Recurrence of new-onset post-operative AF after cardiac surgery: detected by implantable loop recorders: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common complications after cardiac surgery. New-onset post-operative AF may signal an elevated risk of AF and associated outcomes in long-term follow-up. We aimed to estimate the rate of AF recurrence as detected by an implantable loop recorder (ILR) in patients experiencing post-operative AF within 30 days after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL to April 2023 for studies of adults who did not have known AF, experienced new-onset AF within 30 days of cardiac surgery and received an ILR. We pooled individual participant data on timing of AF recurrence using a random-effects model with a frailty model applied to a Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: From 8671 citations, 8 single-centre prospective cohort studies met eligibility criteria. Data were available from 185 participants in 7 studies, with a median follow-up of 1.7 (IQR: 1.3-2.8) years. All included studies were at a low risk of bias. Pooled AF recurrence rates following 30 post-operative days were 17.8% (95% CI 11.9%-23.2%) at 3 months, 24.4% (17.7%-30.6%) at 6 months, 30.1% (22.8%-36.7%) at 12 months and 35.3% (27.6%-42.2%) at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who experience new-onset post-operative AF after cardiac surgery, AF recurrence lasting at least 30 s occurs in approximately 1 in 3 in the first year after surgery. The optimal frequency and modality to use for monitoring for AF recurrence in this population remain uncertain.

Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical atrial fibrillation is short-lasting and asymptomatic and can usually be detected only by long-term continuous monitoring with pacemakers or defibrillators. Subclinical atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of stroke by a factor of 2.5; however, treatment with oral anticoagulation is of uncertain benefit. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting 6 minutes to 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive apixaban at a dose of 5 mg twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily when indicated) or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg daily. The trial medication was discontinued and anticoagulation started if subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting more than 24 hours or clinical atrial fibrillation developed. The primary efficacy outcome, stroke or systemic embolism, was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (all the patients who had undergone randomization); the primary safety outcome, major bleeding, was assessed in the on-treatment population (all the patients who had undergone randomization and received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug, with follow-up censored 5 days after permanent discontinuation of trial medication for any reason). RESULTS: We included 4012 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 76.8±7.6 years and a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.9±1.1 (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of stroke); 36.1% of the patients were women. After a mean follow-up of 3.5±1.8 years, stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year) and in 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007). In the on-treatment population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.57; P = 0.001). Fatal bleeding occurred in 5 patients in the apixaban group and 8 patients in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation, apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin but a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ARTESIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01938248.).

Ability to remotely monitor atrial high-rate episodes using a single-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with a floating atrial sensing dipole.

AIMS: To allow timely initiation of anticoagulation therapy for the prevention of stroke, the European guidelines on atrial fibrillation (AF) recommend remote monitoring (RM) of device-detected atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) and progression of arrhythmia duration along pre-specified strata (6 min…<1 h, 1 h…<24 h, ≥ 24 h). We used the MATRIX registry data to assess the capability of a single-lead implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with atrial sensing dipole (DX ICD system) to follow this recommendation in patients with standard indication for single-chamber ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 1841 DX ICD patients with daily automatic RM transmissions, electrograms of first device-detected AHREs per patient in each duration stratum were adjudicated, and the corresponding positive predictive values (PPVs) for the detections to be true atrial arrhythmia were calculated. Moreover, the incidence and progression of new-onset AF was assessed in 1451 patients with no AF history. A total of 610 AHREs ≥6 min were adjudicated. The PPV was 95.1% (271 of 285) for episodes 6min…<1 h, 99.6% (253/254) for episodes 1 h…<24 h, 100% (71/71) for episodes ≥24 h, or 97.5% for all episodes (595/610). The incidence of new-onset AF was 8.2% (119/1451), and in 31.1% of them (37/119), new-onset AF progressed to a higher duration stratum. Nearly 80% of new-onset AF patients had high CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk, and 70% were not on anticoagulation therapy. Age was the only significant predictor of new-onset AF. CONCLUSION: A 99.7% detection accuracy for AHRE ≥1 h in patients with DX ICD systems in combination with daily RM allows a reliable guideline-recommended screening for subclinical AF and monitoring of AF-duration progression.

Association of the Timing and Extent of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections With Mortality.

Importance: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a potentially devastating complication with an estimated 12-month mortality of 15% to 30%. The association of the extent (localized or systemic) and timing of infection with all-cause mortality has not been established. Objective: To evaluate the association of the extent and timing of CIED infection with all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted between December 1, 2012, and September 30, 2016, in 28 centers across Canada and the Netherlands. The study included 19 559 patients undergoing CIED procedures, 177 of whom developed an infection. Data were analyzed from April 5, 2021, to January 14, 2023. Exposures: Prospectively identified CIED infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time-dependent analysis of the timing (early [≤3 months] or delayed [3-12 months]) and extent (localized or systemic) of infection was performed to determine the risk of all-cause mortality associated with CIED infections. Results: Of 19 559 patients undergoing CIED procedures, 177 developed a CIED infection. The mean (SD) age was 68.7 (12.7) years, and 132 patients were male (74.6%). The cumulative incidence of infection was 0.6%, 0.7%, and 0.9% within 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Infection rates were highest in the first 3 months (0.21% per month), reducing significantly thereafter. Compared with patients who did not develop CIED infection, those with early localized infections were not at higher risk for all-cause mortality (no deaths at 30 days [0 of 74 patients]: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.20-1.98]; P = .43). However, patients with early systemic and delayed localized infections had an approximately 3-fold increase in mortality (8.9% 30-day mortality [4 of 45 patients]: aHR, 2.88 [95% CI, 1.48-5.61]; P = .002; 8.8% 30-day mortality [3 of 34 patients]: aHR, 3.57 [95% CI, 1.33-9.57]; P = .01), increasing to a 9.3-fold risk of death for those with delayed systemic infections (21.7% 30-day mortality [5 of 23 patients]: aHR, 9.30 [95% CI, 3.82-22.65]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings suggest that CIED infections are most common within 3 months after the procedure. Early systemic infections and delayed localized infections are associated with increased mortality, with the highest risk for patients with delayed systemic infections. Early detection and treatment of CIED infections may be important in reducing mortality associated with this complication.

Impact of Choice of Prophylaxis on the Microbiology of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections: Insights From the Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT).

BACKGROUND: The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90). CONCLUSIONS: Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01002911.

Midodrine for the Prevention of Vasovagal Syncope : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent vasovagal syncope is common, responds poorly to treatment, and causes physical trauma and poor quality of life. Midodrine prevents hypotension and syncope during tilt tests in patients with vasovagal syncope. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether midodrine can prevent vasovagal syncope in usual clinical conditions. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01456481). SETTING: 25 university hospitals in Canada, the United States, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and no serious comorbid conditions. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or midodrine and followed for 12 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with at least 1 syncope episode during follow-up. RESULTS: The study included 133 patients who had had a median of 6 syncope episodes in the prior year (median age, 32 years; 73% female). Compared with patients receiving placebo, fewer patients receiving midodrine had at least 1 syncope episode (28 of 66 [42%] vs. 41 of 67 [61%]). The relative risk was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; P = 0.035). The absolute risk reduction was 19 percentage points (CI, 2 to 36 percentage points), and the number needed to treat to prevent 1 patient from having syncope was 5.3 (CI, 2.8 to 47.6). The time to first syncope was longer with midodrine (hazard ratio, 0.59 [CI, 0.37 to 0.96]; P = 0.035; log-rank P = 0.031). Adverse effects were similar in both groups. LIMITATION: Small study size, young and healthy patients, relatively short observation period, and high proportion of patients from 1 center. CONCLUSION: Midodrine can reduce the recurrence of syncope in healthy, younger patients with a high syncope burden. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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.

Risk Factors for Infections Involving Cardiac Implanted Electronic Devices.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device infection is a major complication that usually requires device removal. PADIT (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) was a large cluster crossover trial of conventional versus incremental antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate independent predictors of device infection in PADIT and develop a novel infection risk score. METHODS: In brief, over 4 6-month periods, 28 centers used either conventional or incremental prophylactic antibiotic treatment in all patients. The primary outcome was hospitalization for device infection within 1 year (blinded endpoint adjudication). Multivariable logistic prediction modeling was used to identify the independent predictors and develop a risk score for device infection. The prediction models were internally validated with bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Device procedures were performed in 19,603 patients, and hospitalization for infection occurred in 177 (0.90%) within 1 year of follow-up. The final prediction model identified 5 independent predictors of device infection (prior procedures [P], age [A], depressed renal function [D], immunocompromised [I], and procedure type [T]) with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.704 (95% confidence interval: 0.660 to 0.744). A PADIT risk score ranging from 0 to 15 points classified patients into low (0 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (≥7) risk groups with rates of hospitalization for infection of 0.51%, 1.42%, and 3.41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 5 independent predictors of device infection and developed a novel infection risk score in the largest cardiac implantable electronic device trial to date, warranting validation in an independent cohort. The 5 independent predictors in the PADIT score are readily adopted into clinical practice. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot]; NCT01002911).

Effect of Direct Oral Anticoagulants, Warfarin, and Antiplatelet Agents on Risk of Device Pocket Hematoma: Combined Analysis of BRUISE CONTROL 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulant use is common among patients undergoing pacemaker or defibrillator surgery. BRUISE CONTROL (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial; NCT00800137) demonstrated that perioperative warfarin continuation reduced clinically significant hematomas (CSH) by 80% compared with heparin bridging (3.5% versus 16%). BRUISE-CONTROL-2 (NCT01675076) observed a similarly low risk of CSH when comparing continued versus interrupted direct oral anticoagulant (2.1% in both groups). Using patient level data from both trials, the current study aims to: (1) evaluate the effect of concomitant antiplatelet therapy on CSH, and (2) understand the relative risk of CSH in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. METHODS: We analyzed 1343 patients included in BRUISE-CONTROL-1 and BRUISE-CONTROL-2. The primary outcome for both trials was CSH. There were 408 patients identified as having continued either a single or dual antiplatelet agent at the time of device surgery. RESULTS: Antiplatelet use (versus nonuse) was associated with CSH in 9.8% versus 4.3% of patients (P<0.001), and remained a strong independent predictor after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 1.965; 95% CI, 1.202-3.213; P=0.0071). In multivariable analysis, adjusting for antiplatelet use, there was no significant difference in CSH observed between direct oral anticoagulant use compared with continued warfarin (odds ratio, 0.858; 95% CI, 0.375-1.963; P=0.717). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant antiplatelet therapy doubled the risk of CSH during device surgery. No difference in CSH was found between direct oral anticoagulant versus continued warfarin. In anticoagulated patients undergoing elective or semi-urgent device surgery, the patient specific benefit/risk of holding an antiplatelet should be carefully considered. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00800137, NCT01675076.

A proof of principle study of atomoxetine for the prevention of vasovagal syncope: the Prevention of Syncope Trial VI.

AIMS: There are few effective therapies for vasovagal syncope (VVS). Pharmacological norepinephrine transporter (NET) inhibition increases sympathetic tone and decreases tilt-induced syncope in healthy subjects. Atomoxetine is a potent and highly selective NET inhibitor. We tested the hypothesis that atomoxetine prevents tilt-induced syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vasovagal syncope patients were given two doses of study drug [randomized to atomoxetine 40 mg (n = 27) or matched placebo (n = 29)] 12 h apart, followed by a 60-min drug-free head-up tilt table test. Beat-to-beat heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and cardiac haemodynamics were recorded using non-invasive techniques and stroke volume modelling. Patients were 35 ± 14 years (73% female) with medians of 12 lifetime and 3 prior year faints. Fewer subjects fainted with atomoxetine than with placebo [10/29 vs. 19/27; P = 0.003; risk ratio 0.49 (confidence interval 0.28-0.86)], but equal numbers of patients developed presyncope or syncope (23/29 vs. 21/27). Of patients who developed only presyncope, 87% (13/15) had received atomoxetine. Patients with syncope had lower nadir mean arterial pressure than subjects with only presyncope (39 ± 18 vs. 69 ± 18 mmHg, P < 0.0001), and this was due to lower trough HRs in subjects with syncope (67 ± 30 vs. 103 ± 32 b.p.m., P = 0.006) and insignificantly lower cardiac index (2.20 ± 1.36 vs. 2.84 ± 1.05 L/min/m2, P = 0.075). There were no significant differences in stroke volume index (32 ± 6 vs. 35 ± 5 mL/m2, P = 0.29) or systemic vascular resistance index (2156 ± 602 vs. 1790 ± 793 dynes*s/cm5*m2, P = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Norepinephrine transporter inhibition significantly decreased the risk of tilt-induced syncope in VVS subjects, mainly by blunting reflex bradycardia, thereby preventing final falls in cardiac index and BP.

Bucindolol for the Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in a Genotype-Defined HF Population: The GENETIC-AF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of bucindolol with that of metoprolol succinate for the maintenance of sinus rhythm in a genetically defined heart failure (HF) population with atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Bucindolol is a beta-blocker whose unique pharmacologic properties provide greater benefit in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have the beta1-adrenergic receptor (ADRB1) Arg389Arg genotype. METHODS: A total of 267 HFrEF patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <0.50, symptomatic AF, and the ADRB1 Arg389Arg genotype were randomized 1:1 to receive bucindolol or metoprolol therapy and were up-titrated to target doses. The primary endpoint of AF or atrial flutter (AFL) or all-cause mortality (ACM) was evaluated by electrocardiogram (ECG) during a 24-week period. RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary endpoint was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 1.42), but trends for bucindolol benefit were observed in several subgroups. Precision therapeutic phenotyping revealed that a differential response to bucindolol was associated with the interval of time from the initial diagnoses of AF and HF to randomization and with the onset of AF relative to that of the initial HF diagnosis. In a cohort whose first AF and HF diagnoses were <12 years prior to randomization, in which AF onset did not precede HF by more than 2 years (n = 196), the HR was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.33 to 0.87; p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacogenetically guided bucindolol therapy did not reduce the recurrence of AF/AFL or ACM compared to that of metoprolol therapy in HFrEF patients, but populations were identified who merited further investigation in future phase 3 trials.

Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in warfarin-treated patients undergoing cardiac rhythm device implantation: A secondary analysis of the BRUISE CONTROL trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-platelet therapy is commonly used in patients receiving oral anticoagulation and may increase bleeding risk among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. We sought to determine the proportion of anticoagulated patients who are concomitantly receiving anti-platelet therapy, the associated risk of clinically significant hematoma (CSH), and the proportion of patients in whom anti-platelet usage is guideline-indicated. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial (BRUISE CONTROL). Patients who were receiving warfarin, had an annual predicted risk of thromboembolism of ≥5% and were scheduled to undergo non-emergent CIED surgery were randomized to continued warfarin versus heparin bridging. In the current analysis, patients were divided into those receiving anti-platelet therapy and those not receiving anti-platelet therapy. The incidence of CSH was compared in both groups. The proportion of patients on potentially inappropriate and potentially interruptible antiplatelet therapy was estimated. RESULTS: All 681 patients enrolled in BRUISE CONTROL were included, of whom 280 received and 401 did not receive anti-platelet therapy. Anti-platelet therapy increased the risk of CSH (relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09 to 2.72; P = 0.02). Of the 280 patients receiving anti-platelet therapy, 97 (34.6%) had no guideline indication for concomitant anti-platelet therapy and an additional 146 (52.1%) were on anti-platelet therapy that could potentially have been interrupted around CIED surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in patients receiving anticoagulation is associated with a significant risk of CSH. The majority of concomitant anti-platelet therapy is potentially inappropriate or interruptible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: (NCT00800137).

Challenge and Impact of Quinidine Access in Sudden Death Syndromes: A National Experience.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the nature of quinidine use and accessibility in a national network of inherited arrhythmia clinics. BACKGROUND: Quinidine is an antiarrhythmic medication that has been shown to be beneficial in select patients with Brugada syndrome, early repolarization syndrome, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. Because of the low prevalence of these conditions and restricted access to quinidine through a single regulatory process, quinidine use is rare in Canada. METHODS: Subjects prescribed quinidine were identified through the Hearts in Rhythm Organization that connects the network of inherited arrhythmia clinics across Canada. Cases were retrospectively reviewed for patient characteristics, indications for quinidine use, rate of recurrent ventricular arrhythmia, and issues with quinidine accessibility. RESULTS: In a population of 36 million, 46 patients are currently prescribed quinidine (0.0000013%, age 48.1 ± 16.1 years, 25 are male). Brugada syndrome, early repolarization syndrome, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation constituted a diagnosis in 13 subjects (28%), 6 (13%), and 21 (46%), respectively. Overall, 37 subjects (81%) had cardiac arrest as an index event. After initial presentation, subjects experienced 7.47 ± 12.3 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks prior to quinidine use over 34.3 ± 45.9 months, versus 0.86 ± 1.69 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in 43.8 ± 41.8 months while on quinidine (risk ratio: 8.7, p < 0.001). Twenty-two patients access quinidine through routes external to Health Canada's Special Access Program. CONCLUSIONS: Quinidine use is rare in Canada, but it is associated with a reduction in recurrent ventricular arrhythmias in patients with Brugada syndrome, early repolarization syndrome, and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, with minimal toxicity necessitating discontinuation. Drug interruption is associated with frequent breakthrough events. Access to quinidine is important to deliver this potentially lifesaving therapy.

Non-fluoroscopic catheter ablation of arrhythmias with origin at the summit of the left ventricle.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) arising from the left ventricular Summit (LVS) is challenging and requires high-dose fluoroscopy to limit vascular damage of the coronary arteries. Ionizing radiation can increase the incidence of malignancies to both patient and operator. This study describes outcomes of catheter ablation of LVS VAs using intracardiac echo-facilitated 3D electroanatomical mapping (ICE-3D) to avoid fluoroscopy. METHODS: Twenty-six patients (47 ± 17 years old; 52% males; median ejection fraction 55 ± 13%) with premature ventricular contractions or ventricular tachycardia underwent catheter ablation. VAs were localized using ICE-3D with arrhythmia foci being mapped at the LVS. Focal ablation was performed using a 3.5-mm open-irrigated, contact force sensing radiofrequency catheter. RESULTS: Acute success and recurrence rates were 84% and 24%, respectively. Holter burden was significantly reduced (24 ± 15% to 1.5 ± 2%; P = 0.01) after ablation. The use of zero fluoroscopy was achieved in 100% of cases. No major complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Zero fluoroscopy catheter ablation of LVS VAs using ICE-3D mapping is feasible and effective.

Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial: The PADIT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Infection of implanted medical devices has catastrophic consequences. For cardiac rhythm devices, pre-procedural cefazolin is standard prophylaxis but does not protect against methicillin-resistant gram-positive organisms, which are common pathogens in device infections. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the clinical effectiveness of incremental perioperative antibiotics to reduce device infection. METHODS: The authors performed a cluster randomized crossover trial with 4 randomly assigned 6-month periods, during which centers used either conventional or incremental periprocedural antibiotics for all cardiac implantable electronic device procedures as standard procedure. Conventional treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin infusion. Incremental treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin plus vancomycin, intraprocedural bacitracin pocket wash, and 2-day post-procedural oral cephalexin. The primary outcome was 1-year hospitalization for device infection in the high-risk group, analyzed by hierarchical logistic regression modeling, adjusting for random cluster and cluster-period effects. RESULTS: Device procedures were performed in 28 centers in 19,603 patients, of whom 12,842 were high risk. Infection occurred in 99 patients (1.03%) receiving conventional treatment, and in 78 (0.78%) receiving incremental treatment (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 1.05; p = 0.10). In high-risk patients, hospitalization for infection occurred in 77 patients (1.23%) receiving conventional antibiotics and in 66 (1.01%) receiving incremental antibiotics (odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 1.15; p = 0.26). Subgroup analysis did not identify relevant patient or site characteristics with significant benefit from incremental therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The cluster crossover design efficiently tested clinical effectiveness of incremental antibiotics to reduce device infection. Device infection rates were low. The observed difference in infection rates was not statistically significant. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot] [PADIT]; NCT01002911).

Continued vs. interrupted direct oral anticoagulants at the time of device surgery, in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thrombo-embolic events (BRUISE CONTROL-2).

Aims: Guidelines recommend warfarin continuation rather than heparin bridging for pacemaker and defibrillator surgery, after the BRUISE CONTROL trial demonstrated an 80% reduction in device pocket haematoma with this approach. However, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are now used to treat the majority of patients with atrial fibrillation. We sought to understand the best strategy to manage the DOACs at the time of device surgery and specifically hypothesized that performing device surgery without DOAC interruption would result in a reduced haematoma rate. Methods and results: We randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, to continued vs. interrupted DOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban). The primary outcome was blindly evaluated, clinically significant device pocket haematoma: resulting in re-operation, interruption of anticoagulation, or prolonging hospital stay. In the continued arm, the median time between pre- and post-operative DOAC doses was 12 h; in the interrupted arm the median time was 72 h. Clinically significant haematoma occurred in of 7 of 328 (2.1%; 95% CI 0.9-4.3) patients in the continued DOAC arm and 7 of 334 (2.1%; 95% CI 0.9-4.3) patients in the interrupted DOAC arm (P = 0.97). Complications were uncommon, and included one stroke and one symptomatic pericardial effusion in each arm. Conclusions: These results suggest that, dependent on the clinical scenario, either management strategy (continued DOAC or interrupted DOAC) might be reasonable, at least for patients similar to those enrolled in our trial.

Canadian Registry of Implantable Electronic Device Outcomes: Longer-term follow-up of the Riata lead under advisory.

BACKGROUND: The Riata lead advisory was announced in 2011 and has posed unique management challenges because of cable externalization and insulation abrasion, in some cases leading to sudden loss of defibrillation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to provide further data on the rate of electrical failure in a population of patients with a Riata lead under advisory. METHODS: Using the Canadian Registry of Electronic Device Outcomes, prospective follow-up data were collected on 1352 Riata leads under advisory in 17 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation centers in Canada. Data on electrical and structural failure were collected, as well as periprocedural complications related to lead revision (abandonment or extraction). RESULTS: Of the 1352 leads included in this 12-month follow-up cohort, 110 leads were revised. Mean follow-up time was 10.4 ± 1.5 years. The 12-year rate of electrical failure for the 8Fr lead was 9.45%, whereas the 10-year failure rate for the 7Fr lead was 7.25% and was not found to be accelerating. Of the leads revised because of advisory only (patient preference, advisory related, electrical or structural failure), the majority were abandoned (n = 54 [76.0%]), whereas 17 (24.0%) were extracted using power tools. The rate of major complications in each group was 5.6% and 5.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This report provides further data on the risk of electrical lead failure over a long lead dwell time. The risk of failure exceeds the risk of periprocedural major complications, indicating that the risk-to-benefit ratio is favorable to revise the lead in appropriate clinical scenarios.

The Dx-AF study: a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing VDD-ICD to VVI-ICD in detecting sub-clinical atrial fibrillation in defibrillator patients.

PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac dysrhythmia. Appropriate detection of AF and early initiation of oral anticoagulation therapy are critical to reduce the risk of stroke. Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are at high risk of developing AF. The purpose of the Dx-AF study is to demonstrate that a novel single-lead VDD-ICD system (Linox smart S DX) will facilitate adequate recognition of sub-clinical AF and ultimately stroke prevention with a comparable safety profile in comparison to VVI-ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Dx-AF is a prospective, randomized controlled, open-label trial. Patients who are indicated to receive a single-chamber ICD will be randomized to a VDD-ICD (experimental group) or single-chamber ICD (control group). We have used a sample size of 355, which after generous allowance for loss-to-follow-up, yields a sample size of 378 patients at up to 13 Canadian sites. The trial will enroll patients with ischemic or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, age > 50 years, LVEF < 50%, scheduled for primary or secondary prevention single-chamber ICD, with no ECG-documented history of AF or flutter. The primary (efficacy) outcome of this study will be the time to the first detected and confirmed episode of AF or atrial flutter lasting at least 6 min. The secondary (safety) outcome will be a composite outcome of serious device-related complications. The proposed follow-up period in this trial will be 36 months after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: The Dx-AF Study should provide significant scientific evidence and guidance to an adequate ICD system choice and early AF detection/management hence improve clinical outcomes in a large patient population.