Impact of early vs. delayed atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on atrial arrhythmia recurrences.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is an effective strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its timing in the course of management remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine if an early vs. delayed AF ablation strategy is associated with differences in arrhythmia outcomes during 12-month follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients with symptomatic AF referred to a tertiary centre for management were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either an early ablation strategy (within 1 month of recruitment) or a delayed ablation strategy (optimized medical therapy followed by catheter ablation at 12 months post recruitment). The primary endpoint was atrial arrhythmia free survival at 12 months post-ablation. Secondary outcomes included: (i) AF burden, (ii) AF burden by AF phenotype, and (iii) antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) use at 12 months. Overall, 89 patients completed the study protocol (Early vs. Delayed: 48 vs. 41). Mean age was 59 ± 12.9 years (29% women). Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% of patients. At 12 months, 56.3% of patients in the early ablation group were free from recurrent arrhythmia, compared with 58.6% in the delayed ablation group (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.59-2.13, P = 0.7). All secondary outcomes showed no significant difference including median AF burden (Early vs. Delayed: 0% [IQR 3.2] vs. 0% [5], P = 0.66), median AF burden amongst paroxysmal AF patients (0% [IQR 1.1] vs. 0% [4.5], P = 0.78), or persistent AF patients (0% [IQR 22.8] vs. 0% [5.6], P = 0.45) or AAD use (33% vs. 37%, P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Compared with an early ablation strategy, delaying AF ablation by 12 months for AAD management did not result in reduced ablation efficacy.

Influence of atrial fibrillation type on outcomes of ablation vs. drug therapy: results from CABANA.

AIMS: Influence of atrial fibrillation (AF) type on outcomes seen with catheter ablation vs. drug therapy is incompletely understood. This study assesses the impact of AF type on treatment outcomes in the Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial (CABANA). METHODS AND RESULTS: CABANA randomized 2204 patients ≥65 years old or <65 with at least one risk factor for stroke to catheter ablation or drug therapy. Of these, 946 (42.9%) had paroxysmal AF (PAF), 1042 (47.3%) had persistent AF (PersAF), and 215 (9.8%) had long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) at baseline. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Symptoms were measured with the Mayo AF-Specific Symptom Inventory (MAFSI), and quality of life was measured with the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT). Comparisons are reported by intention to treat. Compared with drug therapy alone, catheter ablation produced a 19% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint for PAF {adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.30]}, and a 17% relative reduction for PersAF (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56, 1.22). For LSPAF, the ablation relative effect was a 7% reduction (aHR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.36, 2.44). Ablation was more effective than drug therapy at reducing first AF recurrence in all AF types: by 51% for PAF (aHR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.62), by 47% for PersAF (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.43,0.65), and by 36% for LSPAF (aHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41,1.00). Ablation was associated with greater improvement in symptoms, with the mean difference between groups in the MAFSI frequency score favouring ablation over 5 years of follow-up in all subgroups: PAF had a clinically significant -1.9-point difference (95% CI: -1.2 to -2.6); PersAF a -0.9 difference (95% CI: -0.2 to -1.6); LSPAF a clinically significant difference of -1.6 points (95% CI: -0.1 to -3.1). Ablation was also associated with greater improvement in quality of life in all subgroups, with the AFEQT overall score in PAF patients showing a clinically significant 5.3-point improvement (95% CI: 3.3 to 7.3) over drug therapy alone over 5 years of follow-up, PersAF a 1.7-point difference (95% CI: 0.0 to 3.7), and LSPAF a 3.1-point difference (95% CI: -1.6 to 7.8). CONCLUSION: Prognostic treatment effects of catheter ablation compared with drug therapy on the primary and major secondary clinical endpoints did not differ consequentially by AF subtype. With regard to decreases in AF recurrence and improving quality of life, ablation was more effective than drug therapy in all three AF type subgroups. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00911508.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients: Executive summary.

Guidelines for the implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have evolved since publication of the initial ACC/AHA pacemaker guidelines in 1984 [1]. CIEDs have evolved to include novel forms of cardiac pacing, the development of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the introduction of devices for long term monitoring of heart rhythm and other physiologic parameters. In view of the increasing complexity of both devices and patients, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. In 2018, the ACC/AHA/HRS published Guidelines on the Evaluation and Management of Patients with Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay [2], which were specific recommendations for patients >18 years of age. This age-specific threshold was established in view of the differing indications for CIEDs in young patients as well as size-specific technology factors. Therefore, the following document was developed to update and further delineate indications for the use and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, with recognition that there is often overlap in the care of patents between 18 and 21 years of age. This document is an abbreviated expert consensus statement (ECS) intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease/diagnostic categories. This document will also provide guidance regarding the management of lead systems and follow-up evaluation for pediatric patients with CIEDs. The recommendations are presented in an abbreviated modular format, with each section including the complete table of recommendations along with a brief synopsis of supportive text and select references to provide some context for the recommendations. This document is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the basis for each of the recommendations, which are further addressed in the comprehensive PACES-CIED document [3], with further data easily accessible in electronic searches or textbooks.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients.

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Quinidine-A legacy within the modern era of antiarrhythmic therapy.

Quinidine has a very long history as antiarrhythmic medication. The alkaloid has been used in the treatment of almost all cardiac arrhythmias, especially atrial fibrillation, since the early twentieth century. Despite decreases in clinical prescription over the last two decades, mainly due to side effects like pro-arrhythmia, leading to increased mortality and to the availability of newer anti-arrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation, Quinidine remains an invaluable drug in the modern era of antiarrhythmic therapy. We present a review of the pharmacological properties of quinidine and its pivotal therapeutic role in the treatment of life-threatening arrhythmic storms in patients with congenital arrhythmogenic syndromes like Brugada's syndrome, early repolarization syndrome, short QT syndrome and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation.

Can we predict the failure of electrical cardioversion of acute atrial fibrillation? The FinCV study.

BACKGROUND: Data on predictors of failure of electrical cardioversion of acute atrial fibrillation are scarce. METHODS: We explored 6,906 electrical cardioversions of acute (<48 hours) atrial fibrillation in 2,868 patients in a retrospective multicenter study. RESULTS: The success rate of electrical cardioversion was 94.2%. In 26% of unsuccessful cardioversions, the cardioversion was performed successfully later. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy, short (<12 hours) duration of atrial fibrillation episode, advanced age, permanent pacemaker, history of atrial fibrillation episodes within 30 days before cardioversion, and ß-blockers were independent predictors of unsuccessful electrical cardioversion. In the subgroup of patients with cardioversion of the first atrial fibrillation episode (N = 1,411), the short duration of episode (odds ratio [OR] = 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-3.90, P = 0.003) and advanced age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.02-1.05, P < 0.001) were the only independent predictors of unsuccessful cardioversion. After successful cardioversion, the rate of early (<30 days) clinical recurrence of atrial fibrillation was 17.3%. The index cardioversion being performed due to the first atrial fibrillation episode was the only predictor of remaining in the sinus rhythm. CONCLUSION: A short (<12 hours) duration of acute atrial fibrillation is a significant predictor of unsuccessful cardioversion, especially during the first attack. First atrial fibrillation episode was the only predictor of remaining in the sinus rhythm.