RESUMO
Background: The aetiological spectrum of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is various. Tachycardiomyopathy is recognized as one of the cause, usually made retrospectively. In this clinical context, rhythm control with restoration of sinus rhythm is considered crucial to minimize ventricular function damage and allow contractility recovery. However, the presence of a thrombus in the left atrial appendage is a limiting factor, typically requiring anticoagulation until the thrombus resolves, at least 3 weeks, thus delaying the therapy. Case summary: We present a case of 65-year-old man with diagnosis of new-onset acute symptomatic heart failure with severe reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction 15%), in the context of a typical tachycardic atrial flutter and concomitant thrombus in the left atrial appendage confirmed by transoesophageal echocardiography. We successfully performed a thrombus entrapment procedure by means of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure, which allowed immediate restoration of sinus rhythm through cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. After the institution of the heart failure therapy, titrated up to the maximum tolerated dose, we observed a complete restoration of left ventricular function after 6 months. Discussion: Thrombus entrapment by means of left atrial appendage closure is a valid strategy that enables early cardioversion with arrhythmia ablation and rapid restoration of normal cardiac rhythm in severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, even in acute situations and typical atrial flutter.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about impact of age and comorbidities on outcome in patients with leadless pacemakers (LPM) is limited. OBJECTIVES: To analyse outcome in LPM patients according to age and comorbidities. METHODS: This Swiss, multi-centre, retrospective analysis includes all patients with LPM implanted between 2015 and 2022. Charlson-Comorbidity-Index (CCI) was determined and patients were divided into a low- (CCIâ¯≤â¯5) and high- comorbidity (CCIâ¯>â¯5) group. Peri-procedural complications, in-hospital death, and all-cause mortalities were assessed. Finally, all-cause mortality according to three groups (CCIâ¯≤â¯3, 4-5, >5) was compared to age and sex-adjusted mortality in the general Swiss population. RESULTS: 863 patients (median age 81â¯years, 65% male, 42% with CCIâ¯>â¯5) were included. Peri-procedural/long-term complication rates did not differ between the low- vs. high-comorbidity groups (2.6% vs. 1.7%, pâ¯=â¯0.48 and 1.2% vs. 2.8%, pâ¯=â¯0.12, respectively). In-hospital (3.6% vs. 0.6%, pâ¯=â¯0.002) and all-cause mortality (HR 2.9, 95%CI 2.2-3.8, pâ¯<â¯0.001) were significantly higher in the high-comorbidity group resulting in a three-year mortality of 58% (95%CI 51-65%) vs. 22% (95%CI 17-27%) in the low-comorbidity group. In patients with a CCIâ¯≤â¯3, all-cause mortality was comparable to the age- and sex-adjusted mortality of the general Swiss population. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with high comorbidity, LPM implantation was not associated with increased peri-procedural/long-term complications. All-cause mortality in LPM patients with a CCIâ¯≤â¯3 was comparable to age- and sex-adjusted mortality in the general Swiss population. Despite a relatively high three-year mortality due to competing risk factors, LPM implantation is safe, even in elderly patients with high comorbidity. CONDENSED ABSTRACT: In this Swiss, multi-centre, retrospective cohort analysis, 863 patients implanted with a leadless pacemaker were included and divided into a high-comorbidity (with a CCIâ¯>â¯5) and low-comorbidity (with a CCIâ¯≤â¯5) group. There was no between group difference in terms of implantation outcomes and peri-operative or long-term complications. Furthermore, all-cause mortality during follow-up in patients with a CCIâ¯≤â¯3 was comparable to age- and sex-adjusted mortality in the general Swiss population. These data indicate that LPM implantation is a safe procedure, even in elderly patients with high comorbidity.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Evidence to support immediate P2Y12 inhibitor loading in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is limited. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare outcomes of STEMI patients receiving immediate or delayed P2Y12 inhibitor treatment. METHODS: Using data from the prospective Bern-PCI registry between 2016 and 2020, we stratified STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention according to time periods with different institutional recommendations regarding P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment. In cohort 1 (October 2016-September 2018), immediate P2Y12 inhibitor treatment was recommended. In cohort 2 (October 2018-September 2020), P2Y12 inhibitor treatment was recommended after coronary anatomy was confirmed. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or definite stent thrombosis at 30 days. Sensitivity analysis included only patients in whom these recommendations were followed. RESULTS: Cohort 1 included 1,116 patients; pretreatment was actually given in 708 (63.4%). Cohort 2 included 847 patients; pretreatment was withheld in 798 (94.2%). The mean age was 65 ± 13 years, and 24% were female. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups. The median difference for P2Y12 loading to angiography was 52 minutes between cohort 1 and 2 and 100 minutes between patients receiving vs not receiving pretreatment. Rates of MACCEs were similar between cohort 1 and cohort 2 (10.1% vs 8.1%; adjusted HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.65-1.28; P = 0.59) and between patients receiving vs not receiving pretreatment (7.1% vs 8.4%; adjusted HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.78-1.74; P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment was not associated with improved MACCEs.