Comparison between Standard and High-Definition Multi-Electrode Mapping Catheter in Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation.

A high-definition mapping catheter has been introduced, allowing for bipolar recording along and across the spline with a rapid assessment of voltage, activation, and directionality of conduction. We aimed to evaluate differences in mapping density, accuracy, time, and consequently RF time between different mapping catheters used for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. We enrolled consecutive patients undergoing VT ablation at our center. Patients were divided into the LiveWire 2-2-2 mm catheter (group A) and the HD Grid SE (group B). Primary endpoints were total RF delivery time, the number of points acquired in sinus rhythm and VT, and the scar area. Fifty-one patients were enrolled, 22 in group A and 29 in group B. More points were acquired in the Grid group in sinus rhythm (SR) and during VT (2060.78 ± 1600.38 vs. 3278.63 ± 3214.45, p = 0.05; 4201.13 ± 5141.61 vs. 10,569.43 ± 13,644.94, p = 0.02, respectively). The scar area was smaller in group B (Bipolar area, cm2 4.52 ± 2.72 vs. 2.89 ± 2.81, p = 0.05. Unipolar area, cm2 7.47 ± 4.55 vs. 5.56 ± 2.79, p = 0.03). Radiofrequency (RF) time was shorter in the Grid group (30.52 ± 13.94 vs. 22.16 ± 11.03, p = 0.014). LPs and LAVAs were eliminated in overall >93% of patients. No differences were found in terms of arrhythmia-free survival at follow-up. In conclusion, the use of a high-definition mapping catheter was associated with significantly shorter mapping time during VT and RF time. Significantly more points were acquired in SR and during VT. During remap, we also observed more LAVAs and LPs requiring further ablation.

Amiodarone in ventricular arrhythmias: still a valuable resource?

Ventricular arrhythmias still represent an important cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. Amiodarone is a Class III Vaughan-Williams anti-arrhythmic drug widely used in ventricular arrhythmias for its efficacy and low pro-arrhythmogenic effect. On the other hand, a significant limitation in its use is represented by toxicity. In this review, the pharmacology of the drug is discussed to provide the mechanistic basis for its clinical use. Moreover, all the latest evidence on its role in different clinical settings is provided, including the prevention of sudden cardiac death, implanted cardioverter defibrillators, ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathies. A special focus is placed on everyday clinical practice learning points, such as dosage, indications, and contraindications from the latest guidelines.

Access-Site Crossover in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Invasive Management.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of access-site crossover in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management via radial or femoral access. BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the clinical implications of access-site crossover. METHODS: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox)-Access trial, 8,404 patients with acute coronary syndrome were randomized to radial or femoral access. Patients undergoing access-site crossover or successful access site were investigated. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and a composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]). RESULTS: Access-site crossover occurred in 183 of 4,197 patients (4.4%) in the radial group (mainly to femoral access) and 108 of 4,207 patients (2.6%) in the femoral group (mainly to radial access). In multivariate analysis, the risk for coprimary outcomes was not significantly higher with radial crossover compared with successful radial (MACE: adjusted rate ratio [adjRR]: 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.93; p = 0.32; NACE: adjRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 0.94 to 2.06; p = 0.094) or successful femoral access (MACE: adjRR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.81; p = 0.47; NACE: adjRR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.86; p = 0.24). Access site-related Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding was higher with radial crossover than successful radial access. Femoral crossover remained associated with higher risks for MACE (adjRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87; p = 0.007) and NACE (adjRR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.62; p = 0.019) compared with successful femoral access. Results remained consistent after excluding patients with randomized access not attempted. CONCLUSIONS: Crossover from radial to femoral access abolishes the bleeding benefit offered by the radial over femoral artery but does not appear to increase the risk for MACE or NACE compared with successful radial or femoral access. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Clinical characteristics and prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation in patients with chronic heart failure.

AIM: To assess the prevalence, clinical characteristics and independent prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients, and the potential protective effect of disease-modifying medications, particularly beta-blockers (BB). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients referred to our center since January 2004, and collected all clinical information available at their first visit. We assessed mortality to the end of June 2015. We compared patients with and without AF, and assessed the association between AF and all-cause mortality by multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meyer analysis, particularly accounting for ongoing treatment with BB. RESULTS: A total of 903 patients were evaluated (mean age 68 ± 12 years, 73% male). Prevalence of AF was 19%, ranging from 10% to 28% in patients ≤ 60 and ≥ 77 years, respectively. Besides the older age, patients with AF had more symptoms (New York Heart Association II-III 60% vs 44%), lower prevalence of dyslipidemia (23% vs 37%), coronary artery disease (28% vs 52%) and left bundle branch block (9% vs 16%). On the contrary, they more frequently presented with an idiopathic etiology (50% vs 24%), a history of valve surgery (13% vs 4%) and received overall more devices implantation (31% vs 21%). The use of disease-modifying medications (i.e., BB and ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers) was lower in patients with AF (72% vs 80% and 71% vs 79%, respectively), who on the contrary were more frequently treated with symptomatic and antiarrhythmic drugs including diuretics (87% vs 69%) and digoxin (51% vs 11%). At a mean follow-up of about 5 years, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AF as compared to those in sinus rhythm (SR) (45% vs 34%, P value < 0.05 for all previous comparisons). However, in a multivariate analysis including the main significant predictors of all-cause mortality, the univariate relationship between AF and death (HR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15-1.92) became not statistically significant (HR = 0.98, 95%CI: 0.73-1.32). Nonetheless, patients with AF not receiving BB treatment were found to have the worst prognosis, followed by patients with SR not receiving BB therapy and patients with AF receiving BB therapy, who both had similarly worse survival when compared to patients with SR receiving BB therapy. CONCLUSION: AF was highly prevalent and associated with older age, worse clinical presentation and underutilization of disease-modifying medications such as BB in a population of elderly patients with CHF. AF had no independent impact on mortality, but the underutilization of BB in this group of patients was associated to a worse long-term prognosis.