Apixaban vs Aspirin According to CHA2DS2-VASc Score in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From ARTESiA.

BACKGROUND: ARTESiA (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation) demonstrated that apixaban, compared with aspirin, significantly reduced stroke and systemic embolism (SE) but increased major bleeding in patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVES: To help inform decision making, the authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of apixaban according to baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis according to baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score and assessed both the relative and absolute differences in stroke/SE and major bleeding. RESULTS: Baseline CHA2DS2-VASc scores were <4 in 1,578 (39.4%) patients, 4 in 1,349 (33.6%), and >4 in 1,085 (27.0%). For patients with CHA2DS2-VASc >4, the rate of stroke was 0.98%/year with apixaban and 2.25%/year with aspirin; compared with aspirin, apixaban prevented 1.28 (95% CI: 0.43-2.12) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.68 (95% CI: -0.23 to 1.57) major bleeds. For CHA2DS2-VASc <4, the stroke/SE rate was 0.85%/year with apixaban and 0.97%/year with aspirin. Apixaban prevented 0.12 (95% CI: -0.38 to 0.62) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.33 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.92) major bleeds. For patients with CHA2DS2-VASc =4, apixaban prevented 0.32 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.79) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.28 (95% CI: -0.30 to 0.86) major bleeds. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients in ARTESiA with subclinical atrial fibrillation had a CHA2DS2-VASc score >4 and a stroke/SE risk of 2.2% per year. For these patients, the benefits of treatment with apixaban in preventing stroke/SE are greater than the risks. The opposite is true for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score <4. A substantial intermediate group (CHA2DS2-VASc =4) exists in which patient preferences will inform treatment decisions. (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation; NCT01938248).

Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study.

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), for which pre-clinical and early-stage clinical data are suggestive of some degree of preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation without damage to adjacent structures. Here in the MANIFEST-17K study we assessed the safety of PFA by studying the post-approval use of this treatment modality. Of the 116 centers performing post-approval PFA with a pentaspline catheter, data were received from 106 centers (91.4% participation) regarding 17,642 patients undergoing PFA (mean age 64, 34.7% female, 57.8% paroxysmal AF and 35.2% persistent AF). No esophageal complications, pulmonary vein stenosis or persistent phrenic palsy was reported (transient palsy was reported in 0.06% of patients; 11 of 17,642). Major complications, reported for ~1% of patients (173 of 17,642), were pericardial tamponade (0.36%; 63 of 17,642) and vascular events (0.30%; 53 of 17,642). Stroke was rare (0.12%; 22 of 17,642) and death was even rarer (0.03%; 5 of 17,642). Unexpected complications of PFA were coronary arterial spasm in 0.14% of patients (25 of 17,642) and hemolysis-related acute renal failure necessitating hemodialysis in 0.03% of patients (5 of 17,642). Taken together, these data indicate that PFA demonstrates a favorable safety profile by avoiding much of the collateral damage seen with conventional thermal ablation. PFA has the potential to be transformative for the management of patients with AF.

Prognostic Significance of Heart Rate Variability Among Patients Treated With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the prognostic value of heart rate variability (HRV) for death or heart failure in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D). BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the prognostic value of HRV as a means of identifying high-risk patients treated with CRT-D. METHODS: We analyzed the relationship between pre-implant time-domain (SD of all normal-to-normal RR intervals [SDNN], SDs of averaged 5-min normal-to-normal RR intervals, root mean square of successive differences, and mean of the SDs of all normal-to-normal RR intervals for all 5-min segments of the entire recording), and frequency-domain (low-frequency power, very-low-frequency power [VLF], high-frequency power, low-frequency power/low-frequency power ratio) HRV parameters, and the end point of death or heart failure and death alone. Study subjects include 719 patients in normal sinus rhythm enrolled in MADIT-CRT (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy); outcomes of CRT-D patients with low HRV (lower tertile) were compared with CRT-D patients with preserved HRV (2 upper tertiles) and with patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators only. RESULTS: During a mean 3.4 ± 0.9 years of follow-up, 124 patients reached the primary end point of death or heart failure, and 47 died. In multivariate analysis, low SDNN (≤93 ms) was associated with significantly higher risk of death or heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12 to 2.36]; p = 0.010) and mortality (HR 2.10 [95% CI: 1.14 to 3.87]; p = 0.017) compared with higher SDNN (>93 ms). Similarly, low VLF (≤179 ms2) was associated with an increased risk of death or heart failure (HR 2.14 [95% CI: 1.46 to 3.13]; p < 0.001) and death alone (HR 2.49 [95% CI: 1.35 to 4.57]; p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in outcome between low HRV patients treated with CRT-D and patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator only. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that autonomic dysfunction (quantified by low SDNN and low VLF) identified patients with no benefit or limited benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy. Pre-implant HRV analysis might help in optimizing qualifications for this treatment.

Personalized management of atrial fibrillation: Proceedings from the fourth Atrial Fibrillation competence NETwork/European Heart Rhythm Association consensus conference.

The management of atrial fibrillation (AF) has seen marked changes in past years, with the introduction of new oral anticoagulants, new antiarrhythmic drugs, and the emergence of catheter ablation as a common intervention for rhythm control. Furthermore, new technologies enhance our ability to detect AF. Most clinical management decisions in AF patients can be based on validated parameters that encompass type of presentation, clinical factors, electrocardiogram analysis, and cardiac imaging. Despite these advances, patients with AF are still at increased risk for death, stroke, heart failure, and hospitalizations. During the fourth Atrial Fibrillation competence NETwork/European Heart Rhythm Association (AFNET/EHRA) consensus conference, we identified the following opportunities to personalize management of AF in a better manner with a view to improve outcomes by integrating atrial morphology and damage, brain imaging, information on genetic predisposition, systemic or local inflammation, and markers for cardiac strain. Each of these promising avenues requires validation in the context of existing risk factors in patients. More importantly, a new taxonomy of AF may be needed based on the pathophysiological type of AF to allow personalized management of AF to come to full fruition. Continued translational research efforts are needed to personalize management of this prevalent disease in a better manner. All the efforts are expected to improve the management of patients with AF based on personalized therapy.

Device therapy and hospital reimbursement practices across European countries: a heterogeneous scenario.

As in other settings, in the field of clinical use of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), the implementation, in various ways, of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) has created new scenarios in most European healthcare systems. A DRG system is primarily a financial tool with the aim of promoting efficiency and improving utilization of resources. However, there are a variety of ways in which this system is used for funding the activity of centres implanting CIEDs. It is possible that the specific type and method of reimbursement may influence the implementation of CIEDs in the 'real world' through a variable spectrum of practices. These may range from the situation where reimbursement may, together with other factors, constitute a true barrier to the implementation of guidelines, to scenarios where reimbursement is adequate, and/or to situations where reimbursement may be adequate for standard devices but not for prompt implementation of effective technological innovations. The variety in reimbursement also affects how in-office checks of CIEDs are covered and, above all, the possibility to pay for remote follow-up of CIEDs. In the field of medical devices, refinement of DRG systems and adoption of new strategies and policies are needed to sustain and enhance those effective technological innovations that may be beneficial for specific patient populations. It is also important that physicians are deeply involved in the development and deployment of DRGs, and that each country DRGs agency has a transparent approach to engagement with stakeholders, along with robust and transparent mechanisms for updating these systems.

Randomized, double blind study of non-excitatory, cardiac contractility modulation electrical impulses for symptomatic heart failure.

AIMS: We performed a randomized, double blind, crossover study of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) signals in heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four subjects with ejection fraction (EF) < 35% and NYHA Class II (24%) or III (76%) symptoms received a CCM pulse generator. Patients were randomly assigned to Group 1 (n = 80, CCM treatment 3 months, sham treatment second 3 months) or Group 2 (n = 84, sham treatment 3 months, CCM treatment second 3 months). The co-primary endpoints were changes in peak oxygen consumption (VO2,peak) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ). Baseline EF (29.3 +/- 6.7% vs. 29.8 +/- 7.8%), VO2,peak (14.1 +/- 3.0 vs. 13.6 +/- 2.7 mL/kg/min), and MLWHFQ (38.9 +/- 27.4 vs. 36.5 +/- 27.1) were similar between the groups. VO2,peak increased similarly in both groups during the first 3 months (0.40 +/- 3.0 vs. 0.37 +/- 3.3 mL/kg/min, placebo effect). During the next 3 months, VO2,peak decreased in the group switched to sham (-0.86 +/- 3.06 mL/kg/min) and increased in patients switched to active treatment (0.16 +/- 2.50 mL/kg/min). MLWHFQ trended better with treatment (-12.06 +/- 15.33 vs. -9.70 +/- 16.71) during the first 3 months, increased during the second 3 months in the group switched to sham (+4.70 +/- 16.57), and decreased further in patients switched to active treatment (-0.70 +/- 15.13). A comparison of values at the end of active treatment periods vs. end of sham treatment periods indicates statistically significantly improved VO2,peak and MLWHFQ (P = 0.03 for each parameter). CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, CCM signals appear safe; exercise tolerance and quality of life (MLWHFQ) were significantly better while patients were receiving active treatment with CCM for a 3-month period.