/259, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7 (1.02-3.13)]. This effect was more pronounced among those taking amiodarone at baseline [HR of 2.22 (1.19-4.16)]. Presentation with VT storm (32/259) did not affect the primary outcome between groups. However, those presenting with VT storm on amiodarone had a trend towards worse outcomes with escalated antiarrhythmic therapy [HR 4.31 (0.55-33.93)]. CONCLUSION: The VT cycle length can influence response to either ablation or escalated drug therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. Those with slow VT had improved outcomes with ablation. Patients presenting with electrical storm demonstrated similar outcomes to the overall trial population, with a trend to benefit of catheter ablation, particularly in those on amiodarone.

Canadian Registry of Electronic Device Outcomes: remote monitoring outcomes in the Abbott battery performance alert-a multicentre cohort.

AIMS: Cardiac implantable electronic devices with device advisories have the potential of device malfunction. Remote monitoring (RM) of devices has been suggested to allow the identification of abnormal device performance and permit early intervention. We sought to describe the outcomes of patients with and without RM in devices subject to the Abbott Premature Battery Depletion (PBD) advisory with data from a Canadian registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with an Abbott device subject to the PBD advisory from nine implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implanting centres in Canada were included in the registry. The use of RM was identified from baseline and follow-up data in the registry. The primary outcome was detection of PBD and all-cause mortality. A total of 2666 patients were identified with a device subject to the advisory. In all, 1687 patients (63.2%) had RM at baseline. There were 487 deaths during follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 0.7 years, mortality was higher in those without a remote monitor compared with RM at baseline (24.7% vs. 14.5%; P < 0.001). Pre-mature battery depletion was identified in 36 patients (2.1%) with RM vs. 7 (0.7%) without RM (P = 0.004). Time to battery replacement was significantly reduced in patients on RM (median 5 vs. 13 days, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of RM in patients with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy under advisory improved detection of PBD, time to device replacement, and was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. The factors influencing the association with mortality are unknown and deserve further study.

Canadian national electrophysiology ablation registry report 2011-2016.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Interventional cardiac electrophysiology (EP) is a rapidly evolving field in Canada; a nationwide registry was established in 2011 to conduct a periodic review of resource allocation. METHODS: The registry collects annual data on EP lab infrastructure, imaging, tools, human resources, procedural volumes, success rates, and wait times. Leading physicians from each EP lab were contacted electronically; participation was voluntary. RESULTS: All Canadian EP centres were identified (n = 30); 50 and 45 % of active centres participated in the last 2 instalments of the registry. A mean of 508 ± 270 standard and complex catheter ablation procedures were reported annually for 2015-2016 by all responding centres. The most frequently performed ablation targets atrial fibrillation (PVI) arrhythmia accounting for 36 % of all procedures (mean = 164 ± 85). The number of full time physicians ranges between 1 and 7 per centre, (mean = 4). The mean wait time to see an electrophysiologist for an initial non-urgent consult is 23 weeks. The wait time between an EP consult and ablation date is 17.8 weeks for simple ablation, and 30.1 weeks for AF ablation. On average centres have 2 (range: 1-4) rooms equipped for ablations; each centre uses the EP lab an average of 7 shifts per week. While diagnostic studies and radiofrequency ablations are performed in all centres, point-by-point cryoablation is available in 85 % centres; 38 % of the respondents use circular ablation techniques. CONCLUSIONS: This initiative provides contemporary data on invasive electrophysiology lab practices. The EP registry provides activity benchmarks on national trends and practices.

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective approach to management of this problem is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock. RESULTS: Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).

SVT discrimination algorithms significantly reduce the rate of inappropriate therapy in the setting of modern-day delayed high-rate detection programming.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) programming involving delayed high-rate detection and use of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) discriminators has significantly reduced the rate of inappropriate shocks. The extent to which SVT algorithms alone reduce inappropriate therapies is poorly understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: PainFree SST enrolled 2770 patients with a single- or dual-chamber ICD or cardiac resynchronization defibrillator. Patients were followed for 22 ± 9 months with SVT discriminators on in 96% of patients. Sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias and SVT episodes were adjudicated by an independent physician committee. For this analysis, all episodes were subjected to postprocessing computer simulation with SVT discriminators off with and without delayed high-rate detection criteria (ventricular fibrillation zone only, 30/40 at 320 ms). There were 3282 adjudicated SVT episodes of which 115 resulted in an ICD shock and 113 received only ATP (2-year inappropriate shock and therapy rates of 3.1% and 4.1%). Therapy was appropriately withheld for the remaining 3054 SVT episodes. With both SVT discriminators and delayed high-rate detection simulated off, the 2-year inappropriate therapy rate would have been 22.9% (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.20-7.49). With SVT discriminators simulated off and delayed high-rate detection simulated on in all patients, the 2-year rate would have been 6.4% (HR = 1.63; CI: 1.44-1.85). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SVT discriminators has a significant role in reducing the rate of inappropriate ICD therapy even in the setting of delayed high-rate detection settings. Deactivating SVT discriminators would have resulted in an overall increase in the inappropriate ICD therapy rate by 63% and 524% with and without delayed high-rate detection programming, respectively.

Optimum lesion set and predictors of outcome in persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: a meta-regression analysis.

AIMS: Ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) has been performed by many techniques with varying success rates. This may be due to ablation techniques, patient demographics, comorbidities, and trial design. We conducted a meta-regression of studies of PsAF ablation to elucidate the factors affecting atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence. METHODS AND RESULTS: Databases were searched for prospective studies of PsAF ablation. A meta-regression was performed. Fifty-eight studies (6767 patients) were included. Complex fractionated atrial electrogram (CFAE) ablation reduced freedom from AF by 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) -15 to -2.3, P = 0.009). Left atrial appendage [LAA isolation (three study arms)] increased freedom from AF by 39.5% (95% CI 9.1-78.4, P = 0.008). Posterior wall isolation (PWI) (eight study arms) increased freedom from AF by 19.4% (95% CI 3.3-38.1, P = 0.017). Linear ablation or ganglionated plexi ablation resulted in no significant effect on freedom from AF. More extensive ablation increased intraprocedural AF termination; however, intraprocedural AF termination was not associated with improved outcomes. Increased left atrial diameter was associated with a reduction in freedom from AF by 4% (95% CI -6.8% to -1.1%, P = 0.007) for every 1 mm increase in diameter. CONCLUSION: Linear ablation, PWI, and CFAE ablation improves intraprocedural AF termination, but such termination does not predict better long-term outcomes. Study arms including PWI or LAA isolation in the lesion set were associated with improved outcomes in terms of freedom from AF; however, further randomized trials are required before these can be routinely recommended. Left atrial size is the most important marker of AF chronicity influencing outcomes.

Estimating the incidence of atrial fibrillation in single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients.

BACKGROUND: Atrial arrhythmias are associated with major adverse cardiovascular events. Recent reports among implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients have demonstrated a high prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), predominantly in dual-chamber recipients. AF incidence among patients with single-chamber systems (approximately 50% of all ICDs) is currently unknown. The objective was to estimate the prevalence of new-onset AF among single-chamber ICD patients by observing the rates of new atrial tachycardia (AT)/AF among a propensity scoring matched cohort of dual-chamber ICD patients from the PainFree SmartShock technology study, to better inform screening initiatives. METHODS: Among 2770 patients enrolled, 1862 single-chamber, dual-chamber, and cardiac resynchronization therapy subjects with no prior history of atrial tachyarrhythmias were included. Daily AT/AF burden was estimated using a propensity score weighted model against data from dual-chamber ICDs. RESULTS: Over 22 ± 9 months of follow-up, the estimated incidence of AT/AF-lasting at least 6 min, 6 h, and 24 h per day -in the single-chamber cohort was 22.0, 9.8, and 6.3%, whereas among dual-chamber patients, the prevalence was 26.6, 13.1, and 7.1%, respectively. Initiation of oral anticoagulation was estimated to occur in 9.8% of the propensity matched single-chamber cohort, which was higher than the actual observed rate of 6.0%. Stroke and transient ischemic attack occurred at low rates in all device subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial arrhythmias occur frequently, and significant underutilization of anticoagulation is suggested in single-chamber ICD recipients. Routine screening for AF should be considered among single-chamber ICD recipients.

Outcomes of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation studies are affected more by study design and patient mix than ablation technique.

OBJECTIVE: We tested whether ablation methodology and study design can explain the varying outcomes in terms of atrial fibrillation (AF)-free survival at 1 year. BACKGROUND: There have been numerous paroxysmal AF ablation trials, which are heterogeneous in their use of different ablation techniques and study design. A useful approach to understanding how these factors influence outcome is to dismantle the trials into individual arms and reconstitute them as a large meta-regression. METHODS: Data were collected from 66 studies (6941 patients). With freedom from AF as the dependent variable, we performed meta-regression using the individual study arm as the unit. RESULTS: Success rates did not change regardless of the technique used to produce pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Neither was adjunctive lesion sets associated with any improvement in outcome. Studies that included more males and fewer hypertensive patients were found more likely to report better outcomes. The electrocardiography method selected to assess outcome also plays an important role. Outcomes were worse in studies that used regular telemonitoring (by 23%; P < 0.001) or in patients who had implantable loop recorders (by 21%; P = 0.006), rather than those with the less thorough periodic Holter monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of AF ablation studies involving PVI are not affected by the technologies used to produce PVI. Neither do adjunctive lesion sets change the outcome. Achieving high success rates in these studies appears to be dependent more on patient mix and on the thoroughness of AF detection protocols. These should be carefully considered when quoting the success rates of AF ablation procedures that are derived from such studies.

Mexiletine or catheter ablation after amiodarone failure in the VANISH trial.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with ischemic heart disease and ventricular tachycardia (VT) refractory to high dose amiodarone, the two most common therapeutic options are adjunctive mexiletine therapy or catheter ablation. There are little existing data on the efficacy of these strategies. We examined the relative efficacy of adjunctive mexiletine and catheter ablation among patients enrolled in the VANISH trial. METHODS: All subjects enrolled in the VANISH trial who had VT refractory to high dose (≥ 300 mg daily) amiodarone at baseline were included. Per protocol, subjects randomized to escalated drug therapy received adjunctive mexiletine. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 259 patients were receiving high-dose amiodarone at baseline and 11 were randomized to escalated therapy with mexiletine and 8 to ablation. The adjunctive mexiletine group had a higher rate of the primary composite outcome (death, VT storm, or appropriate shock) in comparison to catheter ablation (HR 6.87 [2.08-22.8]). Over 90% of the patients in the adjunctive mexiletine/group experienced a primary endpoint during a median 9.2 months' follow-up. There was no difference in the rate of adverse events between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Mexiletine has limited efficacy in the treatment of recurrent VT despite high-dose amiodarone therapy, in patients with ischemic heart disease. Catheter ablation is a superior strategy in this population.

Comparison of ICD shock rates in Japanese and non-Japanese patients in the PainFree SST study.

BACKGROUND: The PainFree Smart Shock Technology (SST) study showed a low implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) inappropriate shock rate. However, the majority of patients were from Western countries with patient characteristics different from those in Japan. ICD shock rates using the novel SST algorithms in Japanese patients are still unknown. METHODS: All 2,770 patients in the PainFree SST study (Japan [JPN]: N = 181, other geographies [OJPN]: N = 2,589) were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Japanese patients had higher average left ventricular ejection fraction (P < 0.0001), higher prevalence of secondary prevention indications (P < 0.0001), nonischemic cardiomyopathy (P < 0.0001), and permanent atrial fibrillation (P < 0.0001). The appropriate shock rate at 12 months was not different between JPN and OJPN: 6.4% and 6.3%, respectively (P = 0.95). The inappropriate shock rate at 12 months was significantly higher in Japanese patients (2.9% vs 1.7%, P = 0.017). However, after propensity score matching to adjust for the difference in baseline characteristics, the difference in inappropriate shock rate was not statistically significant (P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the appropriate shock rate between Japan and other geographies. The inappropriate shock rate in Japan was low, although it was slightly higher compared to other geographies due to baseline characteristics, including a higher prevalence of permanent AF. There was not a statistically significant difference after adjusting for baseline characteristics.

Inappropriate shocks in single-chamber and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Single-chamber (VR-ICD) and subcutaneous (S-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are effective to protect patients against sudden death but expose them to higher risk of inappropriate shock (IS). We sought to quantify the annual rate and influencing factors of ISs in VR- and S-ICDs from the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for full text articles with IS rates. Poisson distribution estimated proportion of patients with ISs; rates were annualized based on follow-up duration. Random effects meta-analysis accounted for study-to-study variation. Out of 3264 articles, 16 qualified for the meta-analysis. Across studies, 6.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.1-7.9%] of patients received an IS per year. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated that IS rates were lower in more recent studies [rate ratio (RR) per year: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.98; P = 0.01] and trended lower in studies with longer follow-up (RR per year: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.60-1.01; P = 0.06). Use of S-ICDs (RR: 1.81, 95% CI: 0.86-3.81; P = 0.12) and ventricular tachycardia zone programmed on (RR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.65-1.97; P = 0.66) were not associated with a significantly increased change in risk. The IS rate observed in one of the more recent studies was significantly lower than predicted after accounting for covariates (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.14-0.60; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive review of the literature shows that 6.4% of patients with ICDs experienced their first IS annually. One of the 16 studies was better than predicted with the lowest reported rate (1.9%) and could not be explained by timing of the study or other covariates.

Radiofrequency ablation vs antiarrhythmic drugs as first-line treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (RAAFT-2): a randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disorder seen in clinical practice. Antiarrhythmic drugs are effective for reduction of recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF. Radiofrequency ablation is an accepted therapy in patients for whom antiarrhythmic drugs have failed; however, its role as a first-line therapy needs further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiofrequency ablation with antiarrhythmic drugs (standard therapy) in treating patients with paroxysmal AF as a first-line therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized clinical trial involving 127 treatment-naive patients with paroxysmal AF were randomized at 16 centers in Europe and North America to received either antiarrhythmic therapy or ablation. The first patient was enrolled July 27, 2006; the last patient, January 29, 2010. The last follow-up was February 16, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Sixty-one patients in the antiarrhythmic drug group and 66 in the radiofrequency ablation group were followed up for 24 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The time to the first documented atrial tachyarrhythmia of more than 30 seconds (symptomatic or asymptomatic AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia), detected by either scheduled or unscheduled electrocardiogram, Holter, transtelephonic monitor, or rhythm strip, was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic recurrences of atrial tachyarrhythmias and quality of life measures assessed by the EQ-5D tool. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (72.1%) in the antiarrhythmic group and in 36 patients (54.5%) in the ablation group experienced the primary efficacy outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.35-0.90]; P = .02). For the secondary outcomes, 59% in the drug group and 47% in the ablation group experienced the first recurrence of symptomatic AF, atrial flutter, atrial tachycardia (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33-0.95]; P = .03). No deaths or strokes were reported in either group; 4 cases of cardiac tamponade were reported in the ablation group. In the standard treatment group, 26 patients (43%) underwent ablation after 1-year. Quality of life was moderately impaired at baseline in both groups and improved at the 1 year follow-up. However, improvement was not significantly different among groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with paroxysmal AF without previous antiarrhythmic drug treatment, radiofrequency ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs resulted in a lower rate of recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmias at 2 years. However, recurrence was frequent in both groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00392054.

Navigating the Landscape of Medical Device Advisories: A Special Report From the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are often important for regulating cardiac rate and rhythm. Pacemakers and defibrillators are among the top 10 most implanted medical devices, with > 1.5 million devices implanted annually. Although millions of patients have benefited with improved quality of life and survival, CIED systems are increasingly complex and do not always perform according to expectations. Advisory notices communicate important information about the safety and performance of a medical device to health care providers and patients. Medical device recalls are common, with > 35 unique device recalls in the past 5 years. From an ethical standpoint, CIED recalls highlight a range of considerations including the consent process, duty to report, how best to promote autonomous decision-making, trust in the health care system, as well as disproportionate effects of these considerations on equity-deserving groups. The purpose of the current article is to review and advise regarding the process around medical device advisory and recall, with a specific focus on clinicians caring for patients affected by these devices. We have sought the input of a lawyer, a patient advocacy group, and an ethicist to guide the clinical management of, and communications regarding, device recalls and advisories. Diligent surveillance and a clear, transparent patient consent process regarding these small but potentially serious device anomalies is paramount in ensuring patients believe they are safe and informed. Meaningful patient engagement helps to ensure optimal communication and disclosure mechanisms before implantation and throughout follow-up, accessibility of information in the initial implant and recall action process, and trust in health care systems and providers.