Advances in Cardiac Electrophysiology.

Despite the global COVID-19 pandemic, during the past 2 years, there have been numerous advances in our understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms and diagnosis and in new therapies. We increased our understanding of risk factors and mechanisms of atrial arrhythmias, the prediction of atrial arrhythmias, response to treatment, and outcomes using machine learning and artificial intelligence. There have been new technologies and techniques for atrial fibrillation ablation, including pulsed field ablation. There have been new randomized trials in atrial fibrillation ablation, giving insight about rhythm control, and long-term outcomes. There have been advances in our understanding of treatment of inherited disorders such as catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. We have gained new insights into the recurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the setting of various conditions such as myocarditis and inherited cardiomyopathic disorders. Novel computational approaches may help predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and localize arrhythmias to guide ablation. There are further advances in our understanding of noninvasive radiotherapy. We have increased our understanding of the role of His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing to maintain synchronous ventricular activation. There have also been significant advances in the defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, remote monitoring, and infection prevention. There have been advances in our understanding of the pathways and mechanisms involved in atrial and ventricular arrhythmogenesis.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Social Media Influence Does Not Reflect Scholarly or Clinical Activity in Real Life.

BACKGROUND: Social media has become a major source of communication in medicine. We aimed to understand the relationship between physicians' social media influence and their scholarly and clinical activity. METHODS: We identified attending US electrophysiologists on Twitter. We compared physician Twitter activity to (1) scholarly publication record (h-index) and (2) clinical volume according to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The ratio of observed versus expected (obs/exp) Twitter followers was calculated based on each scholarly (K-index) and clinical activity. RESULTS: We identified 284 physicians, with mean Twitter age of 5.0 (SD, 3.1) years and median 568 followers (25th, 75th: 195, 1146). They had a median 34.5 peer-reviewed articles (25th, 75th: 14, 105), 401 citations (25th, 75th: 102, 1677), and h-index 9 (25th, 75th: 4, 19.8). The median K-index was 0.4 (25th, 75th: 0.15, 1.0), ranging from 0.0008 to 29.2. The median number of electrophysiology procedures was 77 (25th, 75th: 0, 160) and evaluation and management visits 264 (25th, 75th: 59, 516) in 2017. The top 1% electrophysiologists for followers accounted for 20% of all followers, 17% of status updates, had a mean h-index of 6 (versus 15 for others, P=0.3), and accounted for 1% of procedural and evaluation and management volumes. They had a mean K-index of 21 (versus 0.77 for others, P<0.0001) and clinical obs/exp follower ratio of 17.9 and 18.1 for procedures and evaluation and management (P<0.001 each, versus others [0.81 for each]). CONCLUSIONS: Electrophysiologists are active on Twitter, with modest influence often representative of scholarly and clinical activity. However, the most influential physicians appear to have relatively modest scholarly and clinical activity.

Factors associated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation: Results from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II (ORBIT-AF II).

BACKGROUND: Several non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) alternatives to warfarin are available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). We aimed to describe the factors associated with selection of NOACs versus warfarin in patients with new onset AF. METHODS: The ORBIT-AF II study is a national, US, prospective, observational, cohort study of anticoagulation treatment in patients with AF receiving NOACs or warfarin in the United States from 2013 to 2016. We measured factors associated with oral anticoagulant selection in 4,670 patients recently diagnosed with AF. RESULTS: At baseline, 1,169 (25%) patients were started on warfarin and 3,501 (75%) on NOACs: of these latter, 259 (6%) were started on dabigatran, 1858 (40%) on rivaroxaban, and 1384 (30%) on apixaban. Those receiving NOACs were slightly younger patients (median age 71 vs 72, P<.0001); were less likely to have prior stroke (5.3% vs 8.6%; P<.0001) or prior bleeding (2.7% vs 4.4%; P=.005); had better kidney function (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 91 mL/min vs 80 mL/min, P<.0001); and had fewer patients at high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc score [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥75years, Diabetes mellitus, Prior stroke, transient ischemic attack {TIA}, or thromboembolism,Vascular disease, Age 65-74years, Sex category {female}] ≥2 in 86% vs 93%; P<.0001). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with NOAC selection versus warfarin included renal function, prior stroke or valve replacement, rhythm control AF management strategy, treatment by a cardiologist, and higher patient education level. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, up to three-fourths of patients with new-onset AF are now initially treated with a NOAC for stroke prevention. Those selected for NOAC treatment had lower stroke and bleeding risk profiles, were more likely treated by cardiologists, and had higher socioeconomic status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01701817.

Use and outcomes of antiarrhythmic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation: results from the ROCKET AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and anticoagulation are mainstays of atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To study the use and outcomes of AAD therapy in anticoagulated patients with AF. METHODS: Patients in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation trial (N = 14,264) were stratified by AAD use at baseline: amiodarone, other AAD, or no AAD. Multivariable adjustment was performed to compare stroke, bleeding, and death across AAD groups as well as across treatment assignment (rivaroxaban or warfarin). RESULTS: Of 14,264 patients randomized, 1681 (11.8%) were treated with an AAD (1144 [8%] with amiodarone and 537 [3.8%] with other AADs). Amiodarone-treated patients were less often female (38% vs 48%), had more persistent AF (64% vs 40%), and more concomitant heart failure (71% vs 41%) than were patients receiving other AADs. Patients receiving no AAD more closely resembled amiodarone-treated patients. Time in therapeutic range was significantly lower in warfarin-treated patients receiving amiodarone than in those receiving no AAD (50% vs 58%; P < .0001). Compared with no AAD, neither amiodarone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-1.31; P = .9) nor other AADs (adjusted HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.37-1.17; P = .15) were associated with increased mortality. Similar results were observed for embolic and bleeding outcomes. Treatment effects of rivaroxaban vs warfarin in patients receiving no AAD were consistent with results from the overall trial (primary end point: adjusted HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68-0.98; Pinteraction = .06; safety end point: adjusted HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.90-1.24; Pinteraction = .33). CONCLUSION: Treatment with AADs was not associated with increased morbidity or mortality in anticoagulated patients with AF. The effect of amiodarone on outcomes in patients receiving rivaroxaban requires further investigation.

Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke, which is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The use of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at moderate or high risk of stroke, estimated by established criteria, improves outcomes. However, to ensure that the benefits exceed the risks of bleeding, appropriate patient selection is essential. Vitamin K antagonism has been the mainstay of treatment; however, newer drugs with novel mechanisms are also available. These novel oral anticoagulants (direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors) obviate many of warfarin's shortcomings, and they have demonstrated safety and efficacy in large randomized trials of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. However, the management of patients taking warfarin or novel agents remains a clinical challenge. There are several important considerations when selecting anticoagulant therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation. This review will discuss the rationale for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation; risk stratification for treatment; available agents; the appropriate implementation of these agents; and additional, specific clinical considerations for treatment.

Evaluation and management of the atrial fibrillation patient: a report from the Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac dysrhythmia, and its prevalence is growing. The care of patients with AF is complex and involves multiple specialties and venues of care. Guideline recommendations are available for AF therapy; however, their implementation can be challenging. The Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care has developed an accreditation program, formulated by an expert committee on AF. Accreditation is based on specific criteria in 7 domains: (1) community outreach, (2) prehospital care, (3) early stabilization, (4) acute care, (5) transitions of care, (6) clinical quality measures, and (7) governance. This document presents the rationale, discussion, and supporting evidence for these criteria, in an effort to maximize effective and efficient AF care.

Treatment pathways and quality improvement for patients with acute myocardial infarction at a tertiary care center.

The timely diagnosis and treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have become paramount to improving outcomes in this population. Many states, including North Carolina, have established systems to guide regional emergency providers in caring for STEMI. We describe the current pathway for diagnosis and treatment of STEMI for providers referring patients to Duke University Hospital, including a system for expedited patient transport and activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory from a wide referral base. There is also a structured process for review of cases and quality improvement, which incorporates physicians, administrators, and emergency medical personnel.