Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted health care delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for arrhythmia patients. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Systematic Review for the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.

BACKGROUND: Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome. AIM: Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms. METHODS: Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function. RESULTS: Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; P=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; P<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; P<0.0001), and a second "minimal overlap" analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; P<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; P<0.001).

Mortality and Cerebrovascular Events After Heart Rhythm Disorder Management Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of rates and causes of hard, patient-centered outcomes of death and cerebrovascular events (CVEs) after heart rhythm disorder management (HRDM) procedures is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs in electrophysiology laboratories. Our primary aim was to assess and characterize death and CVEs (stroke or transient ischemic attack) after HRDM procedures over a 17-year period. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing HRDM procedures between January 2000 and November 2016 at the Mayo Clinic. Patients from all 3 tertiary academic centers (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) were included in the study. All in-hospital deaths and CVEs after HRDM procedures were identified and were further characterized as directly or indirectly related to the HRDM procedure. Subgroup analysis of death and CVE rates was performed for ablation, device implantation, electrophysiology study, lead extraction, and defibrillation threshold testing procedures. RESULTS: A total of 48 913 patients (age, 65.7±6.6 years; 64% male) who underwent a total of 62 065 HRDM procedures were included in the study. The overall mortality and CVE rates in the cohort were 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.42) and 0.12% (95% CI, 0.09-0.16), respectively. Patients undergoing lead extraction had the highest overall mortality rate at 1.9% (95% CI, 1.34-2.61) and CVE rate at 0.62% (95% CI, 0.32-1.07). Among patients undergoing HRDM procedures, 48% of deaths directly related to the HDRM procedure were among patients undergoing device implantation procedures. Overall, cardiac tamponade was the most frequent direct cause of death (40%), and infection was the most common indirect cause of death (29%). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.76%, with the highest being in lead extraction procedures (3.08%), followed by device implantation procedures (0.94%). CONCLUSIONS: Half of the deaths directly related to an HRDM procedure were among the patients undergoing device implantation procedures, with cardiac tamponade being the most common cause of death. This highlights the importance of the development of protocols for the quick identification and management of cardiac tamponade even in procedures typically believed to be lower risk such as device implantation.

Systematic Review for the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.

BACKGROUND: Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome. AIM: Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms. METHODS: Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function. RESULTS: Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; p=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; p<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; p<0.0001), and a second "minimal overlap" analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; p<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; p<0.001).

Systematic review for the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guideline for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.

BACKGROUND: Although large randomized clinical trials have found that primary prevention use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) improves survival in patients with cardiomyopathy and heart failure symptoms, patients who receive ICDs in practice are often older and have more comorbidities than patients who were enrolled in the clinical trials. In addition, there is a debate among clinicians on the usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome. AIM: Our analysis has 2 objectives. First, to evaluate whether ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) induced with programmed electrostimulation in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome identify a higher risk group that may require additional testing or therapies. Second, to evaluate whether implantation of an ICD is associated with a clinical benefit in older patients and patients with comorbidities who would otherwise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms. METHODS: Traditional statistical approaches were used to address 1) whether programmed ventricular stimulation identifies a higher-risk group in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and 2) whether ICD implantation for primary prevention is associated with improved outcomes in older patients (>75 years of age) and patients with significant comorbidities who would otherwise meet criteria for ICD implantation on the basis of symptoms or left ventricular function. RESULTS: Evidence from 6 studies of 1138 asymptomatic patients were identified. Brugada syndrome with inducible VA on electrophysiological study was identified in 390 (34.3%) patients. To minimize patient overlap, the primary analysis used 5 of the 6 studies and found an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% CI: 0.63-8.66; p=0.2) for major arrhythmic events (sustained VAs, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate ICD therapy) in asymptomatic patients with Brugada syndrome and inducible VA on electrophysiological study versus those without inducible VA. Ten studies were reviewed that evaluated ICD use in older patients and 4 studies that evaluated unique patient populations were identified. In our analysis, ICD implantation was associated with improved survival (overall hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.83; p<0.001). Ten studies were identified that evaluated ICD use in patients with various comorbidities including renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, heart disease, and others. A random effects model demonstrated that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.79; p<0.0001), and a second "minimal overlap" analysis also found that ICD use was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.82; p<0.0001). In 5 studies that included data on renal dysfunction, ICD implantation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (overall hazard ratio: 0.71; 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.85; p<0.001).

Internal atrial and ventricular defibrillation during electrophysiology procedures.

Over the last twenty years internal defibrillation has evolved from an experimental technique into an important adjunctive procedure in the electrophysiology laboratory. Internal deflbrillation is used for treating persistent atrial fibrillation and refractory ventricular arrhythmias. Atrial defibrillation can be performed with several electrode configurations but generally shocks from 1 to 50 joules are delivered between electrodes placed in the coronary sinus and lateral wall of the right atrium. Ventricular defibrillation is usually performed with electrodes in the right ventricle and superior vena cava, although "unipolar" configurations with an internal ventricular electrode and a skin electrode can be used. Currently, internal deflbrillation can be required in 5-10% of cases within the electrophysiology laboratory and will become more commonly used as electrophysiologists perform more complex catheter ablation procedures.

Atrial fibrillation ablation leads to long-term improvement of quality of life and reduced utilization of healthcare resources.

In some patients, rapid activation from one or several foci can lead to atrial fibrillation. This study evaluated long-term changes in quality of life and healthcare resource utilization in patients with atrial fibrillation treated by ablation of focal triggers. Thirty-three patients underwent ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Health surveys (SF-36) were obtained at baseline, and after 1 year and 3 years of follow-up. Health care costs were measured for the 3 years before and after ablation. Ablation was successful in 82%, partially successful in 12% (no sustained episodes but on antiarrhythmic drug therapy), and unsuccessful in 6% of patients. The average number of ablation procedures was 1.6 +/- 0.6 per patient. After ablation, patients reported significantly improved quality of life in all SF-36 categories except bodily pain. Healthcare resource utilization was significantly reduced after ablation (Clinic visits: 7.4 +/- 2.5 per year vs. 1.1 +/- 0.6 per year, p < 0.05; Emergency room visits: 1.7 +/- 0.90 per year vs. 0.03 +/- 0.17 per year, p < 0.05; Hospitalization: 1.6 +/- 0.81 vs. 0, p < 0.05). Cost of healthcare (not including procedural costs) was significantly reduced after ablation (Pre-ablation: 1,920 +/- 889 dollars/year vs. post-ablation: 87 +/- 68 dollars/year; p < 0.01). Procedural cost of ablation was 17,173 +/- 2,466 dollars/patient. Ablation of focal triggers of atrial fibrillation is associated with a sustained improvement in quality of life. Although the initial cost of ablation is high, after ablation, utilization of healthcare resources is significantly reduced.