ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), both cryoablation ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA), have demonstrated to be safe and effective. About 1 in 3 patients may face a redo due to recurrence and the best technique is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of CBA as a repeat procedure in patients with prior CBA or RFCA. METHODS: A nation-wide CBA registry (RECABA) was analyzed and patients were compared who had previously undergone CBA (Prior-CB) or RFCA (Prior-RF). The primary endpoint was AF recurrence at 12 months after a 3-month blanking period. A survival analysis was performed, univariate and multivariate Cox models were also built. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included. Thirty-three (44.6%) were in the Prior-CB group and 41 (55.4%) in the Prior-RF. There were more reconnected pulmonary veins in the Prior-RF than in Prior-CB group (40.4% vs.16.5%, p = 0.0001). The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from AF recurrence after the blanking period was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.4-75.8%) in the Prior-CB, and 89.2% (95% CI 73.6-95.9%) in the Prior-RF group (p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox regression pointed Prior-CB as the sole independent predictor of AF recurrence, with an adjusted HR of 2.67 (95% CI 1.05-6.79). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat CBA shows higher rates of AF recurrences compared to CBA after a previous RFCA despite presenting less reconnected veins at the procedure. These data suggest that patients with AF recurrence after CBA may benefit from other ablation techniques after a recurrence. RECABA is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the Unique Identifier NCT02785991.
Subject(s)
Cardiology , Heart Diseases , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Primary Health Care , Referral and ConsultationSubject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Electrocardiography/instrumentation , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Aged , COVID-19 , Clinical Protocols , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Introducción y objetivos: La taquicardia ventricular polimórfica catecolaminérgica (TVPC) es una enfermedad hereditaria caracterizada por arritmias ventriculares (AV) polimórficas o bidireccionales desencadenadas por estrés físico o emocional en jóvenes con corazón estructuralmente normal. El pilar del tratamiento son los bloqueadores beta y recientemente se ha incorporado la flecainida al arsenal terapéutico. El objetivo de este trabajo es exponer nuestra experiencia con su uso. Métodos: De un total de 174 pacientes pertenecientes a 7 familias afectadas de TVPC con genotipo positivo, se analizó a los que tomaron flecainida. Se valoraron la indicación, los efectos secundarios, la dosificación, los eventos clínicos, las AV y la ventana arrítmica en las pruebas de esfuerzo y las descargas del desfibrilador automático (DAI). Resultados: Recibieron flecainida 18 pacientes (10,4%); 17 en combinación con bloqueadores beta y 1 como tratamiento único por intolerancia al bloqueador beta. Ningún paciente sufrió efectos secundarios. La indicación fue la persistencia de AV complejas en la prueba de esfuerzo en 13 pacientes (72,2%) y descargas frecuentes del DAI en los otros 5 (27,8%). En el 66,7% de la familia 1, la puntuación cuantitativa de AV en la prueba de esfuerzo se redujo más de un 50% (32,76 ± 84,06 frente a 74,38 ± 153,86 lpm; p = 0,018). La ventana arrítmica fue menor (5,8 ± 11,9 frente a 19,69 ± 21,27 lpm; p = 0,007) y 4 de los 5 pacientes con descargas apropiadas del DAI no sufrieron más descargas. Conclusiones: En pacientes con TVPC, la flecainida reduce los eventos clínicos, las AV, la ventana arrítmica y las descargas del DAI y los pacientes la toleran bien (AU)
Introduction and objectives: Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) is an inherited disease characterized by polymorphic or bidirectional ventricular arrhythmias (VA) triggered by physical or emotional stress in young people with a structurally normal heart. Beta-blockers are the cornerstone of treatment, while flecainide has recently been incorporated into the therapeutic arsenal. The aim of this study was to report our experience with this drug. Methods: The cohort included 174 genotype-positive CPVT-patients from 7 families. We collected data from patients who were receiving flecainide and analyzed the indications, adverse effects and dosage, clinical events, VA and arrhythmic window during exercise testing, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks during follow-up. Results: Eighteen patients (10.4%) received flecainide; 17 patients in combination with beta-blockers, and 1 patient as monotherapy due to beta-blocker intolerance. None of the patients presented side effects. In 13 patients (72.2%) the indication was the persistence of exercise-induced VA and in 5 patients (27.7%) persistent ICD-shocks, despite on beta-blockers. After flecainide initiation, the exercise-induced VA quantitative score was reduced by more than 50% in 66.7% of the members of family 1 (32.76 ± 84.06 vs 74.38 ± 153.86; P = .018). The arrhythmic window was reduced (5.8 ± 11.9 bpm vs 19.69 ± 21.27 bpm; P = .007), and 4 of 5 patients with appropriate ICD shocks experienced no further shocks in the follow-up. Conclusions: In CPVT-patients flecainide reduces clinical events, exercise-induced VA, the arrhythmic window, and ICD shocks, with good tolerance (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnostic imaging , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/drug therapy , Tachycardia, Ventricular/complications , Tachycardia, Ventricular/diagnostic imaging , Defibrillators, Implantable , Electrocardiography , Heart Rate , 28599ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) is an inherited disease characterized by polymorphic or bidirectional ventricular arrhythmias (VA) triggered by physical or emotional stress in young people with a structurally normal heart. Beta-blockers are the cornerstone of treatment, while flecainide has recently been incorporated into the therapeutic arsenal. The aim of this study was to report our experience with this drug. METHODS: The cohort included 174 genotype-positive CPVT-patients from 7 families. We collected data from patients who were receiving flecainide and analyzed the indications, adverse effects and dosage, clinical events, VA and arrhythmic window during exercise testing, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks during follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen patients (10.4%) received flecainide; 17 patients in combination with beta-blockers, and 1 patient as monotherapy due to beta-blocker intolerance. None of the patients presented side effects. In 13 patients (72.2%) the indication was the persistence of exercise-induced VA and in 5 patients (27.7%) persistent ICD-shocks, despite on beta-blockers. After flecainide initiation, the exercise-induced VA quantitative score was reduced by more than 50% in 66.7% of the members of family 1 (32.76 ± 84.06 vs 74.38 ± 153.86; P = .018). The arrhythmic window was reduced (5.8 ± 11.9 bpm vs 19.69 ± 21.27 bpm; P = .007), and 4 of 5 patients with appropriate ICD shocks experienced no further shocks in the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In CPVT-patients flecainide reduces clinical events, exercise-induced VA, the arrhythmic window, and ICD shocks, with good tolerance.
