In-hospital complications associated with pulmonary vein isolation with adjunctive lesions: the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry.

AIMS: No prior study has been adequately powered to evaluate real-world safety outcomes in those receiving adjunctive ablation lesions beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We sought to evaluate characteristics and in-hospital complications among patients undergoing PVI with and without adjunctive lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry AFib Ablation Registry undergoing first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation between 2016 and 2020 were identified and stratified into paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent AF, and separated into PVI only, PVI + cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation, and PVI + adjunctive (superior vena cava isolation, coronary sinus, vein of Marshall, atypical atrial flutter lines, other). Adjusted odds of adverse events were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. A total of 50 937 patients [PAF: 30 551 (60%), persistent AF: 20 386 (40%)] were included. Among those with PAF, there were no differences in the adjusted odds of complications between PVI + CTI or PVI + adjunctive when compared with PVI only. Among persistent AF, PVI + adjunctive was associated with a higher risk of any complication [3.0 vs. 4.5%, odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.58] and major complication (0.8 vs. 1.4%, OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.10-2.21), while no differences were observed in PVI + CTI compared with PVI only. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion type, and those receiving adjunctive lesions had a higher comorbidity burden. CONCLUSION: Additional CTI ablation was common without an increased risk of complications. Adjunctive lesions other than CTI are commonly performed in those with more comorbidities and were associated with an increased risk of complications in persistent AF, although the current analysis is limited by high heterogeneity in adjunctive lesion set type.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the shared pathology of atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and the prognostic, diagnostic, and treatment challenges incurred by the co-occurrence of these increasingly prevalent diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: Multiple risk factors and mechanisms have been proposed as potentially linking atrial fibrillation and HFpEF, with systemic inflammation more recently being invoked. Nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, and catheter ablation have emerged as alternative treatment options. Other novel pharmacological agents, such as neprilysin inhibitors, need to be studied further in this patient population. SUMMARY: Atrial fibrillation and HFpEF commonly co-occur because of their shared risk factors and pathophysiology and incur increased morbidity and mortality relative to either condition alone. Although the presence of both diseases can often make each diagnosis difficult, it is important to do so early in the disease course as there are now a variety of treatment options aimed at improving symptoms and quality of life, slowing disease progression, and improving prognosis. However, more research needs to be performed on the role of catheter ablation in this population. Novel pharmacologic and procedural treatment options appear promising and may further improve the treatment options available to this growing population.

Accuracy of left ventricular ejection fraction determined by automated analysis of handheld echocardiograms: A comparison of experienced and novice examiners.

BACKGROUND: Handheld ultrasound devices have been developed that facilitate imaging in new clinical settings. However, quantitative assessment has been difficult. Software algorithms have recently been developed with the aim of providing rapid measurements of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with minimal operator input. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a cohort of 70 patients scheduled to undergo echocardiography at the University of California, San Diego. Each patient underwent a standard echocardiography examination by an experienced sonographer as well as a handheld ultrasound with automated software by both the sonographer and an inexperienced resident. RESULTS: There was a positive correlation between the LVEFs obtained from the standard transthoracic echocardiogram and handheld device in the hands of a novice (r = 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.75) and experienced sonographer (r = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54-0.80). The sensitivity and specificity to detect a reduced LVEF (<50%) were 69% and 96% for the novice and 64% and 98% for the experienced sonographer. The sensitivity and specificity to detect a severely reduced LVEF (<35%) were 67% and 97% for the novice and 56% and 93% for the experienced sonographer, but when limited to recordings of at least adequate quality, improved to 100% and 100% for the novice and 100% and 98% for the experienced sonographer, respectively. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that the handheld ultrasound device paired with novel software can provide a clinically useful estimate of LVEF when the images are of adequate quality and yield results by novice examiners that are similar to experienced sonographers.

Inflammatory biomarkers as predictors of systemic vs isolated pocket infection in patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction.

Background: Cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are a common indication for device extraction. Early diagnosis and complete system removal are crucial to reduce morbidity and mortality. The lack of clear infectious symptoms makes the diagnosis of pocket infections challenging and may delay referral for extraction. Objective: We aimed to determine if inflammatory biomarkers can help diagnose CIED isolated pocket infection. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing transvenous lead extraction for CIED infection at the University of California San Diego from 2012 to 2022 (N = 156). Patients were classified as systemic infection (n = 88) or isolated pocket infection (n = 68). Prospectively collected preoperative procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein, and white blood cell count were compared between groups. Results: Pairwise comparisons revealed that the systemic infection group had a higher PCT than the control group (P < .001) and the pocket infection group (P = .009). However, there was no significant difference in PCT value between control subjects and isolated pocket infection subjects. Higher white blood cell count was only associated with systemic infection when compared with our control group (P = .018). Conclusion: In patients diagnosed with CIED infections requiring extraction, inflammatory biomarkers were not elevated in isolated pocket infection. Inflammatory markers are not predictive of the diagnosis of pocket infections, which ultimately requires a high level of clinical suspicion.

Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural efficiency, safety, and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) induces cell death through electroporation using ultrarapid electrical pulses. We sought to compare the procedural efficiency characteristics, safety, and efficacy of ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using PFA compared with thermal energy ablation. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that compared ablation of AF with PFA versus thermal energy sources. Risk ratio (RR) 95% confidence intervals (CI) were measured for dichotomous variables and mean difference (MD) 95% CI were measured for continuous variables, where RR < 1 and MD < 0 favor the PFA group. RESULTS: We included 6 comparative studies for a total of 1012 patients who underwent ablation of AF: 43.6% with PFA (n = 441) and 56.4% (n = 571) with thermal energy sources. There were significantly shorter procedures times with PFA despite a protocolized 20-min dwell time (MD - 21.95, 95% CI - 33.77, - 10.14, p = 0.0003), but with significantly longer fluroscopy time (MD 5.71, 95% CI 1.13, 10.30, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in periprocedural complications (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.59-2.44) or recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31, 1.34) between the PFA and thermal ablation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with shorter procedural times and longer fluoroscopy times, but no difference in periprocedural complications or rates of recurrent AF when compared to ablation with thermal energy sources. However, larger randomized control trials are needed.

Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the very elderly (≥80 years old): Insights from the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation improves outcomes in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. However, its safety and efficacy in the very elderly (≥80 years old) is not well described. HYPOTHESIS: Ablation of AF in the very elderly is safe and effective. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent catheter ablation enrolled in the University of California, San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). RESULTS: Of 847 patients, 42 (5.0%) were 80 years of age or greater with a median age of 81.5 (80-82.3) and 805 (95.0%) were less than 80 years of age with a median age of 64.4 (57.6-70.2). Among those who were ≥80 years old, 29 were undergoing de novo ablation (69.0%), whereas in the younger cohort, 518 (64.5%) were undergoing de novo ablation (p = .548). There were no statistically significant differences in fluoroscopy (p = .406) or total procedure times (p = .076), AAD use (p = .611), or procedural complications (p = .500) between groups. After multivariable adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence of any atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45-1.23; p = .252), all-cause hospitalizations (AHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.46-1.60; p = .626), or all-cause mortality (AHR: 4.48; 95% CI: 0.59-34.07; p = .147) between the very elderly and the younger cohort. CONCLUSION: In this registry analysis, catheter ablation of AF appears similarly effective and safe in patients 80 years or older when compared to a younger cohort.

Association of isoproterenol infusion during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation with outcomes: insights from the UC San Diego AF Ablation Registry.

BACKGROUND: High-dose isoproterenol infusion is a useful provocative maneuver to elicit triggers of atrial fibrillation (AF) during ablation. We evaluated whether the use of isoproterenol infusion to elicit triggers of AF after ablation is associated with differential outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of all patients who underwent de novo radiofrequency catheter ablation of AF enrolled in the University of California, San Diego AF Ablation Registry. The primary outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmias on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). RESULTS: Of 314 patients undergoing AF ablation, 235 (74.8%) received isoproterenol while 79 (25.2%) did not. Among those who received isoproterenol, 11 (4.7%) had additional triggers identified. There were no statistically significant differences in procedure time (p = 0.432), antiarrhythmic drug use (p = 0.289), procedural complications (p = 0.279), recurrences of atrial arrhythmias on or off AAD [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.58-1.46); p = 0.714], all-cause hospitalizations [AHR 1.00 (95% CI 0.60-1.67); p = 0.986], or all-cause mortality [AHR 0.14 (95% CI 0.01-3.52); p = 0.229] between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this registry analysis, use of isoproterenol is safe but was not associated with a reduction in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias.

Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions.

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel energy source for the ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using ultrarapid electrical pulses to induce cell death via electroporation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and acute efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA vs thermal energy sources. Methods: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA and compared them to landmark clinical trials for ablation of AF with thermal energy sources. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was used to establish variance of raw proportions followed by the inverse with the random-effects model to combine the transformed proportions and generate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included 24 studies for a total of 5203 patients who underwent AF ablation. Among these patients, 54.6% (n = 2842) underwent PFA and 45.4% (n = 2361) underwent thermal ablation. There were significantly fewer periprocedural complications in the PFA group (2.05%; 95% CI 0.94-3.46) compared to the thermal ablation group (7.75%; 95% CI 5.40-10.47) (P = .001). When comparing AF recurrence up to 1 year, there was a statistically insignificant trend toward a lower prevalence of recurrence in the PFA group (14.24%; 95% CI 6.97-23.35) compared to the thermal ablation group (25.98%; 95% CI 15.75-37.68) (P = .132). Conclusion: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with lower rates of periprocedural complications and similar rates of acute procedural success and recurrent AF with up to 1 year of follow-up compared to ablation with thermal energy sources.

Characteristics and outcomes of recurrent atrial fibrillation after prior failed pulmonary vein isolation.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms for atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) catheter ablation are unclear. Non-PV organized atrial arrhythmias (PAC, AT, macro-reentrant AFL) are possible contributors; however the prevalence and effect of their ablation on recurrent AF are unknown. We hypothesize that the identification and ablation of non-PV organized atrial arrhythmias were associated with less AF recurrence. METHODS: Patients who underwent repeat ablation for recurrent AF after prior PVI were retrospectively enrolled. The prevalence and characteristics of PV reconnections and non-PV organized atrial arrhythmias were identified. The outcomes of time to clinical AF recurrence, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and mortality were analyzed in patients using multivariable adjusted Cox regression. RESULTS: In 74 patients with recurrent AF (age 66 ± 9 years, left atrial volume index 38 ± 10 ml/m2, 59% persistent AF), PV reconnections were found in 46 patients (61%), macro-reentrant atrial flutter in 27 patients (36%), and focal tachycardia in 12 patients (16%). Mapping and ablation of non-PV organized atrial arrhythmias were associated with a reduced recurrence of late clinical AF (adjusted HR 0.26, CI 0.08-0.85, p = 0.03) and the composite outcome of recurrence of late AF, HF hospitalization, and mortality (adjusted HR 0.38, CI 0.17-0.85, p = 0.02), with median follow-up of 1.6 (IQR 0.7-6.3) years. The presence of PV reconnections or empiric linear ablation was not associated with reduction in clinical AF or composite endpoints. CONCLUSION: The ablation of non-PV organized atrial arrhythmias resulted in a reduction of late clinical AF recurrence and composite outcome. In this challenging population, alternate mechanisms beyond PV reconnections need to be considered. Prospective studies are needed.

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 early recurrences of atrial tachyarrhythmias and long-term outcomes in patients after repeat atrial fibrillation ablation.

PURPOSE: Early recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ER) is predictive of late recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmia (LR) after first-time atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but the association in patients undergoing repeat AF ablation is unknown. We aim to determine the incidence and prognostic significance of ER after repeat ablation. METHODS: A total of 259 consecutive patients (mean age 64 years, 75.3% male) undergoing repeat AF ablation with complete follow-up data were included at a single institution from 2010 to 2015. ER and LR were defined as atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia) > 30 s within the 3-month blanking period (BP) and after the 3-month BP, respectively. RESULTS: ER occurred in 79/259 (30.5%), and LR occurred in 138/259 (53%) at a median follow-up of 1221 (IQR: 523-1712) days. Four-year freedom from LR was 22% and 56% in patients with and without ER, respectively (p < 0.001). After multivariate adjustment, ER was strongly associated with LR, cardioversion post BP, and repeat ablation, but not associated with hospitalization. Compared to those with no ER, there was a higher risk of LR when ER occurred within the first month of the BP [month 1: hazard ratio (HR) 2.32, confidence interval (CI) 1.57-3.74, p < 0.001; month 2: HR 2.01, CI 1.13-3.83, p = 0.02; month 3: HR 1.46, CI 0.5-3.36, p = 0.37], however the prediction of LR based on timing within the BP was poor (area under curve 0.64). CONCLUSION: Following repeat AF ablation, ER is strongly associated with LR, cardioversion post BP, and repeat ablation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) both have become major cardiovascular epidemics, adversely affecting quality of life, decreasing longevity, and imparting a large economic burden on the healthcare system. Both share similar risk factors and frequently coexist, leading to increased morbidity and mortality relative to patients with either condition alone. Although evidence-based treatment guidelines for both diseases exist, consensus treatment strategies are less clear when AF and HF co-occur. Given the risks of antiarrhythmic drugs and their incomplete success in maintaining sinus rhythm, catheter ablation has become an increasingly popular alternative to pharmacologic rhythm control in symptomatic patients with AF with normal cardiac function. Although multiple studies have demonstrated the efficacy of catheter ablation in AF, studies examining the use of catheter ablation specifically in patients with HF have recently begun to emerge and provide some guidance in this group of patients. In this review, we examine the effects of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF on maintenance of sinus rhythm, left ventricular ejection fraction, exercise capacity, quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality rates. Data regarding both HF with reduced ejection fraction and preserved ejection fraction are discussed.

Lifestyle Interventions and Carotid Plaque Burden: A Comparative Analysis of Two Lifestyle Intervention Programs in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: The cardioprotective effects of intensive lifestyle regimens in primary prevention have been elucidated; however, there is a paucity of data comparing the effects of different lifestyle regimens in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) or CAD equivalent, specifically vis-à-vis carotid plaque regression. METHODS: We performed a randomized, single-center, single-blind study in 120 patients with established CAD. Patients were randomly assigned to either 9 months of the Complete Health Improvement Program (CHIP), an outpatient lifestyle enrichment program that focuses on improving dietary choices, enhancing daily exercise, increasing support systems, and decreasing stress; or to 9 months of an ad hoc, nonsequential combination of various healthy living classes offered separately through a health maintenance organization and referred to as the Healthy Heart program. Baseline and 9-month change in carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) were measured. RESULTS: Among 120 participants, data were analyzed for 79, of which 68 (86%) completed the study. Both average CIMT and average maximum CIMT increased over 9 months, but the changes between groups were insignificant. There were marked differences in the mean body mass index favoring the CHIP group (-1.9 [standard deviation = 1.9]; p < 0.001) and statistically significant within-group improvements in blood pressure, triglyceride level, 6-minute walk test result, self-assessment well-being score, and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score that were not observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Neither the CHIP nor Healthy Heart was effective in inducing plaque regression in patients with established CAD after a 9-month period. However, both were effective in improving several CAD risk factors, which shows that the nonsequential offering of healthy lifestyle programs can lead to similar outcomes as a formal, sequential, established program (CHIP) in many aspects. These results have important implications as to how lifestyle changes will be implemented as tertiary prevention measures in the future.