Should fast pathway ablation be reconsidered in typical atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia?

INTRODUCTION: Atrioventricular nodal re-entry tachycardia (AVNRT) is the most common, regular narrow-complex tachycardia. The established treatment is catheter ablation of the AV nodal slow pathway (SP). However, in a select group of patients with long PR intervals in sinus rhythm, SP ablation can lead to AV block due to the absence of robust anterograde conduction through the fast pathway (FP). This report aims to demonstrate that AV nodal FP ablation is a reasonable approach in patients with AVNRT and poor or absent anterograde FP conduction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Standard electrophysiology study techniques were used in the electrophysiology laboratory. Catheter ablations were performed using radiofrequency energy. Mapping of intracardiac activation was performed with electroanatomical mapping systems. Outcomes were assessed acutely during the procedure and during routine clinical follow-up. Six patients with first-degree AV block and recurrent AVNRT who underwent ablation of their tachycardia at our institution are presented. One patient underwent ablation of AV nodal SP resulting in high-degree AV block necessitating pacemaker implantation. The remaining five patients underwent ablation of the AV nodal FP guided by electroanatomical mapping of the earliest atrial activation in tachycardia. These five had successful treatment of the tachycardia with preservation of anterograde AV nodal conduction. Mapping and ablation approach to eliminate retrograde FP conduction are described. CONCLUSION: In select patients with AVNRT and poor anterograde FP conduction, retrograde FP ablation is reasonable and is less likely to result in AV block and pacemaker dependency.

Cautery selection for oculofacial plastic surgery in patients with implantable electronic devices.

PURPOSE: To discover oculofacial plastic surgeon practice patterns for cautery selection in the setting of implantable electronic devices and present guidelines based on a review of current literature. METHODS: A 10-Question web-based survey was sent to the email list serve of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery to determine surgeon cautery preference in the setting of various implantable electronic devices and comfort level with the guidelines for cautery selection in their practice or institution. The relationship between survey questions was assessed for statistical significance using Pearson's Chi-square tests. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-three (41% response rate) surveys were completed and included for analysis. Greater than half of respondents either had no policy (36%) or were unaware of a policy (19%) in their practice or institution regarding cautery selection in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device. Bipolar cautery was favored for use in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (79%-80%) and this number dropped in patients with implantable neurostimulators (30%). Overall, one-third of respondents did not feel comfortable with their practice/institution policy. CONCLUSION: Choices and comfort level among oculofacial plastic surgeons for cautery selection in patients with implantable electronic devices vary considerably, and some choices may increase the risk for interference-related complications. Practice patterns vary significantly in the setting of a neurostimulator or cochlear implant, where interference can cause thermal injury to the brain and implant damage, respectively. Guidelines are proposed for cautery selection in patients with implantable electronic devices undergoing oculofacial plastic surgery.

Long-Term Time-Varying Risk of Readmission After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Background Readmission after myocardial infarction ( MI ) is a publicly reported quality metric with hospital reimbursement linked to readmission rates. We describe the timing and pattern of readmission by cause within the first year after MI in consecutive patients, regardless of revascularization strategy, payer status, or age. Methods and Results We identified patients discharged after an MI from April 2008 to June 2012. Readmission within 12 months was the primary end point. Readmissions were classified into 4 groups: MI related, other cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, and planned. A total of 3069 patients were discharged after an MI (average age, 65±13 years; and 1941 [63%] men). A total of 655 patients (21.3%) were readmitted at least once (897 total readmissions). A total of 147 patients (4.8%) were readmitted ≥2 times, accounting for 389 readmissions (43%). The instantaneous risk of all-cause readmission was highest (15 readmissions/100 patients per month; 95% confidence interval, 12-19 readmissions/100 patients per month) immediately after discharge, decreased by almost half (8.1 readmissions/100 patients per month; 95% confidence interval, 7.2-9.0 readmissions/100 patients per month) within 15 days, and was substantially lower and relatively constant (1.4 readmissions/100 patients per month; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.6 readmissions/100 patients per month) out to 1 year. Cardiovascular causes of readmission were more common early after discharge. Conclusions Most patients with MI are never readmitted, whereas a small minority (≈5%) account for nearly half of 1-year readmissions. The readmission pattern after MI is characterized by an early peak (first 15 days) of cardiovascular readmissions, followed by a middle period (months 1-4) of noncardiovascular readmissions, and ending with a low-risk period (>4 months) during which the risk appears independent of cause.

Incidence, indications, risk factors, and survival of patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation after open heart surgery.

AIMS: The incidence, indications, and risk factors for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation after cardiac surgery in an era with an aging population are not well described. There are limited data about the survival of these patients compared with a non-device group. We aimed to evaluate the incidence, indications, and risk factors for postoperative CIED implantation. We also assessed survival of these patients compared with a non-device group. METHODS: We included all patients without prior CIED implantation who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from 1996 to 2008. Characteristics associated with CIED implantation were identified by multivariable logistic regression. A propensity model was constructed to compare survival. RESULTS: A total of 39 546 patients were included in the study of which 1608 patients (4.1%) underwent postoperative CIED implantation. Conduction disease accounted for most devices, but 371 patients underwent CIED implantation for secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias. Risk factors associated with implantation included older age, valvular disease, atrial fibrillation, and prior surgery. The propensity-adjusted risk of early death (within 1 year) was significantly less in the device group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-0.65; P = 0.0004). However, the propensity-adjusted risk of late death was significantly greater in the device group (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2-1.5; P = <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Despite an aging population, the incidence of CIED implantation after cardiac surgery remains low and varies by the type of operation. Follow-up suggests increased early survival but decreased late survival in patients who undergo CIED implantation compared with a non-device group.

Novel oral anticoagulants after acute coronary syndromes.

PURPOSE: A number of novel oral anticoagulants, including direct thrombin inhibitors and direct factor Xa inhibitors, have been developed. This review discusses these agents and their respective clinical trials in patients with acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: This review discusses the results of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials with novel oral anticoagulants. RESULTS: Phase 2 clinical trials demonstrated that novel oral anticoagulants increase the risk of bleeding in a dose-related fashion, particularly when used in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy. What was less clear is their impact on recurrent ischemic events. In phase 3 trials, rivaroxaban was found to have a benefit on ischemic events and perhaps a greater benefit at the lower dose. The phase 3 trial with apixaban was stopped early due to increased bleeding without a meaningful reduction in ischemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Novel oral anticoagulants represent a promising, potentially beneficial treatment for patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome but come with a risk of bleeding. The benefits and risks of these agents will need to be carefully weighed and may depend on both patient risk and concomitant therapy. Additional research is needed to determine how to best integrate these medications into the care of patients with acute coronary syndromes.