Barriers and financial impact of same-day discharge after atrial fibrillation ablation.

BACKGROUND: Same-day discharge (SDD) after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is increasingly being considered. This study examined the barriers and financial impact associated with SDD in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing elective AF ablation. METHODS: A single center retrospective review was conducted of the 249 first case-of-the-day outpatient AF ablations performed in 2019 to evaluate the proportion of patients that could have undergone SDD. Barriers to SDD were defined as any intervention that prevented SDD by 8 p.m. The financial impact of SDD was based on savings from avoidance of the overnight hospital stay and revenue related to management of chest pain facilitated by a vacant hospital bed. RESULTS: SDD could have occurred in 157 patients (63%) without change in management and in up to 200 patients (80%) if avoidable barriers were addressed. Barriers to SDD included non-clinical logistical issues (43%), prolonged post-procedure recovery (42%) and minor procedural complications (15%). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with barriers to SDD included increasing age (P = .01), left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% (P = .04), and severely dilated left atrium (P = .04). The financial gain from SDD would have ranged from $1,110,096 (assuming discharge of 63% of eligible patients) to $1,480,128 (assuming 80% discharge) over the course of a year. CONCLUSIONS: Up to 80% of patients undergoing outpatient AF ablation were amenable to SDD if avoidable delays in care had been anticipated. Based on reduced hospital operating expenses and increased revenue from management of individuals with chest pain, this would translate to a financial savings of ∼$1.5 million.

Syncope and presyncope in patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have described several cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 including myocardial ischemia, myocarditis, thromboembolism, and malignant arrhythmias. However, to our knowledge, syncope in COVID-19 patients has not been systematically evaluated. We sought to characterize syncope and/or presyncope in COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 with either syncope or presyncope. This "study" group (n = 37) was compared with an age and gender-matched cohort of patients without syncope ("control") (n = 40). Syncope was attributed to various categories. We compared telemetry data, treatments received, and clinical outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: Among 1000 COVID-19 patients admitted to the Mount Sinai Hospital, the incidence of syncope/presyncope was 3.7%. The median age of the entire cohort was 69 years (range 26-89+ years) and 55% were men. Major comorbidities included hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease. Syncopal episodes were categorized as (a) unspecified in 59.4% patients, (b) neurocardiogenic in 15.6% patients, (c) hypotensive in 12.5% patients, and (d) cardiopulmonary in 3.1% patients with fall versus syncope and seizure versus syncope in 2 of 32 (6.3%) and 1 of 33 (3.1%) patients, respectively. Compared with the "control" group, there were no significant differences in both admission and peak blood levels of d-dimer, troponin-I, and CRP in the "study" group. Additionally, there were no differences in arrhythmias or death between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Syncope/presyncope in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is uncommon and is infrequently associated with a cardiac etiology or associated with adverse outcomes compared to those who do not present with these symptoms.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and are associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk. Purpose: To compare benefits and harms between catheter ablation and drug therapy in adult patients with AF and HF. Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), EBSCO Information Services, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and various scientific conference sessions from 1 January 2005 to 1 October 2018. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that had at least 6 months of follow-up and compared clinical outcomes of catheter ablation versus drug therapy in adults with AF and HF. Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data Synthesis: 6 RCTs involving 775 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with drug therapy, AF ablation reduced all-cause mortality (9.0% vs. 17.6%; risk ratio [RR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.81]) and HF hospitalizations (16.4% vs. 27.6%; RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.39 to 0.93]). Ablation improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference, 6.95% [CI, 3.0% to 10.9%]), 6-minute walk test distance (mean difference, 20.93 m [CI, 5.91 to 35.95 m]), peak oxygen consumption (Vo2max) (mean difference, 3.17 mL/kg per minute [CI, 1.26 to 5.07 mL/kg per minute]), and quality of life (mean difference in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, -9.02 points [CI, -19.75 to 1.71 points]). Serious adverse events were more common in the ablation groups, although differences between the ablation and drug therapy groups were not statistically significant (7.2% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.68 [CI, 0.58 to 4.85]). Limitation: Results driven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of patient-level data, open-label trial designs, and heterogeneous follow-up length among trials. Conclusion: Catheter ablation was superior to conventional drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality, HF hospitalizations, LVEF, 6-minute walk test distance, Vo2max, and quality of life, with no statistically significant increase in serious adverse events. Primary Funding Source: None.

Follow-up imaging after left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: Because device-related thrombus (DRT) portends a poor prognosis after left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device, surveillance transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is recommended at 45 days and 1 year. However, oral anticoagulants are just discontinued at 45 days, rendering this early TEE unlikely to detect DRT. Indeed, DRT is most likely to occur after instituting aspirin monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the alternative strategy of first TEE imaging (or computed tomography) at 4 months post-Watchman implantation. METHODS: After Food and Drug Administration approval, consecutive patients undergoing Watchman implantation at 2 centers received TEE or CT at 4 months and 1 year, along with a truncated drug regimen: 6 weeks of an oral anticoagulant (or clopidogrel in a subset) plus aspirin, then 6 weeks of dual antiplatelet therapy, and finally aspirin monotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 530-patient cohort (mean age 78.7±7.9 years; 65.5% (n = 347) male; CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.5±1.4), 465 patients (87.7%) received 4-month imaging: 83.0% (440 of 530) TEE and 4.7% (25 of 530) computed tomography. Over a median follow-up of 12 months, 16 ischemic strokes (ISs), 8 transient ischemic attacks, and 1 systemic embolization occurred. Importantly, no IS occurred between 45 days and 4 months; the sole transient ischemic attack in this period (at ∼2 months) occurred 1 week after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. DRT was detected in 2.4% (11 of 465) at 4 months and 0.9% (2 of 214) at 1 year. No IS, but 1 leg embolization, was observed after DRT detection. CONCLUSION: Delaying the first imaging post-Watchman implantation to 4 months was associated with no IS between 45 days and 4 months, the "vulnerable" period of this follow-up strategy.

Malignant Arrhythmias in Patients With COVID-19: Incidence, Mechanisms, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who develop cardiac injury are reported to experience higher rates of malignant cardiac arrhythmias. However, little is known about these arrhythmias-their frequency, the underlying mechanisms, and their impact on mortality. METHODS: We extracted data from a registry (NCT04358029) regarding consecutive inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 who were receiving continuous telemetric ECG monitoring and had a definitive disposition of hospital discharge or death. Between patients who died versus discharged, we compared a primary composite end point of cardiac arrest from ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation or bradyarrhythmias such as atrioventricular block. RESULTS: Among 800 patients with COVID-19 at Mount Sinai Hospital with definitive dispositions, 140 patients had telemetric monitoring, and either died (52) or were discharged (88). The median (interquartile range) age was 61 years (48-74); 73% men; and ethnicity was White in 34%. Comorbidities included hypertension in 61%, coronary artery disease in 25%, ventricular arrhythmia history in 1.4%, and no significant comorbidities in 16%. Compared with discharged patients, those who died had elevated peak troponin I levels (0.27 versus 0.02 ng/mL) and more primary end point events (17% versus 4%, P=0.01)-a difference driven by tachyarrhythmias. Fatal tachyarrhythmias invariably occurred in the presence of severe metabolic imbalance, while atrioventricular block was largely an independent primary event. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who die experience malignant cardiac arrhythmias more often than those surviving to discharge. However, these events represent a minority of cardiovascular deaths, and ventricular tachyarrhythmias are mainly associated with severe metabolic derangement. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04358029.

Outcomes of Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Using Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

BACKGROUND: Although percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVADs) facilitate mapping and ablation of hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia (VT), there is limited data whether clinical outcomes are improved. We sought to retrospectively compare the outcomes of patients undergoing scar-related VT ablation with and without pLVAD support. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 194 patients (109 pLVAD and 85 non-pLVAD). The pLVAD group more often had dilated cardiomyopathy (33% versus 13%; P=0.001), New York Heart Association heart failure class ≥III (51% versus 25%; P<0.001), lower left ventricular ejection fractions (26±10% versus 39±16%; P<0.001), and electrical storm (49% versus 34%; P=0.04). Procedure times (422±112 versus 330±92 minutes; P<0.001), postablation VT inducibility (20% versus 7%; P=0.02), and length of subsequent hospitalization (median 6 versus 4 days; P=0.001) were all higher in the pLVAD group. During median follow-up of 215 days, the primary end point (recurrent VT, heart transplantation, or death) occurred in 36% of the pLVAD versus 26% of the non-pLVAD groups (P=0.14). After propensity matching for differences between groups, no differences were seen between groups for both acute procedural outcomes and the primary end point. CONCLUSIONS: In this large single-center scar-related VT ablation experience, despite the worse clinical status of the patients selected for pLVAD support, clinical outcomes were better than expected and were similar to healthier patients not receiving hemodynamic support. Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy presenting with electrical storm, advanced heart failure, and severe left ventricular dysfunction most frequently received hemodynamic support during VT ablation.