Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Atrial Fibrillation can adversely impact Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction by its association with Heart Failure Progression and Mortality: A Post-Hoc Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the TOPCAT Americas Trial.

AIMS: Prevalent atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with excess cardiovascular (CV) death (D) and hospitalizations (H) in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (pEF). We evaluated if it had an independent role in excess CVD in HFpEF and studied its impact on cause-specific mortality and HF morbidity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used propensity score-matched (PSM) cohorts from the TOPCAT Americas trial to account for confounding by other co-morbidities. Two prevalent AF presentations at study entry were compared: (i) subjects with Any AF event by history or on electrocardiogram (ECG) with PSM subjects without an AF event and (ii) subjects in AF on ECG with PSM subjects in sinus rhythm. We analyzed cause-specific modes of death and HF morbidity during a mean follow-up period of 2.9 years. A total of 584 subjects with Any AF event and 418 subjects in AF on ECG were matched. Any AF was associated with increased CVH [hazard ratio (HR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.61, P = 0.003], HFH (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.12-1.86, P = 0.004), pump failure death (PFD) (HR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05-3.62, P = 0.035), and HF progression from New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes I/II to III/IV (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04-1.62, P = 0.02). Atrial fibrillation on ECG was associated with increased risk of CVD (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.02-2.09, P = 0.039), PFD (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.11-4.40, P = 0.024), and CVH and HFH (HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.72, P = 0.006 and HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.23, P = 0.001, respectively). Atrial fibrillation was not associated with risk of sudden death. Both Any AF and AF on ECG cohorts were associated with PFD in NYHA class III/IV HF. CONCLUSION: Prevalent AF can be an independent risk factor for adverse CV outcomes by its selective association with worsening HF, HFH, and PFD in HFpEF. Prevalent AF was not associated with excess sudden death risk in HFpEF. Atrial fibrillation was also associated with HF progression in early symptomatic HFpEF and PFD in advanced HFpEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TOPCAT trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov:identifier NCT00094302.

Prognostic value of chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) often coexist and share an increased risk of thrombo-embolism (TE). CKD concomitantly predisposes towards a pro-haemorrhagic state. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of CKD in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2124 consecutive AF patients undergoing LAAO were categorized into CKD stage 1+2 (n = 1089), CKD stage 3 (n = 796), CKD stage 4 (n = 170), and CKD stage 5 (n = 69) based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline. The primary endpoint included cardiovascular (CV) mortality, TE, and major bleeding. The expected annual TE and major bleeding risks were estimated based on the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. A non-significant higher incidence of major peri-procedural adverse events (1.7 vs. 2.3 vs. 4.1 vs. 4.3) was observed with worsening CKD (P = 0.14). The mean follow-up period was 13 ± 7 months (2226 patient-years). In comparison to CKD stage 1+2 as a reference, the incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in CKD stage 3 (log-rank P-value = 0.04), CKD stage 4 (log-rank P-value = 0.01), and CKD stage 5 (log-rank P-value = 0.001). Left atrial appendage occlusion led to a TE risk reduction (RR) of 72, 66, 62, and 41% in each group. The relative RR of major bleeding was 58, 44, 51, and 52%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate-to-severe CKD had a higher incidence of the primary composite endpoint. The relative RR in the incidence of TE and major bleeding was consistent across CKD groups.

Guidance for Cardiac Electrophysiology During the COVID-19 Pandemic from the Heart Rhythm Society COVID-19 Task Force; Electrophysiology Section of the American College of Cardiology; and the Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.

Predictors of myocardial recovery in arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is characterized by improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following arrhythmia treatment. Predictors of recovery in LVEF are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated predictors of AIC recovery in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: In total, 243 patients (age 65 ± 11, 73% male) with AIC caused by atrial fibrillation (49%), atrial tachycardia (20%), and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs; 31%) were treated and included. LVEF was assessed before and after treatment. Patients were stratified by arrhythmia duration (known [KN, n = 132] vs. unknown [UKN, n = 111]), arrhythmia type, LVEF, and presence of structural heart disease (SHD). RESULTS: Arrhythmia treatment was rhythm control in 95%. Median arrhythmia duration in the KN group was 47 months (25-75th percentile, 24-80 months). Post treatment LVEF was higher in KN group (55.9 ± 7 vs. 46.2 ± 12%; p < .0001) but the degree of LVEF improvement was similar (21.2 ± 9 vs. 19.4 ± 11; p = .16). Comparing highest quartile (longest arrhythmia duration) versus the rest of the KN group, the extent of LVEF improvement was similar (21.5 ± 8 vs. 21 ± 9%; p = .1). Patients in lowest index LVEF quartile (n = 74) had more PVC-induced AIC, greater EF improvement after treatment (24 ± 17 vs. 19 ± 7%; p < .0001) but lower post treatment EF (45 ± 14 vs. 54 ± 8%; p < .0001) versus other patients. Patients with SHD had lower index EF (28 ± 8 vs. 34 ± 8%; p < .0001) and lower final EF (47 ± 12 vs. 56 ± 7; p ≪ .0001). In multivariate regression, low index LVEF predicted myocardial recovery (odds ratio, 11.4; p < .005). CONCLUSIONS: In this AIC cohort, LVEF improved regardless of arrhythmia duration or type but those with PVCs had lower index LVEF and had less recovery. Low index LVEF predicted LVEF recovery following arrhythmia treatment.

Predictors of permanent pacemaker insertion after TAVR: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the predictors associated with increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: While TAVR has evolved as the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis, conduction abnormalities leading to the need for PPMI is one of the most common postprocedural complications. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant trials from inception to May 2020. Summary effects were calculated using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model as odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals for all the clinical endpoints. RESULTS: Thirty-seven observational studies with 71 455 patients were identified. The incidence of PPMI following TAVR was 22%. Risk was greater in men and increased with age. Patients with diabetes mellitus, presence of right bundle branch block, baseline atrioventricular conduction block, and left anterior fascicular block were noted to be at higher risk. Other significant predictors include the presence of high calcium volume in the area below the left coronary cusp and noncoronary cusp, use of self-expandable valve over balloon-expandable valve, depth of implant, valve size/annulus size, predilatation balloon valvuloplasty, and postimplant balloon dilation. CONCLUSION: Fourteen factors were found to be associated with increased risk of PPMI after TAVR, suggesting early identification of high-risk populations and targeting modifiable risk factors may aid in reducing the need for this post TAVR PPMI.

Uninterrupted versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the safety of uninterrupted versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) for patients undergoing catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies comparing uninterrupted versus interrupted DOAC for patients undergoing CA of AF. Primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included minor bleeding, stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) or thromboembolism (TE), silent cerebral ischemic events, and cardiac tamponade. Meta-analysis was stratified by study design. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects model and Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool RR. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies (7 randomized, 6 observational) comprising 3595 patients were included. The RCT restricted analysis did not show any difference in terms of major bleeding (risk ratio [RR] = 0.79; [0.35-1.79]), minor bleeding (RR = 0.99 [0.68-1.43]), stroke or TIA or TE (RR = 0.80 [0.19-3.32]), silent cerebral ischemic events (RR = 0.64 [0.32-1.28]), and cardiac tamponade (RR = 0.61 [0.20-1.92]). Observational study restricted analysis showed a protective effect of uninterrupted DOAC on silent cerebral ischemic events (RR = 0.45 [0.31-0.67]) and no difference in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes with uninterrupted versus interrupted DOAC for CA of AF and observational data suggests that uninterrupted DOACs are protective against silent cerebral ischemic lesions.

Safety profiles of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure devices: An analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from 2009 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a viable option for AF patients who are unable to tolerate long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC). OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the safety of two commonly used percutaneous devices for LAA closure in the United States by analysis of surveillance data from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. METHODS: The MAUDE database was queried between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2016 for LARIAT® (SentreHEART Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) and WATCHMAN™ (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA) devices. Among 622 retrieved medical device reports, 356 unique and relevant reports were analyzed. The cumulative incidence of safety events was calculated over the study period and compared between the two devices. RESULTS: LAAC was performed with LARIAT in 4,889 cases. WATCHMAN was implanted in 2,027 patients prior to FDA approval in March 2015 and 3,822 patients postapproval. The composite outcome of stroke/TIA, pericardiocentesis, cardiac surgery, and death occurred more frequently with WATCHMAN (cumulative incidence, 1.93% vs. 1.15%; P = 0.001). The same phenomenon was observed when comparing the WATCHMAN pre- and postapproval experiences for the composite outcome, as well as device embolization, cardiac surgery, and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: MAUDE-reported data show that postapproval, new technology adoption is fraught with increased complications. Improved collaboration between operators, device manufacturers, and regulators can better serve patients through increased transparency and practical postmarket training and monitoring mechanisms.

Perioperative hematoma with subcutaneous ICD implantation: Impact of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies.

BACKGROUND: The safety of perioperative anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with hematoma complicating S-ICD implantation. METHODS: Records were retrospectively reviewed from 200 consecutive patients undergoing S-ICD implantation at two academic medical centers. A hematoma was defined as a device site blood accumulation requiring surgical evacuation, extended hospital stay, or transfusion. RESULTS: Among 200 patients undergoing S-ICD implantation (age 49 ± 17 years, 67% men), 10 patients (5%) had a hematoma, which required evacuation in six patients (3%). Warfarin was bridged or uninterrupted in 12 and 13 patients, respectively (6% and 6.5%). Four of 12 patients with warfarin and bridging AC (33%) and two of 13 patients with uninterrupted warfarin (15%) developed a hematoma. Neither of the two patients with uninterrupted DOAC had a hematoma. No patients on interrupted AC without bridging (n = 26, 13 with warfarin, 13 with DOAC) developed a hematoma. A hematoma was also more likely with the use of clopidogrel (n = 4/10 vs 10/190, 40% vs 5.3%, P < 0.0001) in combination with aspirin in 12/14 patients. Any bridging AC (odds ratio [OR] 10.3, 1.8-60.8, P = 0.01), clopidogrel (OR 10.0, 1.7-57.7, P = 0.01), and uninterrupted warfarin without bridging (OR 11.1, 1.7-74.3, P = 0.013) were independently associated with hematoma formation. CONCLUSION: AC and/or AP therapy with clopidogrel appears to increase the risk for hematoma following S-ICD implantation. Interruption of AC without bridging should be considered when it is an acceptable risk to hold AC.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: current state of the art.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The authors reviewed the seminal and more recent literature surrounding the major modalities for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure used in contemporary practice, with particular emphasis on safety and efficacy, technical challenges, and future developments. RECENT FINDINGS: Along with the continued practice of surgical left atrial appendage closure, which has evolved substantially with the advent of clipping techniques, a number of percutaneous methods have been developed to close the left atrial appendage with endocardial, epicardial, and hybrid approaches. The last 18 months has seen the Food and Drug Administration approval of the WATCHMAN device for stroke prevention in the United States, the initiation of a randomized controlled trial to further examine the LARIAT device, and an increasing body of literature surrounding use of the AMPLATZER Amulet in Europe. SUMMARY: Left atrial appendage closure is a promising alternative to systemic anticoagulation for stroke prevention in appropriate atrial fibrillation patients. The wealth of available data for the various modalities sheds light on the strengths and limitations of each, postprocedural complications and their management, and new areas for exploration. With a plethora of new devices on the horizon, it is a very exciting time in the field of 'appendage-ology' as we pursue new avenues to optimize care for atrial fibrillation patients.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device-Related Infection and Extraction Trends in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) has surged lately. This resulted in a rise in cardiac device-related infections (CDI) and inevitably, lead extractions. We examined the recent national trend in the incidence of CIED infections and lead extractions in hospitalized patients and associated mortality. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the years 2003-2011 we identified patients diagnosed with a CDI-associated infection as determined by discharge ICD-9 diagnostic codes. We examined the trend of device-related infections overall and in different subgroups. We studied mortality associated with device infections, lead extractions, associated costs, and length of stay. RESULTS: There is a significant increase in the number of hospitalizations due to CDI from 5,308 in the year 2003 to 9,948 in 2011. Males (68%), Caucasians (77%), and age group 65-84 years (56.4%) accounted for majority of CDI. The mortality associated with CDI was 4.5 %, and was worse in higher age groups (2.5% in 18-44 years compared to 5.3% in 85+ years, P < 0.001). Average length of stay was unchanged over the years remaining at 13.6 days; however, mean hospitalization charges increased from $91,348 in 2003 to $173,211 in 2011 (P < 0.001). Among all lead extraction procedures, the percentage of patients undergoing lead extraction secondary to CDI also increased from 2003 (59.1%) to 2011 (76.7%), P-value < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare burden associated with CDI infections and associated lead extractions has significantly increased in the recent years. Despite an increase in cost associated with CIED infections, mortality remains the same, and is higher in older patients.

Impact of Periprocedural Colchicine on Postprocedural Management in Patients Undergoing a Left Atrial Appendage Ligation Using LARIAT.

INTRODUCTION: Left atrial appendage (LAA) can be effectively and safely excluded using a novel percutaneous LARIAT ligation system. However, due to pericardial catheter manipulation and LAA ligation and subsequent necrosis, postprocedural course is complicated by pericarditis. We intended to evaluate the preprocedural use of colchicine on the incidence of postprocedural pericardial complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicenter observational study, we included all consecutive patients who underwent LARIAT procedure at the participating centers. Many patients received periprocedural colchicine at the discretion of the physician. We compared the postprocedural outcomes of patients who received prophylactic periprocedural colchicine (colchicine group) with those who did not receive colchicine (standard group). A total of 344 consecutive patients, 243 in the "colchicine group" and 101 in the "standard group," were included. The mean age, median CHADS2VASc score, and HASBLED scores were 70 ± 11 years, 3 ± 1.7, and 3 ± 1.1, respectively. There were no significant differences in major baseline characteristics between the two groups. Severe pericarditis was significantly lower in the "colchicine group" compared to the "standard group" (10 [4%] vs. 16 [16%] P<0.0001). The colchicine group, compared to the standard group, had lesser pericardial drain output (186 ± 84 mL vs. 351 ± 83, P<0.001), shorter pericardial drain duration (16 ± 4 vs. 23 ± 19 hours, P<0.04), and similar incidence of delayed pericardial effusion (4 [1.6%] to 3 [3%], P = 0.42) when compared to the standard group. CONCLUSION: Use of colchicine periprocedurally was associated with significant reduction in postprocedural pericarditis and associated complications.

Contemporary Management of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: The American College of Cardiology COGNITO Survey.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) infection remains a serious complication, causing increased morbidity and mortality. Early recognition and escalation to definitive therapy including extraction of the infected device often pose challenges. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess U.S.-based physicians current practices in diagnosing and managing CIED infections and explore potential extraction barriers. Methods: An observational survey was performed by the American College of Cardiology including U.S. physicians managing CIEDs from February to March 2022. Sampling techniques and screener questions determined eligibility. The survey featured questions on knowledge and experience with CIED infection patients and case scenarios. Results: Of 387 physicians completing the survey (20% response rate), 49% indicated familiarity with current guidelines regarding CIED infection. Electrophysiologists (EPs) (91%) were more familiar with these guidelines, compared to non-EP cardiologists (29%) and primary care physicians (23%). Only 30% of physicians specified that their institution had guideline-based protocols in place for managing patients with CIED infection. When presented with pocket infection cases, approximately 89% of EPs and 50% of non-EP cardiologists would follow guideline recommendation to do complete CIED system removal, while 70% of primary care physicians did not recommend guideline-directed treatment. Conclusions: There are gaps in familiarity of guidelines as well as the knowledge in practical management of CIED infection with non-extracting physicians. Most institutions lack a definite pathway. Addressing discrepancies, including guideline education and streamlining care or referral pathways, will be a key factor to bridging the gap and improving CIED infection patient outcomes.

Performance of Atrial Fibrillation Burden Trends for Stroke Risk Stratification.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke, yet the limitations of conventional monitoring have restricted our understanding of AF burden risk thresholds. Predictive algorithms incorporating continuous AF burden measures may be useful for predicting stroke. This study evaluated the performance of temporal AF burden trends as predictors of stroke from a large cohort with insertable cardiac monitors. METHODS: Using deidentified data from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (2007-2019) linked with the Medtronic CareLink insertable cardiac monitor database, we identified patients with an insertable cardiac monitor for AF management (n=1197), suspected AF (n=1611), and cryptogenic stroke (n=2205). Daily AF burden was transformed into simple moving averages, and temporal AF burden trends were defined as the comparison of unique simple moving average pairs. Classification trees were used to predict ischemic stroke, and AF burden significance was quantified using bootstrapped mean variable importance. RESULTS: Of 5013 patients (age, 69.2±11.7 years; 50% male; CHA2DS2-VASc, 3.7±1.9) who met inclusion criteria, 869 had an ischemic stroke over 2 409 437 days total follow-up. Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (variable importance, 13.13) was the number 1 predictor of future stroke followed by no prior diagnosis of AF (7.35) and AF burden trends in follow-up (2.59). Temporal proximity of AF and risk of stroke differed by device indication (simple moving averages: AF management, <8 days and suspected AF and cryptogenic stroke, 8-21 days). Together, baseline characteristics and AF burden trends performed optimally for the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.73), specificity (0.70), and relative risk (5.00). CONCLUSIONS: AF burden trends may provide incremental prognostic value as leading indicators of stroke risk compared with conventional schemes.

Using Atrial Fibrillation Burden Trends and Machine Learning to Predict Near-Term Risk of Cardiovascular Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (CVH), which may be triggered by changes in daily burden. Machine learning of dynamic trends in atrial fibrillation burden, as measured by insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs), may be useful in predicting near-term CVH. METHODS: Using Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (2007-2019), linked with the Medtronic CareLink ICM database, we identified patients with >1 days of ICM-detected atrial fibrillation. ICM-detected diagnostic parameters were transformed into simple moving averages over different periods for daily follow-up. A diagnostic trend was defined as the comparison of 2 simple moving averages of different periods for each diagnostic parameter. CVH was defined as any hospital, emergency department, or ambulatory surgical center encounter with a cardiovascular diagnosis-related group or diagnosis code. Machine learning was used to determine which diagnostic trends could best predict patient risk 5 days before CVH. RESULTS: A total of 2616 patients with ICMs met the inclusion criteria (71±11 years; 55% male). Among them, 1998 (76%) had a planned or unplanned CVH over 605 363 days. Machine learning revealed distinct groups: (A) sinus rhythm (reference), (B) below-average burden, (C) above-average burden, and (D) above-average burden with decreasing patient activity. The relative risk was increased in all groups versus the reference (B, 4.49 [95% CI, 3.74-5.40]; C, 8.41 [95% CI, 7.00-10.11]; D, 11.15 [95% CI, 9.10-13.65]), including a 21% increase in CVH detection over prespecified burden thresholds of duration (≥1 hour) and quantity (≥5%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve increased from 0.55 when using hourly burden amounts to 0.66 when using burden trends and decreasing patient activity (P<0.001), a 20% increase in predictive power. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in atrial fibrillation were strongly associated with near-term CVH, especially above-average burden coupled with low patient activity. This approach could provide actionable information to guide treatment and reduce CVH.

Association of Physician Certification and Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is indicated in patients with atrial fibrillation for whom long-term oral anticoagulation is contraindicated. Whether outcomes are different based on operator certification [interventional cardiology (IC) versus electrophysiology (EP)] is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare LAAO outcomes by physician certification (EP versus IC) in the NCDR LAAO Registry. METHODS: We identified patients from 2020-2022 undergoing implantation of a Watchman FLX or Amulet LAAO device and stratified patients by primary operator certification. Outcomes of interest included: (1) any major adverse event (MAE), 2) mortality, 3) ischemic stroke, and 4) major bleeding during the initial hospitalization and at 45 days. We performed multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to determine the risk of adverse events by physician certification. RESULTS: A total of 1,638 physicians (57% electrophysiologists) performing 91,711 procedures during the study period were included. EPs were more likely to use intracardiac echocardiography (25.2% vs 9.7%, p<0.001) and had lower radiation total (235 mGy vs 305 mGy, p<0.001). EPs were more likely than ICs to discharge patients on DOAC+aspirin, whereas ICs were more likely to discharge patients on single or dual antiplatelet therapy (all p<0.001). In-hospital death (0.1% vs. 0.1%, p=0.46) and MAE (1.5% vs 1.6%, p=0.42) were similar by physician certification. At 45 days, there was no difference in death [HRdeath 1.03, 95% CI (0.89-1.2)] or MAE [HRMAE 0.97, 95% CI (0.91-1.03)] after multivariable regression. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary LAAO is safe with low rates of procedural complications and no significant differences in procedural outcomes by operator subspecialty after multivariable adjustment. Continued utilization of technology by EPs and ICs is necessary to allow for broad access to this treatment for eligible patients.

Interpreting changes in quality of life in atrial fibrillation: how much change is meaningful?

BACKGROUND: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy of Life (AFEQT) questionnaire is a novel quality of life (QOL) measure previously shown to be valid, reliable, and sensitive to clinical change in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The clinical relevance of a given change in the score is not known. The most useful "anchor" for a measure of meaningful change in QOL is patient-reported magnitude of change. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to define the interpretability of changes in the AFEQT score from the patients' perspective. METHODS: With the use of the original validation study of AFEQT, in which 210 patients completed the questionnaire at baseline and at 3 months, we estimated the AFEQT score corresponding to a meaningful improvement in QOL using the patients' assessments of global change in QOL, AF symptoms from the Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale (AFSS), and physicians' assessment of global QOL over the 3 months, as anchors. RESULTS: In patients with a moderate improvement in global QOL, the AFEQT scores increased from 51.9 ± 21.8 to 70.8 ± 17.4 (an increase of 18.9 ± 20.7), compared with an increase of 6.9 ± 16.9 units in patients with "unimportant change" in global QOL. Physicians' global assessment yielded a similar change in AFEQT score corresponding to a moderate change in global QOL (21.3 ± 20.2 units). Patients with moderate improvement in AF symptom severity using the AFSS scale had an increase of 17.9 ± 11.8 units on the AFEQT scale. A change in 19 units in the AFEQT score corresponded to a 0.9 SD unit change or greater than a minimal important difference from a distribution based method. CONCLUSIONS: A meaningful improvement in QOL in patients with AF can be measured from a change in the AFEQT score. These results can assist in monitoring patient progress and interpreting the effects of interventions in patients with AF.