Seattle proportional risk model in GISSI-HF: Estimated benefit of ICD in patients with EF less than 50.

BACKGROUND: The Seattle Proportional Risk Model (SPRM) estimates the proportion of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure (HF) patients, identifying those most likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy (those with ≥50% estimated proportion of SCD). The GISSI-HF trial tested fish oil and rosuvastatin in HF patients. We used the SPRM to evaluate its accuracy in this cohort in predicting potential ICD benefit in patients with EF ≤50% and an SPRM-predicted proportion of SCD either ≥50% or <50%. METHODS: The SPRM was estimated in patients with EF ≤50% and in a logistic regression model comparing SCD with non-SCD. RESULTS: We evaluated 6,750 patients with EF ≤50%. There were 1,892 all-cause deaths, including 610 SCDs. Fifty percent of EF ≤35% patients and 43% with EF 36% to 50% had an SPRM of ≥50%. The SPRM (OR: 1.92, P < 0.0001) accurately predicted the risk of SCD vs non-SCD with an estimated proportion of SCD of 44% vs the observed proportion of 41% at 1 year. By traditional criteria for ICD implantation (EF ≤35%, NYHA class II or III), 64.5% of GISSI-HF patients would be eligible, with an estimated ICD benefit of 0.81. By SPRM >50%, 47.8% may be eligible, including 30.2% with EF >35%. GISSI-HF participants with EF ≤35% with SPRM ≥50% had an estimated ICD HR of 0.64, comparable to patients with EF 36% to 50% with SPRM ≥50% (HR: 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The SPRM discriminated SCD vs non-SCD in GISSI-HF, both in patients with EF ≤35% and with EF 36% to 50%. The comparable estimated ICD benefit in patients with EF ≤35% and EF 36% to 50% supports the use of a proportional risk model for shared decision making with patients being considered for primary prevention ICD therapy.

Regional differences in outcomes with ablation versus drug therapy for atrial fibrillation: Results from the CABANA trial.

BACKGROUND: The finding of unexpected variations in treatment benefits by geographic region in international clinical trials raises complex questions about the interpretation and generalizability of trial findings. We observed such geographical variations in outcome and in the effectiveness of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation versus drug therapy in the Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial. This paper describes these differences and investigates potential causes. METHODS: The examination of treatment effects by geographic region was a prespecified analysis. CABANA enrolled patients from 10 countries, with 1,285 patients at 85 North American (NA) sites and 919 at 41 non-NA sites. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Death and first atrial fibrillation recurrence were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: At least 1 primary endpoint event occurred in 157 patients (12.2%) from NA and 33 (3.6%) from non-NA sites over a median 54.9 and 40.5 months of follow-up, respectively (NA/non-NA adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48-3.21, P < .001). In NA patients, 78 events occurred in the ablation and 79 in the drug arm, (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66, 1.24) while 11 and 22 events occurred in non-NA patients (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25,1.05, interaction P = .154). Death occurred in 53 ablation and 51 drug therapy patients in the NA group (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65,1.42) and in 5 ablation and 16 drug therapy patients in the non-NA group (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12,0.86, interaction P = .044). Adjusting for baseline regional differences or prognostic risk variables did not account for the regional differences in treatment effects. Atrial fibrillation recurrence was reduced by ablation in both regions (NA: HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46, 0.63; non-NA: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64, interaction P = .322). CONCLUSIONS: In CABANA, primary outcome events occurred significantly more often in the NA group but assignment to ablation significantly reduced all-cause mortality in the non-NA group only. These differences were not explained by regional variations in procedure effectiveness, safety, or patient characteristics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0091150; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00911508.

Arrhythmias in Female Patients: Incidence, Presentation and Management.

There is a growing appreciation for differences in epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of cardiovascular conditions by sex. Historically, cardiovascular clinical trials have under-represented females, but findings have nonetheless been applied to clinical care in a sex-agnostic manner. Thus, much of the collective knowledge about sex-specific cardiovascular outcomes result from post hoc and secondary analyses. In some cases, these investigations have revealed important sex-based differences with implications for optimizing care for female patients with arrhythmias. This review explores the available evidence related to cardiac arrhythmia care among females, with emphasis on areas in which important sex differences are known or suggested. Considerations related to improving female enrollment in clinical trials as a way to establish more robust clinical evidence for the treatment of females are discussed. Areas of remaining evidence gaps are provided, and recommendations for areas of future research and specific action items are suggested. The overarching goal is to improve appreciation for sex-based differences in cardiac arrhythmia care as 1 component of a comprehensive plan to optimize arrhythmia care for all patients.

Association Between Age and Outcomes of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational data suggest that catheter ablation may be safe and effective to treat younger and older patients with atrial fibrillation. No large, randomized trial has examined this issue. This report describes outcomes according to age at entry in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: Patients with atrial fibrillation ≥65 years of age, or <65 with ≥1 risk factor for stroke, were randomly assigned to catheter ablation versus drug therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and recurrence of atrial fibrillation. Treatment effect estimates were adjusted for baseline covariables using proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 2204 patients randomly assigned in CABANA, 766 (34.8%) were <65 years of age, 1130 (51.3%) were 65 to 74 years of age, and 308 (14.0%) were ≥75 years of age. Catheter ablation was associated with a 43% reduction in the primary outcome for patients <65 years of age (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57 [95% CI, 0.30-1.09]), a 21% reduction for 65 to 74 years of age (aHR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54-1.16]), and an indeterminate effect for age ≥75 years of age (aHR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.75-2.58]). Four-year event rates for ablation versus drug therapy across age groups, respectively, were 3.2% versus 7.8%, 7.8% versus 9.6%, and 14.8% versus 9.0%. For every 10-year increase in age, the primary outcome aHR increased (ie, less favorable to ablation) an average of 27% (interaction P value=0.215). A similar pattern was seen with all-cause mortality: for every 10-year increase in age, the aHR increased an average of 46% (interaction P value=0.111). Atrial fibrillation recurrence rates were lower with ablation than with drug therapy across age subgroups (aHR 0.47, 0.58, and 0.49, respectively). Treatment-related complications were infrequent for both arms (<3%) regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: We found age-based variations in clinical outcomes for catheter ablation compared with drug therapy, with the largest relative and absolute benefits of catheter ablation in younger patients. No prognostic benefits for ablation were seen in the oldest patients. No differences were found by age in treatment-related complications or in the relative effectiveness of catheter ablation in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Cost-Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation), catheter ablation did not significantly reduce the primary end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest compared with drug therapy by intention-to-treat, but did improve the quality of life and freedom from atrial fibrillation recurrence. In the heart failure subgroup, ablation improved both survival and quality of life. Cost-effectiveness was a prespecified CABANA secondary end point. METHODS: Medical resource use data were collected for all CABANA patients (N=2204). Costs for hospital-based care were assigned using prospectively collected bills from US patients (n=1171); physician and medication costs were assigned using the Medicare Fee Schedule and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs, respectively. Extrapolated life expectancies were estimated using age-based survival models. Quality-of-life adjustments were based on EQ-5D-based utilities measured during the trial. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, comparing ablation with drug therapy on the basis of intention-to-treat, and assessed from the US health care sector perspective. RESULTS: Costs in the first 3 months averaged $20 794±SD 1069 higher with ablation compared with drug therapy. The cumulative within-trial 5-year cost difference was $19 245 (95% CI, $11 360-$27 170) and the lifetime mean cost difference was $15 516 (95% CI, -$2963 to $35,512) higher with ablation than with drug therapy. The drug therapy arm accrued an average of 12.5 life-years (LYs) and 10.7 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). For the ablation arm, the corresponding estimates were 12.6 LYs and 11.0 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $57 893 per QALY gained, with 75% of bootstrap replications yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per QALY gained. With no quality-of-life/utility adjustments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $183 318 per LY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation was economically attractive compared with drug therapy in the CABANA Trial overall at present benchmarks for health care value in the United States on the basis of projected incremental QALYs but not LYs alone.

Voltage gradients in transvenous and subcutaneous defibrillation and their risk of myocardial damage.

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks have been associated with cardiac biomarker elevations and are thought in some cases to contribute to adverse clinical outcomes and mortality, possibly from myocardium exposed to excessive shock voltage gradients. Currently, there are only limited data for comparison with subcutaneous ICDs. We sought to compare ventricular myocardium voltage gradients resulting from transvenous (TV) and subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) shocks to assess their risk of myocardial damage. METHODS: A finite element model was derived from thoracic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Voltage gradients were modeled for an S-ICD with a left-sided parasternal coil and a left-sided TV-ICD with a mid-cavity, a septal right ventricle (RV) coil, or a dual coil lead (TV mid, TV septal, TV septal + superior vena cava [SVC]). High gradients were defined as > 100 V/cm. RESULTS: The volumes of ventricular myocardium with high gradients > 100 V/cm were 0.02, 2.4, 7.7, and 0 cc for TV mid, TV septal, TV septal + SVC, and S-ICD, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our models suggest that S-ICD shocks produce more uniform gradients in the myocardium, with less exposure to potentially damaging electrical fields, compared to TV-ICDs. Dual coil TV leads yield higher gradients, as does closer proximity of the shock coil to the myocardium.

Association Between Sex and Treatment Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Versus Drug Therapy: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), women are less likely to receive catheter ablation and may have more complications and less durable results. Most information about sex-specific differences after ablation comes from observational data. We prespecified an examination of outcomes by sex in the 2204-patient CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: CABANA randomized patients with AF age ≥65 years or <65 years with ≥1 risk factor for stroke to a strategy of catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation versus drug therapy with rate/rhythm control agents. The primary composite outcome was death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, and key secondary outcomes included AF recurrence. RESULTS: CABANA randomized 819 (37%) women (ablation 413, drug 406) and 1385 men (ablation 695, drug 690). Compared with men, women were older (median age, 69 years versus 67 years for men), were more symptomatic (48% Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Severity Class 3 or 4 versus 39% for men), had more symptomatic heart failure (42% with New York Heart Association Class ≥II versus 32% for men), and more often had a paroxysmal AF pattern at enrollment (50% versus 39% for men) (P<0.0001 for all). Women were less likely to have ancillary (nonpulmonary vein) ablation procedures performed during the index procedure (55.7% versus 62.2% in men, P=0.043), and complications from treatment were infrequent in both sexes. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio for those who underwent ablation versus drug therapy was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.62-1.65) in women and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51-1.05) in men (interaction P value=0.299). The risk of recurrent AF was significantly reduced in patients undergoing ablation compared with those receiving drug therapy regardless of sex, but the effect was greater in men (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51-0.82] for women versus hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.40-0.58] for men; interaction P value=0.060). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant treatment-related strategy differences in the primary and secondary clinical outcomes of CABANA were not seen between men and women, and there were no sex differences in adverse events. The CABANA trial results support catheter ablation as an effective treatment strategy for both women and men. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: Results From the CABANA Trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation (AF), several clinical trials have reported improved outcomes, including freedom from AF recurrence, quality of life, and survival, with catheter ablation. This article describes the treatment-related outcomes of the AF patients with heart failure enrolled in the CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: The CABANA trial randomized 2204 patients with AF who were ≥65 years old or <65 years old with ≥1 risk factor for stroke at 126 sites to ablation with pulmonary vein isolation or drug therapy including rate or rhythm control drugs. Of these, 778 (35%) had New York Heart Association class >II at baseline and form the subject of this article. The CABANA trial's primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Of the 778 patients with heart failure enrolled in CABANA, 378 were assigned to ablation and 400 to drug therapy. Ejection fraction at baseline was available for 571 patients (73.0%), and 9.3% of these had an ejection fraction <40%, whereas 11.7% had ejection fractions between 40% and 50%. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the ablation arm had a 36% relative reduction in the primary composite end point (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.41-0.99]) and a 43% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-0.96]) compared with drug therapy alone over a median follow-up of 48.5 months. AF recurrence was decreased with ablation (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42-0.74]). The adjusted mean difference for the AFEQT (Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life) summary score averaged over the entire 60-month follow-up was 5.0 points, favoring the ablation arm (95% CI, 2.5-7.4 points), and the MAFSI (Mayo Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptom Inventory) frequency score difference was -2.0 points, favoring ablation (95% CI, -2.9 to -1.2). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF enrolled in the CABANA trial who had clinically diagnosed stable heart failure at trial entry, catheter ablation produced clinically important improvements in survival, freedom from AF recurrence, and quality of life relative to drug therapy. These results, obtained in a cohort most of whom had preserved left ventricular function, require independent trial verification. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00911508; Unique identifier: NCT0091150.

The Lancet women and cardiovascular disease Commission: reducing the global burden by 2030.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women. Decades of grassroots campaigns have helped to raise awareness about the impact of cardiovascular disease in women, and positive changes affecting women and their health have gained momentum. Despite these efforts, there has been stagnation in the overall reduction of cardiovascular disease burden for women in the past decade. Cardiovascular disease in women remains understudied, under-recognised, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. This Commission summarises existing evidence and identifies knowledge gaps in research, prevention, treatment, and access to care for women. Recommendations from an international team of experts and leaders in the field have been generated with a clear focus to reduce the global burden of cardiovascular disease in women by 2030. This Commission represents the first effort of its kind to connect stakeholders, to ignite global awareness of sex-related and gender-related disparities in cardiovascular disease, and to provide a springboard for future research.

Antibacterial Envelope to Prevent Cardiac Implantable Device Infection.

BACKGROUND: Infections after placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. There is limited evidence on prophylactic strategies, other than the use of preoperative antibiotics, to prevent such infections. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of an absorbable, antibiotic-eluting envelope in reducing the incidence of infection associated with CIED implantations. Patients who were undergoing a CIED pocket revision, generator replacement, or system upgrade or an initial implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive the envelope or not. Standard-of-care strategies to prevent infection were used in all patients. The primary end point was infection resulting in system extraction or revision, long-term antibiotic therapy with infection recurrence, or death, within 12 months after the CIED implantation procedure. The secondary end point for safety was procedure-related or system-related complications within 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 6983 patients underwent randomization: 3495 to the envelope group and 3488 to the control group. The primary end point occurred in 25 patients in the envelope group and 42 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 0.7% and 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.98; P = 0.04). The safety end point occurred in 201 patients in the envelope group and 236 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 6.0% and 6.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.06; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The mean (±SD) duration of follow-up was 20.7±8.5 months. Major CIED-related infections through the entire follow-up period occurred in 32 patients in the envelope group and 51 patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope resulted in a significantly lower incidence of major CIED infections than standard-of-care infection-prevention strategies alone, without a higher incidence of complications. (Funded by Medtronic; WRAP-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02277990.).

A wearable cardioverter defibrillator with a low false alarm rate.

INTRODUCTION: A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is indicated in appropriate patients to reduce the risk for sudden cardiac death. Challenges for patients wearing a WCD have been frequent false shock alarms primarily due to electrocardiogram noise and wear discomfort. The objective of this study was to test a contemporary WCD designed for reduced false shock alarms and improved comfort. METHODS: One hundred and thirty patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and an active implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were fitted with the ASSURE WCD (Kestra Medical Technologies) and followed for 30 days. WCD detection was enabled and shock alarm markers recorded, but shocks and shock alarms were disabled. All WCD episodes and ICD ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes were adjudicated. The primary endpoint was the false-positive shock alarm rate with a performance goal of 1 every 3.4 days (0.29 per patient-day). RESULTS: Of 163 WCD episodes, 4 were VT/VF and 159 non-VT/VF (121 rhythms with noise, 32 uncertain with noise, 6 atrial flutter without noise). Only three false-positive shock alarm markers were recorded; one false-positive shock alarm every 1333 patient-days (0.00075 per patient-day, 95% confidence interval: 0.00015-0.00361; p < .001). No ICD recorded VT/VF episodes meeting WCD detection criteria (≥170 bpm for ≥20 s) were missed by the WCD during 3501 patient-days of use. Median wear was 31.0 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0) and median daily use 23.0 h (IQR 1.7). Adverse events were mostly mild: skin irritation (19.4%) and musculoskeletal discomfort (8.5%). CONCLUSION: The ASSURE WCD demonstrated a low false-positive shock alarm rate, low patient-reported discomfort, and no serious adverse events.

Influence of atrial fibrillation type on outcomes of ablation vs. drug therapy: results from CABANA.

AIMS: Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). METHODS AND RESULTS: CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSION: Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00911508.

Clinical practice and implementation of guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of cardiac implantable electronic device infections: results of a worldwide survey under the auspices of the European Heart Rhythm Association.

AIMS: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection rates are increasing. Worldwide compliance and disparities to published guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of these conditions are not well elucidated. The purpose of this survey, therefore, was to clarify these issues through an inquiry to arrhythmia-related associations and societies worldwide. METHODS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire comprising 15 questions related to CIED infections was distributed among members of seven arrhythmia societies worldwide. A total of 234 centres in 62 countries reported implantation rates of which 159 (68.0%) performed more than 200 device implantations per year and 14 (6.0%) performed fewer than 50 implantations per year. The reported rates of CIED infections for 2017 were ≤2% in 78.7% of the centres, while the infection rates exceeded 5% in 7.8% of the centres. Preventive measures for CIED infection differed from published recommendations and varied among different regions mainly in terms of pocket irrigation and administering post-operative antimicrobial therapy the use of which was reported by 39.9% and 44% of the respondents, respectively. Antibacterial envelopes were used by 37.7% of the respondents in selected circumstances. In terms of pocket infection management, 62% of the respondents applied complete system removal as an initial step. Diagnostic pocket needle aspiration and pocket surgical debridement were reported by 15.8% and 11.8% of centres, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clinical practices for prevention and management of CIED do not fully comply with current recommendations and demonstrate considerable regional disparities. Further education and programmes for improved implementation of guidelines are mandatory.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Medical Therapy on Quality of Life Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation is more effective than drug therapy in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but its incremental effect on long-term quality of life (QOL) is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more beneficial than conventional drug therapy for improving QOL in patients with AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label randomized clinical trial of catheter ablation vs drug therapy in 2204 symptomatic patients with AF older than 65 years or 65 years or younger with at least 1 risk factor for stroke. Patients were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016 from 126 centers in 10 countries. Follow-up ended in December 2017. Interventions: Pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablation procedures at the discretion of the investigators, for the catheter ablation group (n = 1108) and standard rhythm and/or rate-control drugs selected and managed by investigators for the drug therapy group (n = 1096). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prespecified co-primary QOL end points at 12 months, including the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) summary score (range, 0-100; 0 indicates complete disability and 100 indicates no disability; patient-level clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI) frequency score (range, 0-40; 0 indicates no symptoms and 40 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.6 points) and severity score (range, 0-30; 0 indicates no symptoms and 30 indicates the most severe symptoms; patient-level clinically important difference, ≤-1.3 points). Results: Among 2204 randomized patients (median age, 68 years; 1385 patients [63%] were men, 946 [43%] had paroxysmal AF, and 1256 [57%] had persistent AF), the median follow-up was 48.5 months, and 1968 (89%) completed the trial. The mean AFEQT summary score was more favorable in the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (86.4 points vs 80.9 points) (adjusted difference, 5.3 points [95% CI, 3.7-6.9]; P < .001). The mean MAFSI frequency score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (6.4 points vs 8.1 points) (adjusted difference, -1.7 points [95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2]; P < .001) and the mean MAFSI severity score was more favorable for the catheter ablation group than the drug therapy group at 12 months (5.0 points vs 6.5 points) (adjusted difference, -1.5 points [95% CI, -2.0 to -1.1]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, led to clinically important and significant improvements in quality of life at 12 months. These findings can help guide decisions regarding management of atrial fibrillation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Interventions: The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. Results: Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Catheter Ablation versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) Trial: Study Rationale and Design.

The Catheter Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA,NCT00911508)(1) trial is testing the hypothesis that the treatment strategy of percutaneous left atrial catheter ablation for the purpose of eliminating atrial fibrillation (AF) is superior to current state-of-the-art pharmacologic therapy. This international 140-center clinical trial was designed to randomize 2200 patients to a strategy of catheter ablation versus state-of-the-art rate or rhythm control drug therapy. Inclusion criteria include: 1) age> 65, or ≤65 with≥ 1 risk factor for stroke, 2) documented AF warranting treatment, and 3) eligibility for both catheter ablation and≥ 2 anti-arrhythmic or≥ 2 rate control drugs. Patients were followed every 3 to 6 months (median 4 years) and underwent repeat trans-telephonic monitoring, Holter monitoring, and CT/MR in a subgroup of patient studies to assess the impact of treatment on AF recurrence and atrial structure. With 1100 patients in each treatment arm, CABANA is projected to have 90% power for detecting a 30% relative reduction in the primary composite endpoint of total mortality, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Secondary endpoints include total mortality; mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; a combination of mortality, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure or acute coronary artery events; cardiovascular death alone; and heart failure death, as well as AF recurrence, quality of life, and cost effectiveness. At a time when AF incidence is rising rapidly, CABANA will provide critical evidence with which to guide therapy and shape health care policy related to AF for years to come.

Subcutaneous ICD screening with the Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer versus a 12-lead ECG machine.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) requires preimplant screening to ensure appropriate sensing and reduce risk of inappropriate shocks. Screening can be performed using either an ICD programmer or a 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) machine. It is unclear whether differences in signal filtering and digital sampling change the screening success rate. METHODS: Subjects were recruited if they had a transvenous single-lead ICD without pacing requirements or were candidates for a new ICD. Screening was performed using both a Boston Scientific ZOOM programmer (Marlborough, MA, USA) and General Electric MAC 5000 ECG machine (Fairfield, CT, USA). A pass was defined as having at least one lead that fit within the screening template in both supine and sitting positions. RESULTS: A total of 69 subjects were included and 27 sets of ECG leads had differing screening results between the two machines (7%). Of these sets, 22 (81%) passed using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer and five (19%) passed using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer (P < 0.001). Four subjects (6%) passed screening using the ECG machine but failed using the programmer. No subject passed screening with the programmer but failed with the ECG machine. CONCLUSION: There can be occasional disagreement in S-ICD patient screening between an ICD programmer and ECG machine, all of whom passed with the ECG machine but failed using the programmer. On a per lead basis, the ECG machine passes more subjects. It is unknown what the inappropriate shock rate would be if an S-ICD was implanted. Clinical judgment should be used in borderline cases.

New York Heart Association class and the survival benefit from primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators: A pooled analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduce all-cause mortality by reducing sudden cardiac death. There are conflicting data regarding whether patients with more advanced heart failure derive ICD benefit owing to the competing risk of nonsudden death. METHODS: We performed a patient-level meta-analysis of New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II/III heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) from 4 primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-I, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, SCD-HeFT). Bayesian-Weibull survival regression models were used to assess the impact of NYHA class on the relationship between ICD use and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2,763 patients who met study criteria, 68% (n=1,867) were NYHA II and 52% (n=1,435) were randomized to an ICD. In a multivariable model including all study patients, the ICD reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, 95% posterior credibility interval [PCI]) 0.40-0.99). The interaction between NYHA class and the ICD on mortality was significant (posterior probability of no interaction=.036). In models including an interaction term for the NYHA class and ICD, the ICD reduced mortality among NYHA class II patients (HR 0.55, PCI 0.35-0.85), and the point estimate suggested reduced mortality in NYHA class III patients (HR 0.76, PCI 0.48-1.24), although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Primary prevention ICDs reduce mortality in NYHA class II patients and trend toward reducing mortality in the heterogeneous group of NYHA class III patients. Improved risk stratification tools are required to guide patient selection and shared decision making among NYHA class III primary prevention ICD candidates.

Predicting appropriate shocks in patients with heart failure: Patient level meta-analysis from SCD-HeFT and MADIT II.

BACKGROUND: No precise tools exist to predict appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention ICD. We sought to identify characteristics predictive of appropriate shocks in patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Using patient-level data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) and the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT), we identified patients with any appropriate shock. Clinical and demographic variables were included in a logistic regression model to predict appropriate shocks. RESULTS: There were 1,463 patients randomized to an ICD, and 285 (19%) had ≥1 appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.59 years. Compared with patients without appropriate ICD shocks, patients who received any appropriate shock tended to have more severe heart failure. In a multiple logistic regression model, predictors of appropriate shocks included NYHA class (NYHA II vs. I: OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07-2.55; NYHA III vs. I: OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.10-2.76), lower LVEF (per 1% change) (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), absence of beta-blocker therapy (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23-2.12), and single chamber ICD (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of patient level data from MADIT-II and SCD-HeFT, higher NYHA class, lower LVEF, no beta-blocker therapy, and single chamber ICD (vs. dual chamber) were significant predictors of appropriate shocks.

Initial Experience of an Anesthesiology-based Service for Perioperative Management of Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, for surgical procedures is challenging due to the increasing number of patients with CIEDs and limited availability of trained providers. At the authors' institution, a small group of anesthesiologists were trained to interrogate CIEDs, devise a management plan, and perform preoperative and postoperative programming and device testing whenever necessary. METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery between October 1, 2009 and June 30, 2013 at the University of Washington Medical Center were included in a retrospective chart review to determine the number of devices actively managed by the Electrophysiology/Cardiology Service (EPCS) versus the Anesthesiology Device Service (ADS), changes in workload over time, surgical case delays due to device management, and errors and problems encountered in device programming. RESULTS: The EPCS managed 254 CIEDs, the ADS managed 548, and 227 by neither service. Over time, the ADS providers managed an increasing percentage of devices with decreasing supervision from the EPCS. Only two CIEDs managed by the ADS required immediate assistance from the EPCS. Patients who were unstable postoperatively were referred to the EPCS. Although numerous issues in programming were encountered, primarily when restoring demand pacing after programming asynchronous pacing for surgery, no patient harm resulted from ADS or EPCS management of CIEDs. CONCLUSIONS: An ADS can provide safe CIED management for surgery, but it requires specialized provider training and strong support from the EPCS. Due to the complexity of CIED management, an ADS will likely only be feasible in high-volume settings.