Progression of Atrial Fibrillation after Cryoablation or Drug Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is a chronic, progressive disorder, and persistent forms of atrial fibrillation are associated with increased risks of thromboembolism and heart failure. Catheter ablation as initial therapy may modify the pathogenic mechanism of atrial fibrillation and alter progression to persistent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We report the 3-year follow-up of patients with paroxysmal, untreated atrial fibrillation who were enrolled in a trial in which they had been randomly assigned to undergo initial rhythm-control therapy with cryoballoon ablation or to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. All the patients had implantable loop recorders placed at the time of trial entry, and evaluation was conducted by means of downloaded daily recordings and in-person visits every 6 months. Data regarding the first episode of persistent atrial fibrillation (lasting ≥7 days or lasting 48 hours to 7 days but requiring cardioversion for termination), recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia (defined as atrial fibrillation, flutter, or tachycardia lasting ≥30 seconds), the burden of atrial fibrillation (percentage of time in atrial fibrillation), quality-of-life metrics, health care utilization, and safety were collected. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients were enrolled, with 154 patients assigned to undergo initial rhythm-control therapy with cryoballoon ablation and 149 assigned to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Over 36 months of follow-up, 3 patients (1.9%) in the ablation group had an episode of persistent atrial fibrillation, as compared with 11 patients (7.4%) in the antiarrhythmic drug group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09 to 0.70). Recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia occurred in 87 patients in the ablation group (56.5%) and in 115 in the antiarrhythmic drug group (77.2%) (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.67). The median percentage of time in atrial fibrillation was 0.00% (interquartile range, 0.00 to 0.12) in the ablation group and 0.24% (interquartile range, 0.01 to 0.94) in the antiarrhythmic drug group. At 3 years, 8 patients (5.2%) in the ablation group and 25 (16.8%) in the antiarrhythmic drug group had been hospitalized (relative risk, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.66). Serious adverse events occurred in 7 patients (4.5%) in the ablation group and in 15 (10.1%) in the antiarrhythmic drug group. CONCLUSIONS: Initial treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with catheter cryoballoon ablation was associated with a lower incidence of persistent atrial fibrillation or recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia over 3 years of follow-up than initial use of antiarrhythmic drugs. (Funded by the Cardiac Arrhythmia Network of Canada and others; EARLY-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02825979.).

Adaptive versus conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with heart failure (AdaptResponse): a global, prospective, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous automatic optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), stimulating only the left ventricle to fuse with intrinsic right bundle conduction (synchronised left ventricular stimulation), might offer better outcomes than conventional CRT in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and normal atrioventricular conduction. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of adaptive CRT versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure with intact atrioventricular conduction and left bundle branch block. METHODS: This global, prospective, randomised controlled trial was done in 227 hospitals in 27 countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with class 2-4 heart failure, an ejection fraction of 35% or less, left bundle branch block with QRS duration of 140 ms or more (male patients) or 130 ms or more (female patients), and a baseline PR interval 200 ms or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via block permutation to adaptive CRT (an algorithm providing synchronised left ventricular stimulation) or conventional biventricular CRT using a device programmer. All patients received device programming but were masked until procedures were completed. Site staff were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety events were collected and reported in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02205359, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2014, and Jan 31, 2019, of 3797 patients enrolled, 3617 (95·3%) were randomly assigned (1810 to adaptive CRT and 1807 to conventional CRT). The futility boundary was crossed at the third interim analysis on June 23, 2022, when the decision was made to stop the trial early. 1568 (43·4%) of 3617 patients were female and 2049 (56·6%) were male. Median follow-up was 59·0 months (IQR 45-72). A primary outcome event occurred in 430 of 1810 patients (Kaplan-Meier occurrence rate 23·5% [95% CI 21·3-25·5] at 60 months) in the adaptive CRT group and in 470 of 1807 patients (25·7% [23·5-27·8] at 60 months) in the conventional CRT group (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·01; p=0·077). System-related adverse events were reported in 452 (25·0%) of 1810 patients in the adaptive CRT group and 440 (24·3%) of 1807 patients in the conventional CRT group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conventional CRT, adaptive CRT did not significantly reduce the incidence of all-cause death or intervention for heart failure decompensation in the included population of patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block, and intact AV conduction. Death and heart failure decompensation rates were low with both CRT therapies, suggesting a greater response to CRT occurred in this population than in patients in previous trials. FUNDING: Medtronic.

Cryoablation or Drug Therapy for Initial Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend a trial of one or more antiarrhythmic drugs before catheter ablation is considered in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, first-line ablation may be more effective in maintaining sinus rhythm. METHODS: We randomly assigned 303 patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, untreated atrial fibrillation to undergo catheter ablation with a cryothermy balloon or to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy for initial rhythm control. All the patients received an implantable cardiac monitoring device to detect atrial tachyarrhythmia. The follow-up period was 12 months. The primary end point was the first documented recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) between 91 and 365 days after catheter ablation or the initiation of an antiarrhythmic drug. The secondary end points included freedom from symptomatic arrhythmia, the atrial fibrillation burden, and quality of life. RESULTS: At 1 year, a recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia had occurred in 66 of 154 patients (42.9%) assigned to undergo ablation and in 101 of 149 patients (67.8%) assigned to receive antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.66; P<0.001). Symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia had recurred in 11.0% of the patients who underwent ablation and in 26.2% of those who received antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.68). The median percentage of time in atrial fibrillation was 0% (interquartile range, 0 to 0.08) with ablation and 0.13% (interquartile range, 0 to 1.60) with antiarrhythmic drugs. Serious adverse events occurred in 5 patients (3.2%) who underwent ablation and in 6 patients (4.0%) who received antiarrhythmic drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial treatment for symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, there was a significantly lower rate of atrial fibrillation recurrence with catheter cryoballoon ablation than with antiarrhythmic drug therapy, as assessed by continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring. (Funded by the Cardiac Arrhythmia Network of Canada and others; EARLY-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02825979.).

High-power short-duration versus low-power long-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: A substudy of the AWARE randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein isolations (PVI) are being performed using a high-power, short-duration (HPSD) strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of an HPSD versus low-power, long-duration (LPLD) approach to PVI in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Patients were grouped according to a HPSD (≥40 W) or LPLD (≤35 W) strategy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia lasting ≥30 s, detected using three 14-day ambulatory continuous ECG monitoring. Procedural and safety endpoints were also evaluated. The primary analysis were regression models incorporating propensity scores yielding adjusted relative risk (RRa ) and mean difference (MDa ) estimates. RESULTS: Of the 398 patients included in the AWARE Trial, 173 (43%) underwent HPSD and 225 (57%) LPLD ablation. The distribution of power was 50 W in 75%, 45 W in 20%, and 40 W in 5% in the HPSD group, and 35 W with 25 W on the posterior wall in the LPLD group. The primary outcome was not statistically significant at 30.1% versus 22.2% in HPSD and LPLD groups with RRa 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.55-1.10; p = .165). The secondary outcome of repeat catheter ablation was not statistically significant at 6.9% and 9.8% (RRa 1.59 [95% CI 0.77-3.30]; p = .208) respectively, nor was the incidence of any ECG documented AF during the blanking period: 1.7% versus 8.0% (RRa 3.95 [95% CI 1.00-15.61; p = .049) in the HPSD versus LPLD group respectively. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in the HPSD group (MDa 97.5 min [95% CI 84.8-110.4)]; p < .0001) with no difference in adjudicated serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An HPSD strategy was associated with significantly shorter procedural times with similar efficacy in terms of clinical arrhythmia recurrence. Importantly, there was no signal for increased harm with a HPSD strategy.

Cryocure-VT: the safety and effectiveness of ultra-low-temperature cryoablation of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies.

AIMS: The ultra-low-temperature cryoablation (ULTC) ablation system using -196°C N2 cryogen has been reported to create lesions with freeze duration-dependent depth titratable to over 10 mm with minimum attenuation by scar. Cryocure-VT (NCT04893317) was a first-in-human clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of a novel, purpose-built ULTC catheter in endocardial ablation of scar-dependent ventricular tachycardias (VTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multi-centre study enrolled patients referred for de novo or second ablations of recurrent monomorphic VT of both ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiologies. Primary safety and efficacy endpoints of the study were freedom from device- or procedure-related major adverse events (MAEs) up to 30 days post-ablation, acute non-inducibility of clinical VTs at the end of the procedure, and freedom from sustained VT or implantable defibrillator intervention at 6 months. Ultra-low-temperature cryoablation was performed in 64 patients (age 67 ± 11 years, 78% ischaemic, ejection fraction = 35 ± 10%) at 9 centres. The primary acute effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 94% (51/54) of patients in whom post-ablation induction was attempted. There were no protocol-defined MAEs; four procedure-related serious adverse events resolved without clinical sequelae. At 6-month follow-up, 38 patients (60.3%) remained VT-free, and freedom from defibrillator shock was 81.0%, with no significant difference between ischaemic and non-ischaemic cohorts. In 47 patients with defibrillator for at least 6 months prior to the ablation, the VT burden was reduced from median of 4, inter-quartile range (IQR, 1-9) to 0, IQR (0-2). CONCLUSION: In this first-in-human multi-centre experience, endocardial ULTC ablation of monomorphic VT appears safe and effective in patients with both ischaemic-cardiomyopathy and non-ischaemic-cardiomyopathy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04893317.

Atrial Fibrillation Burden: Impact on Stroke Risk and Beyond.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important independent risk factor for stroke. Current guidelines handle AF as a binary entity with risk driven by the presence of clinical risk factors, which guides the decision to treat with an oral anticoagulant. Recent studies in the literature suggest a dose-response relationship between AF burden and stroke risk, in both clinical AF and subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF), which differs from current guidance to disregard burden and utilize clinical risk scores alone. Within clinical classification and at the same risk levels in various scores, the risk of stroke increases with AF burden. This opens the possibility of incorporating burden into risk profiles, which has already shown promise. Long-term rhythm monitoring is needed to elucidate SCAF in patients with stroke. Recent data from randomized trials are controversial regarding whether there is an independent risk from AF episodes with a duration of less than 24 h, including the duration of SCAF greater than six minutes but less than 24 h.

Randomized Ablation-Based Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Trial in Patients With Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the RAFT-AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and can be challenging to treat. Pharmacologically based rhythm control of AF has not proven to be superior to rate control. Ablation-based rhythm control was compared with rate control to evaluate if clinical outcomes in patients with HF and AF could be improved. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded outcome evaluation using a central adjudication committee. Patients with high-burden paroxysmal (>4 episodes in 6 months) or persistent (duration <3 years) AF, New York Heart Association class II to III HF, and elevated NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide) were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control or rate control. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and all HF events, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary outcomes included left ventricular ejection fraction, 6-minute walk test, and NT-proBNP. Quality of life was measured using the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire and the AF Effect on Quality of Life. The primary analysis was time-to-event using Cox proportional hazards modeling. The trial was stopped early because of a determination of apparent futility by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee. RESULTS: From December 1, 2011, to January 20, 2018, 411 patients were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control (n=214) or rate control (n=197). The primary outcome occurred in 50 (23.4%) patients in the ablation-based rhythm-control group and 64 (32.5%) patients in the rate-control group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.49-1.03]; P=0.066). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased in the ablation-based group (10.1±1.2% versus 3.8±1.2%, P=0.017), 6-minute walk distance improved (44.9±9.1 m versus 27.5±9.7 m, P=0.025), and NT-proBNP demonstrated a decrease (mean change -77.1% versus -39.2%, P<0.0001). Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire demonstrated greater improvement in the ablation-based rhythm-control group (least-squares mean difference of -5.4 [95% CI, -10.5 to -0.3]; P=0.0036), as did the AF Effect on Quality of Life score (least-squares mean difference of 6.2 [95% CI, 1.7-10.7]; P=0.0005). Serious adverse events were observed in 50% of patients in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with high-burden AF and HF, there was no statistical difference in all-cause mortality or HF events with ablation-based rhythm control versus rate control; however, there was a nonsignificant trend for improved outcomes with ablation-based rhythm control over rate control. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01420393.

Augmented wide area circumferential catheter ablation for reduction of atrial fibrillation recurrence (AWARE) trial: Design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after a pulmonary vein isolation procedure is often due to electrical reconnection of the pulmonary veins. Repeat ablation procedures may improve freedom from AF but are associated with increased risks and health care costs. A novel ablation strategy in which patients receive "augmented" ablation lesions has the potential to reduce the risk of AF recurrence. OBJECTIVE: The Augmented Wide Area Circumferential Catheter Ablation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence (AWARE) Trial was designed to evaluate whether an augmented wide-area circumferential antral (WACA) ablation strategy will result in fewer atrial arrhythmia recurrences in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF, compared with a conventional WACA strategy. METHODS/DESIGN: The AWARE trial was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded endpoint trial that has completed recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02150902). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the control arm (single WACAlesion set) or the interventional arm (augmented- double WACA lesion set performed after the initial WACA). The primary outcome was atrial tachyarrhythmia (AA; atrial tachycardia [AT], atrial flutter [AFl] or AF) recurrence between days 91 and 365 post catheter ablation. Patient follow-up included 14-day continuous ambulatory ECG monitoring at 3, 6, and 12 months after catheter ablation. Three questionnaires were administered during the trial- the EuroQuol-5D (EQ-5D) quality of life scale, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Severity of Atrial Fibrillation scale, and a patient satisfaction scale. DISCUSSION: The AWARE trial was designed to evaluate whether a novel approach to catheter ablation reduced the risk of AA recurrence in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF.

Characterization of arrhythmia substrate to ablate persistent atrial fibrillation (COAST-AF): Randomized controlled trial design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Atrial low voltage area (LVA) catheter ablation has emerged as a promising strategy for ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). It is unclear if catheter ablation of atrial LVA increases treatment success rates in patients with persistent AF. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this trial is to assess the potential benefit of adjunctive catheter ablation of atrial LVA in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with persistent AF, when compared to PVI alone. The secondary aims are to evaluate safety outcomes, the quality of life and the healthcare resource utilization. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, parallel-group, 2-arm, single-blinded randomized controlled trial is under way (NCT03347227). Patients who are candidates for catheter ablation for persistent AF will be randomly assigned (1:1) to either PVI alone or PVI + atrial LVA ablation. The primary outcome is 18-month documented event rate of atrial arrhythmia (AF, atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter) post catheter ablation. Secondary outcomes include procedure-related complications, freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months, AF burden, need for emergency department visits/hospitalization, need for repeat ablation for atrial arrhythmia, quality of life at 12 and 18 months, ablation time, and procedure duration. DISCUSSION: Characterization of Arrhythmia Mechanism to Ablate Atrial Fibrillation (COAST-AF) is a multicenter randomized trial evaluating ablation strategies for catheter ablation. We hypothesize that catheter ablation of atrial LVA in addition to PVI will result in higher procedural success rates when compared to PVI alone in patients with persistent AF.

Comparative effectiveness of ventricular tachycardia ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy by location of myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VANISH trial.

AIMS: Complexity of the ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate and the size and thickness of infarction area border zones differ based on location of myocardial infarctions (MIs). These differences may translate into heterogeneity in the effectiveness of treatments. This study aims to examine the influence of infarct location on the effectiveness of VT ablation in comparison with escalated pharmacological therapy in patients with prior MI and antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory VT. METHODS AND RESULTS: VANISH trial participants were categorized based on the presence or absence of an inferior MI scar. Inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox models were calculated for each subgroup. Of 259 randomized patients (median age 69.8 years, 7.0% women), 135 had an inferior MI and 124 had a non-inferior MI. Among patients with an inferior MI, no statistically significant difference in the composite primary outcome of all-cause mortality, appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock, and VT storm was detected between treatment arms [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-1.20]. In contrast, patients with non-inferior MIs had a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the primary outcome with ablation (aHR 0.48, 95% CI 0.27-0.86). In a sensitivity analysis of anterior MI patients (n = 83), a trend towards a reduction in the primary outcome with ablation was detected (aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.23-1.09). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of VT ablation versus escalated AADs varies based on the location of the MI. Patients with MI scars located only in non-inferior regions of the ventricles derive greater benefit from VT ablation in comparison to escalation of AADs in reducing VT-related events.

Ventricular tachycardia characteristics and outcomes with catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic therapy: insights from the VANISH trial.

AIMS: Catheter ablation is superior to escalated antiarrhythmic drugs among patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) and prior myocardial infarction (MI). However, it is uncertain whether clinical VT characteristics, should influence choice of therapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether presentation with electrical storm and the clinical VT cycle length predicted response to ablation vs. escalated antiarrhythmic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients enrolled in the Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation vs. Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Ischaemic Heart Disease (VANISH) trial were included. The association between VT cycle length and presentation with electrical storm and the primary outcome of death, subsequent VT storm or appropriate ICD shock was evaluated. Among the study population of 259 patients, escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy had worse outcomes for those presenting with a VT cycle length >400 ms [<150 b.p.m., 89/259, hazard ratio (HR) 1.7 (1.02-3.13)]. This effect was more pronounced among those taking amiodarone at baseline [HR of 2.22 (1.19-4.16)]. Presentation with VT storm (32/259) did not affect the primary outcome between groups. However, those presenting with VT storm on amiodarone had a trend towards worse outcomes with escalated antiarrhythmic therapy [HR 4.31 (0.55-33.93)]. CONCLUSION: The VT cycle length can influence response to either ablation or escalated drug therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. Those with slow VT had improved outcomes with ablation. Patients presenting with electrical storm demonstrated similar outcomes to the overall trial population, with a trend to benefit of catheter ablation, particularly in those on amiodarone.

A randomized ablation-based atrial fibrillation rhythm control versus rate control trial in patients with heart failure and high burden atrial fibrillation: The RAFT-AF trial rationale and design.

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are 2 cardiac conditions that are increasing in prevalence and incidence. The 2 conditions frequently coexist, and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Catheter ablation of AF has been successfully performed in patients with HF, with an improvement in HF and AF, when compared to amiodarone, but further data is required to compare this to rate control. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine whether AF treated by catheter ablation, with or without antiarrhythmic drugs reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalizations for HF as compared with rate control in patients with HF and a high burden AF. METHODS: This is a multi-center prospective randomized open blinded endpoint (PROBE) study. Patients with NYHA class II-III HF (HF with reduced ejection fraction (<35%) or HF with preserved ejection fraction), and high burden AF are included in the trial. Patients are randomized to either rate control or catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control in a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the rate control group receive optimal HF therapy and rate control measures to achieve a resting hazard ratio (HR) < 80 bpm and 6-minute walk HR < 110 bpm. Patients randomized to catheter ablation-based AF rhythm control group receive optimal HF therapy and one or more aggressive catheter ablation, which include PV antral ablation and LA substrate ablation with or without adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure defined as an admission to a health care facility. The sample size is 600. Enrolment has been completed.

Canadian Registry of Electronic Device Outcomes: remote monitoring outcomes in the Abbott battery performance alert-a multicentre cohort.

AIMS: Cardiac implantable electronic devices with device advisories have the potential of device malfunction. Remote monitoring (RM) of devices has been suggested to allow the identification of abnormal device performance and permit early intervention. We sought to describe the outcomes of patients with and without RM in devices subject to the Abbott Premature Battery Depletion (PBD) advisory with data from a Canadian registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with an Abbott device subject to the PBD advisory from nine implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implanting centres in Canada were included in the registry. The use of RM was identified from baseline and follow-up data in the registry. The primary outcome was detection of PBD and all-cause mortality. A total of 2666 patients were identified with a device subject to the advisory. In all, 1687 patients (63.2%) had RM at baseline. There were 487 deaths during follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 0.7 years, mortality was higher in those without a remote monitor compared with RM at baseline (24.7% vs. 14.5%; P < 0.001). Pre-mature battery depletion was identified in 36 patients (2.1%) with RM vs. 7 (0.7%) without RM (P = 0.004). Time to battery replacement was significantly reduced in patients on RM (median 5 vs. 13 days, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of RM in patients with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy under advisory improved detection of PBD, time to device replacement, and was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality. The factors influencing the association with mortality are unknown and deserve further study.

Post-operative pain following cardiac implantable electronic device implantation: insights from the BRUISE CONTROL trials.

AIMS: Post-operative pain following cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertion is associated with patient dissatisfaction, emotional distress, and emergency department visits. We sought to identify factors associated with post-operative pain and develop a prediction score for post-operative pain. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients from the BRUISE CONTROL-1 and 2 trials were included in this analysis. A validated Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess the severity of pain related to CIED implant procedures. Patients were asked to grade the most severe post-operative pain, average post-operative pain, and pain on the day of the first post-operative clinic. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of significant post-operative pain and to develop a pain-prediction score. A total of 1308 patients were included. Multivariable regression analysis found that the presence of post-operative clinically significant haematoma {CSH; P value < 0.001; odds ratio (OR) 3.82 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.37-6.16]}, de novo CIED implantation [P value < 0.001; OR 1.90 (95% CI: 1.47-2.46)], female sex [P value < 0.001; OR 1.61 (95% CI: 1.22-2.12)], younger age [<65 years; P value < 0.001; OR 1.54 (95% CI: 1.14-2.10)], and lower body mass index [<20 kg/m2; P value < 0.05; OR 2.05 (95% CI: 0.98-4.28)] demonstrated strong and independent associations with increased post-operative pain. An 11-point post-operative pain prediction score was developed using the data. CONCLUSION: Our study has identified multiple predictors of post-operative pain after CIED insertion. We have developed a prediction score for post-operative pain that can be used to identify individuals at risk of experiencing significant post-operative pain.

Fusion pacing in patients with right bundle branch block who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy.

PURPOSE: Patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) are less likely to respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to assess whether patients with RBBB respond to CRT with biventricular fusion pacing. METHODS: Consecutive patients with RBBB at a single tertiary care center, who were implanted with a CRT device capable of biventricular fusion pacing using SyncAV programming, were assessed and compared to a historical cohort of CRT patients with RBBB. QRSd was measured and compared during intrinsic conduction, nominal CRT pacing and manual electrocardiogram-based optimized SyncAV programming. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was also compared before and 6 months after CRT. RESULTS: We included 8 consecutive patients with RBBB (group 1) who were able to undergo SyncAV programming and 16 patients with RBBB (group 2) from a historical cohort. In group 1, compared to mean intrinsic conduction QRSd (155 ± 13 ms), mean nominally-paced QRSd was 156 ± 15 ms (ΔQRSd 1.3 ± 11.6; p = 0.77) and SyncAV-optimized paced QRSd was 135 ± 14 ms (ΔQRSd -20.0 ± 20.4; p = 0.03 and ΔQRSd -21.3 ± 16.3; p = 0.008; compared to intrinsic conduction and nominal pacing respectively). In group 2, mean QRSd with nominal pacing was 160 ± 24 ms (ΔQRSd 3.8 ± 33.4; p = 0.66 compared to intrinsic conduction). In group 1, baseline LVEF was 22.1 ± 11.5 and after 6 months of follow-up was 27.8 ± 8.6 (p = 0.047). In group 2, the baseline LVEF was 27.2 ± 10.6 and after 6 months of follow-up was 25.0 ± 10.0 (p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: CRT programed to allow biventricular fusion pacing significantly improved electrical synchrony and LVEF in patients with RBBB. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings.

Association of the left common ostium with clinical outcome after pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Electrical pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is used for the invasive treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, despite the procedure's technical evolution, the rate of AF recurrence due to electrical reconnection of the PVs is high. The aims of this study was to assess the influence of left common pulmonary venous ostium (LCO) on clinical outcomes following PVI. METHODS: Retrospective cohort of 254 patients who underwent the first procedure of PVI from the years 2013-2018 was assessed. Patients with persistent AF of long duration and extra-pulmonary focus associated with triggers for arrhythmia were excluded. Patients were stratified into two groups according to the presence of a LCO and received follow up for atrial tachyarrhythmia-free survival. The mean follow-up period was 28 ± 1.73 months. RESULTS: The majority were men (68.5%), with a mean age of 54 ± 12 years. With respect to the atrial anatomy, LCO occurred in 23.6% of cases after pulmonary venous angiotomography. The arrhythmia-free survival rate was 79.5% in the follow-up period. The Cox regression model was utilized and the adjusted hazard ratio for LCO was 0.36 (95% CI 0.15-0.87; p = 0.02) in terms of age, body mass index, left atrium diameter, bi-directional blocking of the cavotricuspid isthmus, persistent AF, left ventricular ejection fraction adjusted model. CONCLUSION: Anatomic abnormality with the presence of the LCO is present in a quarter of patients undergoing AF ablation, which is associated with a lower rate of arrhythmia recurrence in our population.

Long-term effectiveness of catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure.

AIMS: Randomized trials suggest reductions in all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) rehospitalizations with catheter ablation (CA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF. Whether these results can be replicated in a real-world population with long-term follow-up or varies over time is unknown. We sought to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of CA in reducing the incidence of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, stroke, and major bleeding in AF-HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a cohort of patients newly diagnosed with AF-HF in Quebec, Canada (2000-2017), CA patients were matched 1:2 to controls on time and frequency of hospitalizations. Confounders were controlled for using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Multivariable Cox models adjusted for the presence of cardiac electronic implantable devices and medication use during follow-up, and the effect of time since CA was modelled with B-splines. For non-fatal outcomes, the Lunn-McNeil approach was used to account for the competing risk of death. Among 101 933 AF-HF patients, 451 underwent CA and were matched to 899 controls. Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, CA was associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.4 (95% confidence interval 0.2-0.7)], but no difference in stroke or major bleeding. The hazard of HF rehospitalization for CA patients, relative to non-CA patients, varied with time since CA (P = 0.01), with a reduction in HF rehospitalizations until approximately 3 years post-CA. CONCLUSION: Compared with matched non-CA patients, CA was associated with a long-term reduction in all-cause mortality and a reduction in HF rehospitalizations until 3 years post-CA.

Relationship between quality of life and burden of recurrent atrial fibrillation following ablation: CAPCOST multicentre cohort study.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) significantly impairs patients' quality of life (QOL). We performed this study to investigate the effect of AF-ablation success and atrial fibrillation burden (AFB) on QOL measures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 230 patients with paroxysmal AF refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs were enrolled and underwent ablation in a multicentre, prospective cohort. Electrocardiogram, 48-h Holter, Canadian Cardiovascular Society Severity of Atrial Fibrillation (CCS-SAF), short form-12 (SF-12), and Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of life (AFEQT) scales were used to assess patients. Atrial fibrillation burden was defined as total duration of AF during the month prior to each visit (h/month). The change in AFB was calculated as the difference between the month prior to the 12-month post-ablation and the baseline pre-ablation. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was considered as a 19-point change for AFEQT and 3-5-point change for SF-12 scores. There was significant rise in the AFEQT and SF12 and decrease in CCS-SAF score post-AF ablation; however, the magnitude of these changes was greater in patients without AF recurrence (P < 0.05). The QOL score that best differentiated patients with and without recurrence was AFEQT, while, CCS-SAF was the most specific score. Patients with AFB decrease >19 h/month had significantly greater change in QOL scores. Atrial fibrillation burden < 24 h/month at 12-months post-ablation was associated with significant changes in QOL and CCS-SAF when adjusting for baseline scores and other covariates. These changes were consistent with the MCID of these measures. CONCLUSION: Patients experience significant improvements in QOL post-ablation, which correlate with a decrease in AFB despite ongoing brief recurrences of AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01562912. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01562912? term=capcost&rank=1.

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective approach to management of this problem is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock. RESULTS: Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).

Rationale and design of the randomized prospective ATLAS study: Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects.

BACKGROUND: The defibrillator lead is the weakest part of the transvenous (TV) implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) system and a frequent cause of morbidity. Lead dislodgement, cardiac perforation, insertion-related trauma including pneumothorax and vascular injury, are common early complications of TV-ICD implantation. Venous occlusion, tricuspid valve dysfunction, lead fracture and lead insulation failure are additional, later complications. The introduction of a totally sub-cutaneous ICD (S-ICD) may reduce these lead-related issues, patient morbidity, hospitalizations and costs. However, such benefits compared to the TV-ICD have not been demonstrated in a randomized trial. DESIGN: ATLAS (Avoid Transvenous Leads in Appropriate Subjects) is a multi-centered, randomized, open-label, parallel group trial. Patients younger than 60 years are eligible. If older than 60 years, patients are eligible if they have an inherited heart rhythm disease, or risk factors for ICD-related complication, such as hemodialysis, a history of ICD or pacemaker infection, heart valve replacement, or severe pulmonary disease. This study will determine if using an S-ICD compared to a TV-ICD reduces a primary composite outcome of perioperative complications including pulmonary or pericardial perforation, lead dislodgement or dysfunction, tricuspid regurgitation and ipsilateral venous thrombosis. Five hundred patients will be enrolled from 14 Canadian hospitals, and data collected to both early- (at 6 months) and mid-term complications (at 24 months) as well as mortality and ICD shock efficacy. SUMMARY: The ATLAS randomized trial is comparing early- and mid-term vascular and lead-related complications among S-ICD versus TV-ICD recipients who are younger or at higher risk of ICD-related complications.