Cryoballoon Ablation for Persistent and Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Procedural Differences and Results from the Spanish Registry (RECABA).

Introduction: Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) has become a standard treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PaAF) but limited data is available for outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). Methods: We analyzed the first 944 patients included in the Spanish Prospective Multi-center Observation Post-market Registry to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing CBA for PeAF versus PaAF. Results: A total of 944 patients (57.8 ± 10.4 years; 70.1% male) with AF (27.9% persistent) were prospectively included from 25 centers. PeAF patients were more likely to have structural heart disease (67.7 vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001) and left atrium dilation (72.6 vs. 43.3%; p < 0.001). CBA of PeAF was less likely to be performed under general anesthesia (10.7 vs. 22.2%; p < 0.001), with an arterial line (32.2 vs. 44.6%; p < 0.001) and assisted transeptal puncture (11.9 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.025). During an application, PeAF patients had a longer time to −30 °C (35.91 ± 14.20 vs. 34.93 ± 12.87 s; p = 0.021) and a colder balloon nadir temperature during vein isolation (−35.04 ± 9.58 vs. −33.61 ± 10.32 °C; p = 0.004), but received fewer bonus freeze applications (30.7 vs. 41.1%; p < 0.001). There were no differences in acute pulmonary vein isolation and procedure-related complications. Overall, 76.7% of patients were free from AF recurrences at 15-month follow-up (78.9% in PaAF vs. 70.9% in PeAF; p = 0.09). Conclusions: Patients with PeAF have a more diseased substrate, and CBA procedures performed in such patients were more simplified, although longer/colder freeze applications were often applied. The acute efficacy/safety profile of CBA was similar between PaAF and PeAF patients, but long-term results were better in PaAF patients.

Prevención primaria de muerte súbita en pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular / Primary prevention of sudden death in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy

Introducción y objetivos: Existe escasa evidencia sobre la evolución de los pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular remitidos para implante de desfibrilador por prevención primaria. Se pretende describir la evolución de este subgrupo particular. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo en 15 centros españoles que incluyó pacientes consecutivos remitidos para implante de desfibrilador en los años 2010 y 2011, y en tres centros desde el 1 enero de 2008. Resultados: De un total de 1.174 pacientes, 73 (6,2%) presentaron miocardiopatía valvular. Comparados con los pacientes con miocardiopatía isquémica (n = 659; 56,1%) o dilatada (n = 442; 37,6%), presentaron peor clase funcional, mayor anchura del QRS y antecedente de fibrilación auricular. Durante un seguimiento de 38,1 ± 21,3 meses, 197 (16,7%) pacientes fallecieron por cualquier causa, sin diferencias significativas entre grupos (19,2% en miocardiopatía valvular, 15,8% en isquémica y 17,9% en miocardiopatía dilatada; p = 0,2). De estos, 136 murieron por causa cardiovascular (11,6%), sin diferencias significativas (12,3%; 10,5% y 13,1%, respectivamente; p = 0,1). Tampoco hubo diferencias en la proporción de intervenciones apropiadas del desfibrilador (13,7%; 17,9% y 18,8%; p = 0,4), pero sí en el de inapropiadas (8,2%; 7,1% y 12,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,03). Conclusiones: Las tasas de mortalidad por cualquier causa y por causa cardiovascular en pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular fueron similares a las del resto de los pacientes remitidos para implante de desfibrilador. También presentaron similares tasas de intervenciones apropiadas. Estos datos parecen indicar que el implante de un desfibrilador en este grupo confiere un beneficio similar al que obtienen los pacientes con miocardiopatía isquémica y miocardiopatía dilatada (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. Results: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n = 659; 56.1%) or dilated (n = 442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P = .2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P = .1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P = .4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P = .03). Conclusions: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy (AU)

Primary Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients With Valvular Cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. RESULTS: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n=659; 56.1%) or dilated (n=442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P=.2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P=.1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P=.4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy.

[Electrical storm in patients with prophylactic defibrillator implantation]. / Evolución de los pacientes portadores de desfibrilador como prevención primaria tras un episodio de tormenta arrítmica.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the prevalence of electrical storm, baseline characteristics and mortality implications of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator in primary prevention versus those patients without electrical storm. We sought to assess the prevalence, baseline risk profile and survival significance of electrical storm in patients with implantable defibrillator for primary prevention. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter study performed in 15 Spanish hospitals. Consecutives patients referred for desfibrillator implantation, with or without left ventricular lead (at least those performed in 2010 and 2011), were included. RESULTS: Over all 1,174 patients, 34 (2,9%) presented an electrical storm, mainly due to ventricular tachycardia (82.4%). There were no significant baseline differences between groups, with similar punctuation in the mortality risk scores (SHOCKED, MADIT and FADES). A clear trigger was identified in 47% of the events. During the study period (38±21 months), long-term total mortality (58.8% versus 14.4%, p<0.001) and cardiac mortality (52.9% versus 8.6%, p<0.001) were both increased among electrical storm patients. Rate of inappropriate desfibrillator intervention was also higher (14.7 versus 8.6%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study of patients with desfibrillator implantation for primary prevention, prevalence of electrical storm was 2.9%. There were no baseline differences in the cardiovascular risk profile versus those without electrical storm. However, all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality was increased in these patients versus control desfibrillator patients without electrical storm, as was the rate of inappropriate desfibrillator intervention.

Analyses of inappropriate shocks in a Spanish ICD primary prevention population: Predictors and prognoses.

BACKGROUND: ICDs have been demonstrated to be highly effective in the primary prevention of sudden death, but inappropriate shocks (IS) occur frequently and represent one of the most important adverse effects of ICDs. The aim of this study was to analyze IS and identify the clinical predictors and prognostic implications of ISs in a real-world primary prevention ICD population. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study was performed in 13 centers with experience in the field of ICD implantation (at least 30 per year) and ICD follow-up in Spain. All consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention between January 2008 and May 2014 were included. RESULTS: One-thousand-sixteen patients were included, and 4 (0.39%) were lost to follow-up. Two-hundred-seventeen (21.4%) patients suffered from shock; 69 (6.8%) of these patients experienced IS, and 154 (15.4%) experienced appropriate shocks (AS). Age (<65 years, hazard ratio (HR) 2.588 [95% CI 1.282-5.225]; p=0.008), history of atrial fibrillation (HR 2.252 [95% CI 1.230-4.115]; p=0.009), non-ischemic myocardiopathy (HR 2.258 [95% CI 1.090-4.479]; p=0.028), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (HR 0.385 [95% CI 0.200-0.740]; p=0.004) were identified as IS predictors in a multivariate analysis. IS was not associated with rehospitalization due to heart failure, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of our national registry identified the independent IS predictors of age, atrial fibrillation history and cardiac resynchronization therapy and suggests that ISs are not linked to poorer clinical endpoints.

Echocardiographic diastolic function assessment is of modest utility in patients with persistent and longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Detection of concurrent diastolic dysfunction (DD) may be beneficial in patients with persistent and longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). The role of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) in assessing DD in patients with AF has not been well characterized. We sought to determine the utility of TTE in detecting elevated left atrial pressure (LAP) in patients with persistent and longstanding persistent non-valvular AF using directly measured LAP as the reference standard. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 157 patients with persistent AF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). LAP was determined in conjunction with trans-septal puncture at the time of catheter ablation. TTE was performed 1 day after PVI and included two dimensional, pulse wave spectral Doppler and tissue Doppler assessments. RESULTS: The clinical parameter that strongly correlated with elevated LAP is longstanding persistent AF. Four strongest TTE parameters identified to moderately correlate with LAP include 1. left atrial minimum volume (LAVmin), 2. peak velocity of early mitral diastolic inflow velocity (E), 3. pulmonary vein systolic flow velocity (PVS), and 4. ratio of early diastolic transmitral inflow velocity to mitral annular velocity at the lateral site (E/E' lateral). CONCLUSION: Accurate assessment of diastolic dysfunction in patients with persistent and longstanding persistent AF is difficult using TTE. A combination of LAVmin, PVS, and E might be helpful to determine elevated LAP.

Time to recurrence of atrial fibrillation influences outcome following catheter ablation.

BACKGROUND: Outcome after atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after ablation remains poorly characterized. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the time to recurrence of AF after catheter ablation impacts outcome. METHODS: Four hundred thirty-nine consecutive patients with AF after catheter ablation were categorized as early recurrence (E) (3-6 months after ablation; n = 245 patients), late (L) (6-12 months; n = 118), and very late (VL) (>12 months; n = 76). Subsequent AF frequency (defined as rare if ≤ 2 episodes or ≤ 1 cardioversion per 6-month window), response to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), and long-term outcome after repeat ablation were evaluated. RESULTS: Subsequent AF episodes were rare in 9% of E, 42% of L, and 68% of VL groups (P<.001). AF was eliminated with AADs in 19% patients of E, 58% of L, and 72% of VL groups in whom AADs were tried (P<.001). A repeat ablation was performed in 75% patients of E, 59% of L, and 46% of VL recurrence groups (P<.001). With>1-year follow-up after repeat ablation, 49% patients of E, 70% of L, and 89% of VL groups (P<.001) had no or rare AF. In multivariate logistic regression, time to recurrence was an independent predictor of rare AF episodes, better response to AADs, and better outcome after repeat ablation. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF after ablation, time to recurrence is a major determinant of outcome. Patients with later recurrences are more likely to have sporadic episodes and respond better to AADs and repeat ablation. These results not only suggest pathophysiologic differences but also have implications for counseling patients regarding anticipated outcome.

Mecanismos de las arritmias cardiacas / Mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmias

En la especie humana, las arritmias cardiacas son muy prevalentes en todos los grupos de edad y pueden darse tanto en el contexto de una cardiopatía subyacente como en corazones estructuralmente normales. Aunque las formas de presentación clínica de las arritmias son muy diversas, en las células comparten propiedades electrofisiológicas comunes. Los 3 mecanismos principales de las arritmias cardiacas son las alteraciones en el automatismo, la actividad desencadenada y la reentrada. Aunque la identificación del mecanismo específico a veces pueda resultar difícil para el clínico y requerir un estudio electrofisiológico invasivo, diferenciar y comprender el mecanismo subyacente puede ser crucial para desarrollar una correcta estrategia diagnóstica y terapéutica (AU)

Cardiac arrhythmias are prevalent among humans across all age ranges and may occur in the setting of underlying heart disease as well as in structurally normal hearts. While arrhythmias are widely varied in their clinical presentations, they possess shared electrophysiologic properties at the cellular level. The 3 main mechanisms responsible for cardiac arrhythmias are automaticity, triggered activity, and reentry. Although identifying the specific mechanism may at times be challenging for the clinician and require invasive electrophysiologic study, differentiating and understanding the underlying mechanism may be critical to the development of an appropriate diagnosis and treatment strategy (AU)

Mechanisms of cardiac arrhythmias.

Cardiac arrhythmias are prevalent among humans across all age ranges and may occur in the setting of underlying heart disease as well as in structurally normal hearts. While arrhythmias are widely varied in their clinical presentations, they possess shared electrophysiologic properties at the cellular level. The 3 main mechanisms responsible for cardiac arrhythmias are automaticity, triggered activity, and reentry. Although identifying the specific mechanism may at times be challenging for the clinician and require invasive electrophysiologic study, differentiating and understanding the underlying mechanism may be critical to the development of an appropriate diagnosis and treatment strategy.

Recolocación percutánea tardía de electrodo de seno coronario para resincronización ventricular / Late percutaneous repositioning of a coronary sinus lead used for ventricular resynchronization

No disponible

No disponible