Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator for spontaneous coronary artery dissection with ventricular fibrillation: A report of two cases.

The efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for secondary prevention in spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) with ventricular fibrillation (VF) remains unclear. Herein, we report two cases of SCAD. In both cases, VF and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were noted, which were previously reported to increase the risk of VF recurrence and sudden cardiac death (SCD). Hence, a subcutaneous (S)-ICD was implanted for secondary prevention in each case. Previous studies have suggested that among patients with SCAD, those with a history of VF and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <50% are at a higher risk of ventricular tachycardia or VF recurrence, whereas those with a history of smoking, STEMI, onset during pregnancy, recurrent SCAD, LVEF <50%, and left coronary artery main trunk lesion or proximal lesion are at a higher risk of SCD. Moreover, S-ICD is associated with fewer complications than transvenous-ICD, and the rate of inappropriate shock is decreasing. Therefore, risk stratification and consideration of S-ICD implantation in high-risk patients may be an important therapeutic strategy for the secondary prevention of SCAD. Learning objective: Previous studies have not shown the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). Meanwhile, it was also suggested that patients with SCAD, including those with a history of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and ST-elevation myocardial infarction, are at high risk of VF recurrence or sudden cardiac death. For the secondary prevention of SCAD with VF, subcutaneous ICD implantation in high-risk patients may be an important strategy.

Optimal Anticoagulant Strategy for Periprocedural Management of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

This network meta-analysis was performed to rank the safety and efficacy of periprocedural anticoagulant strategies in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing anticoagulant regimens in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation up to July 1, 2021. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were thromboembolic and major bleeding events, respectively, and the net clinical benefit was investigated as the primary-outcome composite. Seventeen studies were included (n = 6950). The mean age ranged from 59 to 70 years; 74% of patients were men and 55% had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Compared with the uninterrupted vitamin-K antagonist strategy, the odds ratios for the composite of primary safety and efficacy outcomes were 0.61 (95%CI: 0.31-1.17) with uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants, 0.63 (95%CI: 0.26-1.54) with interrupted direct oral anticoagulants, and 8.02 (95%CI: 2.35-27.45) with interrupted vitamin-K antagonists. Uninterrupted dabigatran significantly reduced the risk of the composite of primary safety and efficacy outcomes (odds ratio, 0.21; 95%CI, 0.08-0.55). Uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants are preferred alternatives to uninterrupted vitamin-K antagonists. Interrupted direct oral anticoagulants may be feasible as alternatives. Our results support the use of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants as the optimal periprocedural anticoagulant strategy for patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation.