Leadless pacemaker implantation and concurrent atrioventricular junction ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular junctional (AVJ) ablation and pacemaker implantation are indicated when pharmacotherapy fails to achieve adequate rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of concurrent Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker implantation and AVJ ablation. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed patients who underwent Micra implantation and concurrent AVJ ablation at three institutions between August 2014 and March 2016. All patients and devices were followed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postimplantion. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with permanent AF (median age 77 [range: 62-88], female 15 [71.4%]) underwent successful Micra implantation followed by concurrent AVJ ablation. There was no device dislodgement or malfunction during the 12-month follow-up. Complete 12-month electrical performance data were available in 14 patients (67%). Among patients with the complete data set, median pacing thresholds at implant and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 0.5 V (range: 0.25-0.88), 0.44 V (range: 0.25-2.0), 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.63), 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.13), and 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.13) at a pulse width of 0.24 msec, respectively. Two patients died due to noncardiac causes during follow-up. There were no patients with major device-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent Micra implantation and AVJ ablation is feasible and appears safe. There was no device dislodgement, malfunction, or significant pacing threshold rise requiring device reimplantation during the 12-month follow-up. This combined approach can be considered for patients with AF with suboptimal rate control who have failed AF catheter ablation and/or pharmacotherapy.

Dofetilide for suppression of atrial fibrillation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A case series and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Limited medical options are available for rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). There are no published reports of dofetilide use in this population. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 1,404 patients loaded on dofetilide for AF suppression at the Cleveland Clinic from 2008 to 2012, 25 of whom were found to have HCM. RESULTS: The HCM cohort was 32% female, 76% with persistent AF, mean age of 59 ± 10 years, and mean ejection fraction of 54 ± 9 %. Of the 25 patients, 21 were discharged on dofetilide, three discontinued during loading due to QTc prolongation, and one due to inefficacy. There were no adverse events during loading. Of those discharged on dofetilide, 11/21 (52%) were still on it at a median follow-up of 396 (198, 699) days at the time of the chart review. For those in whom it was discontinued, the median time on the drug was 301 (111, 738) days. Of the 10 patients who discontinued dofetilide during follow-up, six were due to inefficacy, one postablation, one postheart transplant, one due to death secondary to lung cancer, and one due to worsening edema. CONCLUSIONS: Dofetilide was well tolerated in this group of patients with AF and HCM and it facilitated management of AF in 21/25 (84%) patients. Further research is needed to assess the safety and efficacy of dofetilide in order to develop evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological management of AF in this population.

Safety of Oral Dofetilide Reloading for Treatment of Atrial Arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Although dofetilide labeling states that the drug must be initiated or reinitiated with continuous electrocardiographic monitoring and in the presence of trained personnel, the risks of dofetilide reloading justifying repeat hospitalization have not been investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients admitted for dofetilide reloading for atrial arrhythmias were retrospectively reviewed. The need for dose adjustment and the incidence of torsades de pointes (TdP) were identified. The incidence of TdP in dofetilide reloading was compared with patients admitted for dofetilide initial loading. Of 138 patients admitted for dofetilide reloading for atrial arrhythmias, 102 were reloaded at a previously tolerated dose, 30 with a higher dose from a previously tolerated dose and 2 at a lower dose; prior dosage was unknown in 4 patients. Dose adjustment or discontinuation was required in 44 patients (31.9%). No TdP occurred in the same dose reloading group, but TdP occurred in 2 patients admitted to increase dofetilide dosage (0% versus 6.7%; P=0.050). Dofetilide dose adjustment or discontinuation was required in 30 of 102 patients (29.4%) reloaded at a previously tolerated dose and in 11 of 30 patients (36.7%) admitted for an increase in dose. CONCLUSIONS: Although no TdP occurred in patients admitted to reload dofetilide at the same dose as previously tolerated, dosage adjustments or discontinuation was frequent and support the need for hospitalization for dofetilide reloading. Patients admitted for reloading with a higher dose tended to be at higher risk for TdP than patients reloaded at a prior tolerated dose.

Brain-to-serum lithium ratio and age: an in vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to determine if there is an association between brain-to-serum lithium ratios and age. METHOD: Lithium-7 magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used to measure in vivo brain lithium levels in nine children and adolescents (mean age=13.4 years, SD=3.6) and 18 adults (mean age=37.3, SD=9.1) with bipolar disorder. RESULTS: Serum and brain lithium concentrations were positively correlated. Younger subjects had lower brain-to-serum concentration ratios than adults: 0.58 (SD=0.24) versus 0.92 (SD=0.36). The brain-to-serum concentration ratio correlated positively with age. CONCLUSIONS: These observations suggest that children and adolescents may need higher maintenance serum lithium concentrations than adults to ensure that brain lithium concentrations reach therapeutic levels.