Efficacy and Safety of Non-Vitamin-K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Body Mass Index and Body Weight: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) across the spectrum of body mass index (BMI) and body weight (BW) remain uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed data from COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation), which pooled patient-level data from the 4 pivotal randomized trials of NOAC versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were stroke or systemic embolic events (stroke/SEE) and major bleeding, respectively; secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke/SEE, intracranial hemorrhage, death, and the net clinical outcome (stroke/SEE, major bleeding, or death). Each outcome was examined across BMI and BW. Because few patients had a BMI <18.5 kg/m2 (n=598), the primary analyses were restricted to those with a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2. RESULTS: Among 58 464 patients, the median BMI was 28.3 (interquartile range, 25.2-32.2) kg/m2, and the median BW was 81.0 (interquartile range, 70.0-94.3) kg. The event probability of stroke/SEE was lower at a higher BMI irrespective of treatment, whereas the probability of major bleeding was lower at a higher BMI with warfarin but relatively unchanged across BMI with NOACs. NOACs reduced stroke/SEE overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.73-0.88]; P<0.001), with a generally consistent effect across BMI (Ptrend across HRs, 0.48). NOACs also reduced major bleeding overall (HRadj, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82-0.94]; P<0.001), but with attenuation of the benefit at a higher BMI (trend test across BMI [Ptrend], 0.003). The overall treatment effects of NOACs versus warfarin for secondary outcomes were consistent across BMI, with the exception of the net clinical outcome and death. While these outcomes were overall reduced with NOACs (net clinical outcome, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.87-0.95]; P<0.001; death, HRadj, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.003), these benefits were attenuated at higher BMI (Ptrend, 0.001 and 0.08, respectively). All findings were qualitatively similar when analyzed across BW. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment effect of NOACs versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation is generally consistent for stroke/SEE across the spectrum of BMI and BW, whereas the reduction in major bleeding is attenuated in those with higher BMI or BW. Death and the net clinical outcome are overall reduced with NOACs over warfarin, although there remain uncertainties for these outcomes at a very high BMI and BW.

Leadless pacemaker implantation via the internal jugular vein.

AIMS: Leadless pacemaker therapy was introduced to overcome lead- and pocket-related complications in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Implantation via the femoral vein, however, may not always be feasible. The aim of this study was to evaluate leadless pacemaker implantation using a jugular vein approach and compare it to the standard implantation via the femoral vein. METHODS AND RESULTS: The records of the first consecutive 100 patients undergoing Micra™ leadless pacemaker implantation via the right internal jugular vein from two centres were included in this study. Peri-procedural safety and efficacy of the jugular approach were compared to the first 100 patients using a femoral implantation approach at the University Hospital Zurich. One hundred patients underwent successful implantation of a leadless pacemaker via the internal jugular vein (mean age, 81.18 ± 8.29, 60% males). Mean procedure time was 35.63 ± 10.29 min with a mean fluoroscopy time of 4.66 ± 5.16 min. The device was positioned at the inferior septum in 25 patients, at the high septum in 24 patients, and mid-septum in 51 patients. The mean pacing threshold was 0.56 ± 0.35 V at 0.24 ms pulse width with a sensed amplitude of 10.0 ± 4.4 mV. At follow-up, electrical parameters remained stable in all patients. Compared with femoral implantation, patients undergoing the jugular approach were of similar age and had similar comorbidities. Mean procedure (48.9 ± 21.0 min) and fluoroscopy times (7.7 ± 7.8 min, both P < 0.01) were shorter compared to the femoral approach. Electrical parameters were similar between the two approaches. There were only two complications during jugular veinous implantations (1 pericardial effusion and 1 dislocation), compared to 16 complications using the femoral approach (1 pericardial effusion, 2 femoral artery injuries, and 13 major groin haematomas). CONCLUSION: The jugular approach may represent a safe and efficient alternative to femoral implantation of the Micra leadless pacemaker.

The Net Clinical Outcome of Dual-Pathway Inhibition in Clinical Practice: The "Xarelto plus Acetylsalicylic Acid: Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with Atherosclerosis" Registry.

Background: In the COMPASS trial, the combination of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily (dual-pathway inhibition, DPI) has been shown to be superior to ASA monotherapy for the reduction in ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, i.e., cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). Methods: The international XATOA registry (Xarelto plus Acetylsalicylic acid: Treatment patterns and Outcomes in patients with Atherosclerosis) is a prospective post-approval registry that investigates the cardiovascular outcomes of patients taking ASA plus 2.5 mg rivaroxaban. The aim of this pre-specified analysis was to determine the net clinical outcome (NCO), i.e., a combination of MACEs and bleeding events, of DPI in patients from daily clinical practice. Results: Among the 5615 patients, the presence of multiple risk factors resulted in an increase in the total risk of experiencing an NCO event, e.g., from 1.27% (one risk factor) to 2.18% (two risk factors) and 4.07% (three or more risk factors), respectively, with ischemic MACE representing the primary driver of bleeding complications. Conclusions: In the real-world XATOA registry, the annual rate of NCO events was low and numerically similar to those seen in the treatment group in the randomized COMPASS trial.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation, Focusing on Patients With Conduction System Disorders Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background: Impairment of the conduction system is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which is typically performed in elderly patients. A leadless pacemaker (LP) may be a suitable option in this frail population, but the available scientific data concerning the efficacy and safety of leadless pacing after TAVR are sparse. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LP implantation in patients with relevant bradycardias after TAVR, compared to other indications. Methods: Consecutive patients were retrospectively enrolled. Demographics, background heart diseases, interventional parameters, and follow-up data were collected. Results: A total of 257 consecutive patients who underwent LP implantation were included. In 26 patients, the device was implanted due to bradycardias after TAVR (TAVR group), whereas the remaining 231 patients were in the population without previous TAVR (non-TAVR group). The mean implantation duration (56 ± 22 minutes in the TAVR group vs 48 ± 20 minutes in the non-TAVR group; P = not significant [NS]) and the implantation success rate (100% in the TAVR group vs 98.7% in the non-TAVR group; P = NS) were similar in the 2 cohorts. No significant differences occurred in pacing parameters (sensing, impedance, and threshold, respectively) between the 2 groups, either at implantation or during follow-up. A total of 8 major periprocedural complications (3.1% of patients in total; 3.8% in the TAVR group vs 3.0% in the non-TAVR group; P = NS) occurred within 30 days, without significant difference between the 2 groups. Conclusions: LP implantation appears to be safe and effective in patients after TAVR, and therefore, this procedure is a suitable option for this often old and frail population.

Contexte: L'atteinte du système de conduction cardiaque est une complication courante du remplacement valvulaire aortique par cathéter (RVAC), une intervention habituellement pratiquée chez les patients âgés. Un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde peut être une option convenable pour cette population fragile, mais les données scientifiques actuelles concernant l'efficacité et l'innocuité de la stimulation sans sonde après un RVAC sont fragmentaires. Cette analyse visait à évaluer l'efficacité et l'innocuité de l'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde chez des patients atteints de bradycardies pertinentes après un RVAC, comparativement à d'autres indications. Méthodologie: Des patients consécutifs ont été recrutés de manière rétrospective. Les données démographiques, les maladies cardiaques sous-jacentes, les paramètres interventionnels et les données de suivi ont été colligés. Résultats: Un total de 257 patients consécutifs qui se sont fait implanter un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde ont été inclus. Chez 26 patients, le dispositif a été implanté en raison d'une bradycardie après un RVAC (groupe RVAC), alors que les 231 autres patients formaient la population sans RVAC antérieur (groupe sans RVAC). La durée moyenne de l'intervention d'implantation (56 ± 22 minutes dans le groupe RVAC vs 48 ± 20 minutes dans le groupe sans RVAC; p = non significatif [NS]) et le taux de réussite de l'implantation (100 % dans le groupe RVAC vs 98,7 % dans le groupe sans RVAC; p = NS) étaient similaires dans les deux cohortes. Aucune différence significative n'a été observée dans les paramètres de stimulation (sensibilité, impédance et seuil, respectivement) entre les 2 groupes, que ce soit au moment de l'implantation ou pendant le suivi. Un total de 8 complications périopératoires majeures (3,1 % de l'ensemble des patients; 3,8 % dans le groupe RVAC vs 3,0 % dans le groupe sans RVAC; p = NS) sont survenues dans les 30 jours, sans différence notable entre les 2 groupes. Conclusions: L'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans sonde semble sûre et efficace après un RVAC; par conséquent, cette intervention représente une option convenable pour cette population souvent âgée et fragile.

Leadless Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With a Prior Conventional Pacing System.

Background: Leadless pacing has been established as an alternative approach to transvenous devices for selected patients. Often, leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation is a de novo procedure, but in an increasing number of patients, an LP is used after previous implantation of a conventional pacing system (CPS). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the efficacy and safety of LP implantation in the context of a previously implanted CPS, from 2 large Swiss centres. Results: A total of 257 consecutive patients undergoing LP implantation were included. They were divided into 2 groups: group 1 consisted of 233 patients who did not have a previous CPS, and group 2 consisted of 24 patients with an in situ CPS. In group 2, a total of 20 patients (83%) required transvenous lead extraction due to infection, malfunction, or other reasons. In 3 patients with device-related infection, lead extraction and LP implantation was performed as a single procedure, whereas in the remaining 11 cases, a time window occurred between the 2 procedures (median: 11.5 days; range: 2-186 days). Electrical device parameters at implantation and during follow-up did not differ between the 2 groups (mean: 12.5 ± 9.3 months). Eight major periprocedural complications (3.1%) were encountered (4 pericardial effusions, 3 instances of femoral bleeding, and 1 instance of intra-abdominal bleeding) in the entire cohort within a 30-day period. No complications occurred in the group with a previous device. No infections were registered, even when complete extraction of an infected CPS was performed prior to LP implantation. Conclusions: Implantation of an LP in patients with a prior CPS (with or without extraction of the previous system) was effective and safe in our population of patients.

Contexte: La stimulation cardiaque sans fil a été établie comme une solution de substitution aux dispositifs transveineux chez certains patients. L'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil est souvent une intervention de novo, mais chez un nombre croissant de patients, ce type de stimulateur est utilisé après l'implantation d'un stimulateur classique. Méthodologie: Une analyse rétrospective de l'efficacité et de l'innocuité de la stimulation cardiaque sans fil dans le contexte de l'implantation d'un stimulateur classique a été réalisée dans deux grands centres suisses. Résultats: Un total de 257 patients consécutifs ayant subi l'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil ont été inclus. Les patients étaient répartis dans deux groupes; le groupe 1 était composé de 233 patients non porteurs d'un stimulateur classique, et le groupe 2, de 24 patients porteurs d'un stimulateur classique in situ. Dans le groupe 2, 20 patients au total (83 %) ont eu besoin d'une extraction de la sonde transveineuse en raison d'une infection, d'un défaut de fonctionnement, ou pour d'autres motifs. Chez 3 patients présentant une infection liée au stimulateur, l'extraction de la sonde et l'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil ont été réalisées simultanément, tandis que dans les 11 autres cas, il s'est écoulé un temps médian de 11,5 jours entre les deux interventions (min.-max. : 2-186 jours). Les paramètres relatifs au dispositif électrique au moment de l'implantation et pendant le suivi n'étaient pas différents entre les deux groupes (moyenne : 12,5 ± 9,3 mois). Huit complications périopératoires importantes (3,1 %) sont survenues (4 cas d'épanchement péricardique, 3 cas d'hémorragie fémorale et 1 cas d'hémorragie intra-abdominale) dans l'ensemble de la cohorte au cours d'une période de 30 jours. Aucune complication ne s'est produite dans le groupe de patients porteurs d'un stimulateur classique. On n'a enregistré aucun cas d'infection, même lorsque l'extraction complète du stimulateur classique infecté a été effectuée avant l'implantation du stimulateur cardiaque sans fil. Conclusions: L'implantation d'un stimulateur cardiaque sans fil chez les patients porteurs d'un stimulateur classique (avec ou sans extraction de ce stimulateur) était une intervention efficace et sûre dans cette population de patients.

Landmark Evolutions in Time and Indication for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results from a Multicenter Retrospective Registry.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has evolved into an established therapy for patients with chronic heart failure and a wide QRS complex. Data on long-term outcomes over time are scarce and the criteria for implantation remain a subject of investigation. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective registry includes 2275 patients who received CRT between 30 November 2000 and 31 December 2019, with a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.7 years. Four time periods were defined, based on landmark trials and guidelines. The combined endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation, or left ventricular assist device implantation. Results: The composite endpoint occurred in 656 patients (29.2%). The mean annual implantation rate tripled from 31.5 ± 17.4/year in the first period to 107.4 ± 62.4/year in the last period. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the hazard ratio for the composite endpoint was not statistically different between time periods. When compared to sinus rhythm with left bundle branch block (LBBB), a non-LBBB conduction pattern (sinus rhythm: HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.12-2.03; atrial fibrillation: HR 2.08, 95% CI 1.30-3.33) and a QRS duration below 130 ms (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.29-2.09) were associated with a higher hazard ratio. Conclusions: Despite innovations, an adjusted regression analysis revealed stable overall survival over time, which can at least partially be explained by a shift in patient characteristics.

Electrocardiographic predictors of atrial mechanical sensing in leadless pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) capable of VDD pacing allow for atrioventricular synchrony through mechanical sensing of atrial contraction. However, mechanical sensing is less reliable and less predictable than electrical sensing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate P-wave amplitude during sinus rhythm from preoperative 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) as a predictor for atrial mechanical sensing in patients undergoing VDD LP implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing VDD LP implantation were included in this 2-center prospective cohort study. ECG parameters were evaluated separately and in combination for association with the signal amplitude of atrial mechanical contraction (A4). RESULTS: Eighty patients (median age 82 years; female 55%; mean body mass index [BMI] 25.8 kg/m2) were included in the study and 61 patients in the A4 signal analysis (19 patients in VVI mode during follow-up). Absolute (aVL, aVF, V1, V2) and BMI-adjusted (I, II, aVL, aVF, aVR, V1, V2) P-wave amplitudes from baseline ECGs demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation with A4 signal amplitude (all P <.05). A combined P-wave signal amplitude of at least 0.2 mV in V1 and aVL was predictive, with specificity of 83% (95% confidence interval 67%-100%) for A4 signal ≥1 m/s2. We found a significant correlation of A4 signal amplitude and overall atrioventricular synchrony (P = .013). CONCLUSION: P-wave amplitudes in ECG leads aVL and V1 can predict A4 signal amplitude in patients with VDD LP and therefore the probability of successful AV synchronous pacing.

Dose Reduction of Edoxaban in Patients 80 Years and Older With Atrial Fibrillation: Post Hoc Analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In older patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants for stroke prevention, bleeding is increased compared with younger patients, thus, clinicians frequently prescribe lower than recommended doses in older patients despite limited randomized data. Objective: To evaluate ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban, 30 mg vs warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a parallel-design, double-blind, global clinical trial that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to either one of 2 edoxaban dosing regimens or warfarin. This secondary analysis focused on patients 80 years or older without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, as well as patients with or without dose-reduction criteria receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin. Study data were analyzed between October 2022 and December 2023. Interventions: Oral edoxaban, 30 mg once daily; edoxaban, 60 mg once daily; or warfarin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary net clinical outcome of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding and each individual component. Results: The current analysis included 2966 patients 80 years and older (mean [SD] age, 83 [2.7] years; 1671 male [56%]). Among 1138 patients 80 years and older without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, had more major bleeding events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03), particularly gastrointestinal hemorrhage (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004), with no significant difference in efficacy end points. Findings were supported by analyses of endogenous factor Xa inhibition, a marker of anticoagulant effect, which was comparable between younger patients receiving edoxaban, 60 mg, and older patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg. In 2406 patients 80 years and older with or without dose-reduction criteria, patients receiving edoxaban, 30 mg, vs warfarin had lower rates of the primary net clinical outcome (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91; P = .001), major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001), and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046), whereas rates of stroke or systemic embolism were comparable. Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 randomized clinical trial, in patients 80 years and older with atrial fibrillation, major bleeding events were lower in patients randomized to receive edoxaban, 30 mg per day, compared with either edoxaban, 60 mg per day (in patients without dose-reduction criteria), or warfarin (irrespective of dose-reduction status), without an offsetting increase in ischemic events. These data support the concept that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg, may be considered in older patients with atrial fibrillation even in the absence of dose-reduction criteria. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781391.

Long-term effectiveness and safety of edoxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation: 4-year data from the ETNA-AF-Europe study.

BACKGROUND: To assess long-term effectiveness and safety of edoxaban in Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: ETNA-AF-Europe, a prospective, multinational, multi-centre, post-authorisation, observational study was conducted in agreement with the European Medicines Agency. The primary and secondary objectives assessed real-world safety (including bleeding and deaths) and effectiveness (including stroke, systemic embolic events and clinical edoxaban use), respectively. Median (interquartile range) age of the 13,164 patients was 75.0 (68.0-80.0) years; CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were 3.0 (2.0-4.0) and 2.0 (1.0-2.0), respectively. Follow-up duration was 3.98 (3.21-4.05) years. Patients on edoxaban 30 mg (n = 3042) at baseline were older (80.0 vs 73.0 years), more likely assessed as frail by investigators (27.0% vs 6.6%) and had more comorbidities than those on edoxaban 60 mg (n = 9617; missing dosing information for n = 505). Annualised event rates of all-cause and cardiovascular death in the overall population, edoxaban 60 mg and edoxaban 30 mg groups were 4.1%, 2.8% and 8.4%, and 1.0%, 0.7% and 2.0%, respectively. Annualised rates of stroke were relatively constant throughout the follow-up, transient ischaemic attack and systemic embolism were < 1% in the overall population. Rates of any major and major gastrointestinal bleeding were low, with slightly higher rates for edoxaban 30 vs 60 mg group. Intracranial haemorrhage was uncommon (0.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In European patients with AF, long-term therapy with edoxaban is associated with low and relatively constant annualised rates of stroke and major bleeding. Differences in outcomes between the two approved doses are attributable to differences in clinical characteristics.

Integration of implantable device therapy in patients with heart failure. A clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care.