Ablation of mitral annular flutter ablation utilizing a left atrial anterior line versus a lateral mitral isthmus line: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Mitral annular flutter (MAF) is a common arrhythmia after atrial fibrillation ablation. We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation utilizing either a left atrial anterior wall (LAAW) line or a lateral mitral isthmus (LMI) line. METHODS: We performed a systematic review for all studies that compared LAAW versus LMI lines. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) 95% confidence intervals were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Four studies with a total of 594 patients were included, one of which was a randomized control trial. In the LMI ablation group, 40% of patients required CS ablation. There were no significant differences in bidirectional block (RR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.94-1.69) or ablation time (MD -1.5; 95% CI, -6.11-3.11), but LAAW ablation was associated with longer ablation line length (MD 11.42; 95% CI, 10.69-12.14) and longer LAA activation delay (MD 67.68; 95% CI, 33.47-101.89.14) when compared to LMI. There was no significant difference in pericardial effusions (RR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.39-20.75) between groups and more patients were maintained sinus rhythm (RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37, p = 0.02) who underwent LAAW compared to LMI. CONCLUSION: Ablation of mitral annular flutter with a LAAW line compared to a LMI line showed no difference in rates of acute bidirectional block, ablation time, or pericardial effusion. However, LAAW ablation required a longer ablation line length, resulted in greater LAA activation delayed and was associated with more sinus rhythm maintenance, with the added advantage of avoiding ablation in the CS.

Association between specific antiarrhythmic drug prescription in the post-procedural blanking period and recurrent atrial arrhythmias after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if specific AADs prescribed in the blanking period (BP) after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) may be associated with reduced risk of early recurrence (ER) and/or late recurrence (LR) of atrial arrhythmias. METHODS: A total of 478 patients undergoing first-time ablation at a single institution were included. Outcomes were: ER, LR, discontinuation of AAD less than 90 days post-ablation, and second ablation. ER was defined as AF, atrial flutter (AFL), or atrial tachycardia (AT) > 30 seconds within BP. LR was defined as AF/AFL/AT > 30 seconds after BP. RESULTS: Of 478 patients, 14.9% were prescribed no AAD, 26.4% propafenone/flecainide, 34.5% sotalol/dofetilide, 10.7% dronedarone, and 13.6% amiodarone. Patients prescribed amiodarone were more likely to have persistent AF, hypertension, diabetes, and other comorbidities. In unadjusted analyses, there were no differences between groups in relation to ER (log rank P = 0.171), discontinuation of AAD before ninety days post-ablation (log rank P = 0.235), or freedom from second ablation (log rank P = 0.147). After multivariable adjustment, patients prescribed amiodarone or dronedarone were more likely to experience LR than those prescribed no AAD [Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) 1.83, 95% CI 1.10-3.04, p = 0.02; AHR 1.79, 95% CI 1.05-3.05, p = 0.03, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Following first-time catheter ablation, there were no differences between specific AAD prescription and risk of ER, while those prescribed amiodarone or dronedarone in the BP were more likely to experience LR than those prescribed no AAD, which may represent an association due to confounding by indication.

Meta-analysis of the Usefulness of Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Catheter ablation improves clinical outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the role of catheter ablation in HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. We performed a literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF recurrence at one year after catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF versus those with HFrEF. Risk ratio (RR; where a RR <1.0 favors the HFpEF group) and mean difference (MD; where MD <0 favors the HFpEF group) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Six studies with a total of 1,505 patients were included, of which 764 (51%) had HFpEF and 741 (49%) had HFrEF. Patients with HFpEF experienced similar recurrence of AF 1 year after ablation on or off antiarrhythmic drugs compared with those with HFrEF (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.76, 1.35). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the HFpEF group (MD -5.42; 95% CI -8.51, -2.34), but there was no significant difference in procedure time (MD 1.74; 95% CI -11.89, 15.37) or periprocedural adverse events between groups (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.54,1.32). There was no significant difference in hospitalizations between groups (MD 1.18; 95% CI 0.90, 1.55), but HFpEF patients experienced significantly less mortality (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.18, 0.94). In conclusion, based on the results of this meta-analysis, catheter ablation of AF in patients with HFpEF appears as safe and efficacious in maintaining sinus rhythm as in those with HFrEF.

Early Versus Delayed Lead Extraction in Patients With Infected Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the impact of early versus delayed lead extraction in patients with an infected cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). BACKGROUND: CIED infections are associated with poor outcomes. Prior studies have demonstrated improved survival with CIED extraction compared with antibiotic therapy alone. The impact of timing of CIED extraction has not been well characterized. METHODS: All infected CIED extraction cases at our medical center from 2006 to 2019 were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence of bacteremia or isolated pocket infection. We assessed the in-hospital morbidity and 1-year mortality for early versus delayed lead extraction, using hospitalization day 7 as cutoff. RESULTS: Of 233 patients who underwent CIED extraction, 127 patients had bacteremia and 106 patients had pocket infection. Delayed extraction (15.2 days) in bacteremic patients was associated with septic shock (odds ratio [OR]: 5.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 to 23.67; p = 0.026), acute kidney injury (OR: 5.61; 95% CI: 2.15 to 14.63; p < 0.001), respiratory failure (OR: 5.52; 95% CI: 1.25 to 24.41; p = 0.024), and decompensated heart failure (OR: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.10 to 10.05; p = 0.033). Locally infected patients with delayed extraction (10.7 days) were associated with acute kidney injury (OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 1.11 to 10.77; p = 0.033) and respiratory failure (OR: 10.29; 95% CI: 1.26 to 83.93; p = 0.030). Delayed CIED extraction in both groups was associated with increased 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed infected CIED extraction is associated with worse outcomes. This underscores the importance of early detection and a strategy for prompt management including lead extraction.

Comparison of Outcomes After Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Catheter ablation improves outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation of AF in HF patients with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent de novo radiofrequency catheter ablation enrolled in the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was recurrence of all atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). Of 547 total patients, 51 (9.3%) had HFpEF, 40 (7.3%) had HFrEF, and 456 (83.4%) were without HF. There was no difference in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD (Adjusted Hazard Ratio [AHR] 1.92 [95% CI 0.97 to 3.83] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 0.90 [95% CI 0.59 to 1.39] for HFpEF vs no HF) or off AAD (AHR 1.96 [95% CI 0.99 to 3.90] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 1.14 [95% CI 0.74 to 1.77] for HFpEF vs no HF). There was also no difference in rates of all-cause hospitalizations (AHR 1.80 [95% CI 0.97 to 3.33] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 2.05 [95% CI 1.30 to 3.23] for HFpEF vs no HF) or rates of all-cause mortality (AHR 0.53 [95% CI 0.05 to 6.11] for HFpEF vs HFrEF and AHR 2.46 [95% CI 0.34 to 17.92] for HFpEF vs no HF). There were no significant differences in AAD use (p = 0.176) or procedural complications between groups (p = 0.980). In conclusion, there were no significant differences in arrhythmia-free survival between patients with HFpEF and HFrEF that underwent catheter ablation of AF.

P2Y12 inhibitors with oral anticoagulation for percutaneous coronary intervention with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of third-generation P2Y12 inhibitors versus clopidogrel in combination with oral anticoagulation (OAC) with or without aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We performed a systematic review including both prospective and retrospective studies that compared dual and triple antithrombotic regimens for bleeding and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with AF undergoing PCI. We analysed rates of bleeding and MACE by P2Y12 inhibitor choice. Risk ratio (RR) 95% CIs were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Where study heterogeneity was low (I2 <25%), we used the fixed effects model, otherwise the random effects model was used. RESULTS: A total of 22 014 patients were analysed from the seven studies included. Among patients treated with both OAC and P2Y12 inhibitor with or without aspirin, 90% (n=9708) were treated with clopidogrel, 8% (n=830) with ticagrelor, and 2% (n=191) with prasugrel. When compared with clopidogrel, use of ticagrelor (RR 1.36; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.57) and prasugrel (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.34 to 3.30) were associated with increased rates of bleeding. Compared with clopidogrel, there were no significant differences in rates of MACE with ticagrelor (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.62) or prasugrel (RR 1.49; 95% CI 0.69 to 3.24). CONCLUSION: Based on this meta-analysis, the use of clopidogrel is associated with a lower rate of bleeding compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with AF on OAC undergoing PCI.

Safety and Efficacy of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Extraction in Elderly Patients: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) has been proven safe in the general patient population with the advances in extraction techniques. Octogenarians present a unique challenge given their comorbidities and the perceived increase in morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and outcomes of CIED extraction in octogenarians to younger patients. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared CIED extraction in octogenarians versus non-octogenarians. We separately assessed the rate of complete procedure success, clinical success, procedural mortality, major and minor complications. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The random effects model was used due to heterogeneity across study cohorts. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 4,182 patients were included. There was no difference between octogenarians and non-octogenarians in complete procedure success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.02, p = 0.19) and clinical success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.01, p = 0.13). There was also no difference in procedural mortality (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.46 - 4.39, p = 0.54), major complication (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.68 - 2.88, p = 0.36), and minor complication (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.90 - 2.29, p = 0.13). CONCLUSION: In this study, there was no evidence to suggest a difference in procedural success and complication rates between octogenarians and younger patients. Transvenous lead extraction can be performed safely and effectively in the elderly population.

Role of adjunctive posterior wall isolation in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The posterior wall of the left atrium may promote atrial fibrillation (AF) due to its propensity for fibrosis, in addition to a high prevalence of non-pulmonary vein triggers. Multiple smaller studies have assessed the incremental value of posterior wall isolation (PWI) in addition to standard atrial fibrillation. Similarly, this method has shown promise as an ablation strategy for patients with persistent AF, when PVI alone has shown only modest efficacy. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared AF ablation plus PWI versus control. We separately assessed the recurrence rates of all atrial arrhythmias (AF/AFL/AT), as well as separate recurrence rates of AF and atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter (AT/AFL) after ablation. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The random effects model was used due to heterogeneity (I2) > 25%. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 1151 patients were included. Patients who underwent concomitant PWI experienced less recurrence of all atrial arrhythmias post ablation (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.96, p = 0.02) and less recurrence of AF (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39-0.77, p < 0.01). There was no difference in onset of AT/AFL (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.62-1.48, p = 0.85) after ablation. These results were replicated in subgroup analysis of patients with persistent AF. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, concomitant PWI is associated with less recurrence of AF and all atrial arrhythmias after ablation, without an increase in the risk for post-ablation AFL/AT.

Meta-analysis of Effect of Modest (≥10%) Weight Loss in Management of Overweight and Obese Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Obesity and atrial fibrillation (AF) are growing epidemics with significant overlap in co-morbidities. Multiple smaller studies have evaluated the effects of weight loss and risk factor modification on recurrence of AF, reduction in AF burden and improvement in AF symptom severity. The objective of this study was to determine if a modest weight loss of ≥10% of initial body weight is enough to improve outcomes in overweight or obese patients with established AF. We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared weight loss of ≥10% versus weight loss of less than 10% or weight gain and assessed outcomes including recurrence of AF as determined through a Holter monitor, AF burden and improvement in AF symptom severity. Risk ratio 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) 95% CI were measured for continuous variables, where MD >0 favors the group with ≥10% weight loss. Five studies with a total of 548 patients were included. Patients who lost ≥10% of their initial body weight experienced less recurrence of AF (risk ratio 0.29; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.44) and a larger reduction in reported event frequency (MD 1.74; 95% CI 0.70 to 2.79), episode duration (MD 2.14; 95% CI 0.04 to 4.23), global episode severity (MD 1.89; 95% CI 1.34 to 2.45), and symptom severity (MD 5.36; 95% CI 3.75 to 6.97). In conclusion, weight loss is associated with less risk of recurrent AF, reduction in AF burden, and improvement in AF symptom severity.

Clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving amiodarone on NOACs vs. warfarin.

PURPOSE: Amiodarone is a potent inhibitor of the CYP450:3A4 and inhibitor of the P-glycoprotein, both of which metabolize new oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Patients who are on NOACs and are concomitantly treated with amiodarone may have a higher risk of major bleeding according to recent retrospective trials. Whether this increased risk outweighs the benefits of NOACs compared to warfarin is unknown. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between NOACs and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) being treated with amiodarone. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase for randomized controlled trials that compared NOACs to warfarin for prophylaxis of ischemic stroke/thromboembolic events (TEs) in patients with AF and reported outcomes on TE, major bleeding, and intracranial bleeding (ICB). Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Fixed effects model was used, and if heterogeneity (I2) was > 25%, effects were analyzed using a random model. RESULTS: A total of four studies comparing NOACs to warfarin were included in the analysis. The total number of patients on amiodarone was 6197. Mean follow up was 23 ± 5 months. No statistically significant difference for TE prevention (RR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.50-1.07), major bleeding (RR, 1.02; 95% CI 0.68-1.53), or ICB outcomes (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.22-1.51) between patients on NOACs + amiodarone when compared to patients on warfarin + amiodarone. CONCLUSION: Among patients with AF taking amiodarone, there is no increased risk of stroke, major bleeding, or ICB with NOACs compared to warfarin.

Is it safe to stop oral anticoagulation after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation?

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia worldwide. Its increasing prevalence has made the use of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention routine; however, their use after the blanking period of catheter ablation remains uncertain. Areas covered: This review outlines the pros and cons of stopping oral anticoagulation after catheter ablation. Major databases such as Pubmed or Embase were used. The most relevant articles published were used along with major recommendations of society guidelines. Authors will also discuss different proposed mechanisms of atrial fibrillation and more importantly future directions in this topic. Expert commentary: The use of oral anticoagulants after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation is debatable; however, based on current guidelines, we support the use of oral anticoagulants after the blanking period of catheter ablation. Noteworthy is that although the risk of bleeding can be fatal in some cases, it does not outweigh the risk of a disabling stroke.

Current and Future Use of Insertable Cardiac Monitors.

Insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) are small, subcutaneously implanted devices offering continuous ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring with a lifespan up to 3 years. ICMs have been studied and proven useful in selected cases of unexplained syncope and palpitations, as well as in atrial fibrillation (AF) management. The use of ICMs has greatly improved our ability to detect subclinical AF after cryptogenic stroke, and application of this technology is growing. Despite this, current stroke and cardiology society guidelines are lacking in recommendations for monitoring of subclinical AF following cryptogenic stroke, including the optimal timing from stroke event, duration, and method of electrocardiogram monitoring. This focused review outlines the current society guidelines, summarizes the latest evidence, and describes current and future use of ICMs with an emphasis on detection of subclinical AF in patients with cryptogenic stroke.

Catheter ablation versus conventional treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether catheter ablation is superior to conventional therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for randomized, controlled trials of AF ablation compared with conventional therapy in adults with AF and HFrEF. Odds ratio (OR), standard mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: There were seven trials including 856 patients (mean age 62 years, male 86%). All-cause mortality in patients who underwent ablation was 10% vs. 19% in those who received conventional treatment (four trials, 668 patients, 47% relative reduction, 9% absolute reduction; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.72). Improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly higher for patients undergoing ablation (+ 9 ± 10%) compared to conventional treatment (+ 2 ± 7%) (seven trials, 856 patients, SMD 0.68, 95% CI 0.28-1.08). Freedom from AF was higher in patients undergoing ablation (seven trials, 856 patients, 70% vs. 18%, respectively; 64% relative reduction, 52% absolute reduction; OR 0.03 95% CI 0.01-0.11). There was no significant difference in major complications between both strategies (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.58-2.20). CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation for AF in patients with HFrEF decreases mortality and AF recurrence and improves left ventricular function, functional capacity, and quality of life, when compared to conventional management, without increasing complications.

Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Amiodarone in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and amiodarone are widely used in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. The DOACs are P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and cytochrome p-450 (CYP3A4) substrates. Direct oral anticoagulant levels may be increased by the concomitant use of potent dual P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as amiodarone, which can potentially translate into adverse clinical outcomes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-drug interaction by the concomitant use of DOACs and amiodarone. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Embase, limiting our search to randomized controlled trials of patients with atrial fibrillation that have compared DOACs versus warfarin for prophylaxis of stroke or systemic embolism, to analyze the impact on stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and intracranial bleeding risk in patients with concomitant use of amiodarone. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals were measured using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The fixed effects model was used owing to heterogeneity (I2) < 25%. RESULTS: Four trials with a total of 71,683 patients were analyzed, from which 5% of patients (n = 3212) were concomitantly taking DOAC and amiodarone. We found no statistically significant difference for any of the clinical outcomes (stroke or systemic embolism [RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.06], major bleeding [RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.07], or intracranial bleeding [RR 1.10; 95% CI, 0.68-1.78]) among patients taking DOAC and amiodarone versus DOAC without amiodarone. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the results of this meta-analysis, co-administration of DOACs and amiodarone, a dual P-gp/CYP3A4 inhibitor, does not seem to affect efficacy or safety outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Role of implantable cardioverter defibrillator in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: A mortality benefit in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in ischemic cardiomyopathy is well established. However, the benefit of ICD implantation in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) on total mortality remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the role of primary prevention ICD in NICM patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from the inception through February 2017 to identify RCT evaluating the role of ICD in NICM patients. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) fixed effects model was used to summarize data across treatment arms. If heterogeneity (I 2) ≥25, random effects model was used instead. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 2573 patients from five RCTs comparing ICD with medical therapy in patients with NICM. The mean follow up for the trials was 48 ± 22 months. There was a significant reduction in (a) all-cause mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, p = 0.03) and (b) sudden cardiac death (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.73, p < 0.001) in ICD group versus medical therapy. CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrates that the use of ICD for primary prevention is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and SCD in patients with NICM.

Myocardial Infarction after Endoscopic Removal of Foreign Body.

The development of cardiac complications during or after endoscopic procedures is rare. However, mortality from myocardial ischemia, particularly in the elderly population, is elevated. We illustrate the rare case of a 79-year-old man with multiple cardiovascular risk factors who developed a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) after endoscopic removal of a foreign body. This case report summarizes a rare complication of a low-risk procedure and highlights the importance of considering this potential adverse event, particularly in patients with significant cardiovascular risk factors, to promote early diagnosis and proper treatment.