Differences in Healthcare Use Between Patients With Persistent and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Catheter-Based Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Population-Based Cohort Study From Ontario, Canada.

Background Patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing catheter-based AF ablation have lower success rates than those with paroxysmal AF. We compared healthcare use and clinical outcomes between patients according to their AF subtypes. Methods and Results Consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation were prospectively identified from a population-based registry in Ontario, Canada. Via linkage with administrative databases, we performed a retrospective analysis comparing the following outcomes between patients with persistent and paroxysmal AF: healthcare use (defined as AF-related hospitalizations/emergency room visits), periprocedural complications, and mortality. Multivariable Poisson modeling was performed to compare the rates of AF-related and all-cause hospitalizations/emergency room visits in the year before versus after ablation. Between April 2012 and March 2016, there were 3768 consecutive patients who underwent first-time AF ablation, of whom 1040 (27.6%) had persistent AF. The mean follow-up was 1329 days. Patients with persistent AF had higher risk of AF-related hospitalization/emergency room visits (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.34), mortality (HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.15-2.63), and periprocedural complications (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.75) than those with paroxysmal AF. In the overall cohort, there was a 48% reduction in the rate of AF-related hospitalization/emergency room visits in the year after versus before ablation (rate ratio [RR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.56). This reduction was observed for patients with paroxysmal (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.41-0.50) and persistent (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.87) AF. Conclusions Although patients with persistent AF had higher risk of adverse outcomes than those with paroxysmal AF, ablation was associated with a favorable reduction in downstream AF-related healthcare use, irrespective of AF type.

Pacemaker-detected atrial fibrillation in patients with pacemakers: prevalence, predictors, and current use of oral anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Dual-chamber pacemakers frequently document atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients without symptoms. Pacemaker-detected AF is associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk of stroke, although it is not established whether oral anticoagulation reduces this risk. This study sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of pacemaker-detected AF and to document current oral anticoagulant use. METHODS: A retrospective analysis included all patients from a single academic hospital who had pacemakers capable of documenting AF. Blinded evaluation of all echocardiograms conducted within 6 months of implantation was performed. RESULTS: Of 445 patients, pacemaker-detected AF was present in 246 (55.3%), who were older (74.3 ± 13.7 years vs 71.7 ± 14.4, P = 0.046), more likely to have a history of clinical AF (29.7% vs 19.1%, P = 0.01), and had a larger left atrial volume index (34.4 ± 11.8 mL/m(2) vs 30.0 ± 9.9 mL/m(2), P = 0.019) than the patients without pacemaker-detected AF. Among patients without a clinical history of AF, left atrial volume index was higher among those with pacemaker-detected AF (33.7 ± 11.3 mL/m(2) vs 29.0 ± 10.1 mL/m(2), P = 0.034). Anticoagulants were used in 35.3% of patients with pacemaker-detected AF, compared with 21.6% of patients without (P < 0.05). In patients with pacemaker-detected AF, anticoagulants were used more frequently among patients who also had clinical AF (58.9%) compared with those without (23.7%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pacemaker-detected AF occurs in 50% of pacemaker patients and is treated with anticoagulants in less than 25% of patients who do not have a history of clinical AF. Clinical trials are needed to determine the role of anticoagulation in this population.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock prevention does not reduce mortality: a systemic review.

BACKGROUND: Mortality is increased among implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients who receive shocks; however, whether shocks cause this increase or are simply a marker of risk is unknown. Antiarrhythmic medications, catheter ablation, and enhanced ICD programming all may reduce ICD shocks, but whether shock reduction decreases mortality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to estimate the impact of ICD shock reduction on survival. METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov and extracted data from randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of interventions to prevent ICD shocks. RESULTS: Seventeen randomized trials were included in this analysis, including 5875 patients. Mean ejection fraction of all trial participants was 32%, and 25% of the patients received ICD therapy for primary prophylaxis. Antiarrhythmic medications (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.96, P = .03) and catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, P = .0004) significantly reduced the proportion of patients receiving shocks. However, there was no significant reduction in mortality among trials of antiarrhythmic medications (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72-1.59, P = .73) or catheter ablation (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.32-1.64, P = .44). The 5 ICD programming trials had sufficiently heterogeneous interventions that pooling of their results was not performed. However, only the PAINFREE-II (Pacing Fast Ventricular Tachycardia Reduces Shock Therapies) trial demonstrated a significant reduction in shocks (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22-0.65), but this was not associated with any significant reduction in mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81-2.45). CONCLUSION: There is no compelling evidence that existing interventions that reduce ICD shocks significantly improve survival.

Predictors of atrio-ventricular conduction disease, long-term outcomes in patients with myotonic dystrophy types I and II.

BACKGROUND: Patients with myotonic dystrophy (DM) have an annual mortality of approximately 3.5%, one-third of which is sudden cardiac death. The predictors of cardiac conduction disease in these patients are incompletely defined. METHODS: A single-center cohort study included 211 patients with DM type 1 (DM1) and 25 DM type 2 (DM2). A severe electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormality was defined as a PR interval of ≥240 ms or QRS duration of ≥120 ms. RESULTS: A severe ECG abnormality was found in 24% of DM1 patients and 17% of DM2 patients. Among DM1 patients, those with a severe ECG abnormality were older (41.6 ± 14.6 vs 35.4 ± 12.6 years) and more likely to have hypertension (13.2% vs 4.2%, P = 0.038), heart failure (4.4% vs 0%, P = 0.056), atrial arrhythmias (6.6% vs 0.7%, P < 0.001), a higher number of trinucleotide repeats (689 ± 451 vs 474 ± 322, P = 0.01), and a family history of sudden cardiac death (26.7% vs 5.6%, P < 0.001) or pacemaker implantation (20% vs 0.7%, P < 0.001). Pacemakers or defibrillators were implanted in 14% of all patients, including 65% of patients with severe ECG abnormalities. During 57 ± 46 months, 13 patients died (1.16% per year), including three patients who died suddenly, two of whom had normally functioning pacemakers. CONCLUSION: In DM1, atrio-ventricular conduction disease is associated with increasing age, concomitant cardiovascular disease, nucleotide repeat length, and family history. The systematic identification of conduction disease and aggressive use of prophylactic pacemakers is associated with low rate of sudden cardiac death.