Implementation of an intravenous sotalol initiation protocol: Implications for feasibility, safety, and length of stay.

INTRODUCTION: Oral sotalol initiation requires a multiple-day, inpatient admission to monitor for QT prolongation during loading. A 1-day intravenous (IV) sotalol loading protocol was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in March 2020, but limited data on clinical use and administration currently exists. This study describes implementation of an IV sotalol protocol within an integrated health system, provides initial efficacy and safety outcomes, and examines length of stay (LOS) compared with oral sotalol initiation. METHODS: IV sotalol was administered according to a prespecified initiation protocol to adult patients with refractory atrial or ventricular arrhythmias. Baseline characteristics, safety and feasibility outcomes, and LOS were compared with patients receiving oral sotalol over a similar time period. RESULTS: From January 2021 to June 2022, a total of 29 patients (average age 66.0 ± 8.6 years, 27.6% women) underwent IV sotalol load and 20 patients (average age 60.4 ± 13.9 years, 65.0% women) underwent oral sotalol load. The load was successfully completed in 22/29 (75.9%) patients receiving IV sotalol and 20/20 (100%) of patients receiving oral sotalol, although 7/20 of the oral sotalol patients (35.0%) required dose reduction. Adverse events interrupting IV sotalol infusion included bradycardia (seven patients, 24.1%) and QT prolongation (three patients, 10.3%). No patients receiving IV or oral sotalol developed sustained ventricular arrhythmias before discharge. LOS for patients completing IV load was 2.6 days shorter (mean 1.0 vs. 3.6, p < .001) compared with LOS with oral load. CONCLUSION: IV sotalol loading has a safety profile that is similar to oral sotalol. It significantly shortens hospital LOS, potentially leading to large cost savings.

Repeat pulmonary vein isolation with or without FIRM-guided ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation with pulmonary vein reconnection.

INTRODUCTION: Focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM) ablation can be used to target nonpulmonary vein (PV) sources of atrial fibrillation (AF). No published studies have compared freedom from atrial fibrillation (FFAF) after pulmonary vein reisolation (PVRI) plus FIRM to PVRI alone in patients with reconnected PVs undergoing repeat ablation. METHODS: A 3:1 matched retrospective cohort study was performed on 21 patients with recurrent AF and PV reconnection who underwent PVRI plus FIRM-guided ablation and 63 patients with recurrent AF treated with PVRI alone at a single institution. All patients in the PVRI-alone cohort had cryoballoon PVRI at the time of repeat ablation without additional lesion sets for AF. Cases were matched based on the type of AF (paroxysmal vs nonparoxysmal), left atrial diameter (±4 mm), left ventricular ejection fraction (±10%), duration of AF (±18 months), and age (±5 years). The primary endpoint was FFAF after a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: Out of 53 total FIRM cases performed at Northwestern Memorial Hospital between 2015 and 2017, 21 patients had PVRI plus FIRM for recurrent AF with PV reconnection. These patients had an average of 3.3 ± 2.1 rotors (60% left atrial) ablated. Over a median follow-up time of 24.7 months (interquartile range, 13-36 months), patients in the PVRI-alone cohort demonstrated a higher rate of FFAF (n = 35; 55.6%) than patients in the PVRI plus FIRM-guided ablation cohort (n = 7; 33.3%) (logrank P = .049). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing repeat ablation for AF with PV reconnection, PVRI plus FIRM did not increase FFAF compared to PVRI alone.

Characterization of atrial flutter after pulmonary vein isolation by cryoballoon ablation.

PURPOSE: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) by cryoballoon ablation (CBA) has emerged as a commonly used technique for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. We sought to explore the incidence, risk factors for, and characterization of post-CBA-PVI atrial flutter. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective registry of patients who underwent CBA-PVI at a single institution. We included patients with more than 3 months of follow-up data and excluded those with a history of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation. Locations of post-CBA-PVI atrial flutters were determined by analysis of intracardiac electrograms and electroanatomic maps. RESULTS: There were 556 patients included in the analysis. The mean age was 61.0 ± 10.6 years, 67.4% were male, the number of failed anti-arrhythmic medication trials was 1.2 ± 0.8, and the duration of atrial fibrillation pre-CBA was 54.3 ± 69.1 months. The 28-mm second-generation cryoballoon was used almost exclusively. Over a median follow-up time of 22.7 ± 17.9 months, 25 (4.5%) patients developed post-CBA-PVI atrial flutter after the 3-month blanking period. Of those 25 patients, 15 (60%) underwent subsequent ablation to eliminate the atrial flutter circuit, with 60% being CTI-dependent and the remainder left-sided (p value not significant). Risk factors for the development of atrial flutter included NYHA class ≥ 2 (OR 5.02, p < 0.001), presence of baseline bundle branch block (OR 4.33, p = 0.006), and left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% (OR 3.36, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of post-CBA-PVI atrial flutter is low after the blanking period even with medium-term follow-up. The origin of atrial flutter is equally divided between the right and left atria.

Outcomes Associated With Electrical Cardioversion for Atrial Fibrillation When Performed Autonomously by an Advanced Practice Provider.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of elective electrical cardioversion (CV) for atrial fibrillation (AF) when performed autonomously by a trained advanced practice provider (APP) using a guideline-directed protocol. BACKGROUND: APPs have emerged as an integral part of the cardiovascular team. METHODS: A licensed advanced practice nurse-clinical nurse specialist was trained and obtained credentials to perform CVs. The advanced practice nurse performed 415 CVs autonomously (APP group) in a noninvasive procedure room with an electrophysiologist (EP) immediately available in an adjacent electrophysiology laboratory. The APP performed a history and physical examination, obtained informed consent, reviewed each patient with the supervising EP, and performed the CV. An anesthesiologist administered sedation. Outcomes were compared with 387 CVs performed by an MD when the APP was not available (MD group). Patient satisfaction scores were compared before and after the APP-directed CVs were performed. RESULTS: The proportion of patients discharged in sinus rhythm was the same in the APP group as it was in the MD group (95% vs. 96%, respectively; p = 0.49). There were 4 adverse events in the CVs performed by the APP: 1 transient ischemic attack and 3 occurrences of bradycardia requiring atropine or other medication. There was 1 adverse event in the MD group, which was hypotension requiring vasopressor initiation. Patient satisfaction scores were stable after initiation of APP-driven cardioversions. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate clinical training, an APP can safely perform CVs autonomously, using a protocol that includes a guideline-directed procedural checklist and physician supervision, with excellent patient satisfaction and outcomes.