Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Efficacy and Safety of an Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).

High-risk catheter ablation of refractory atrial fibrillation using Impella CP in a patient with cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Impella CP support during Posterior Vein Isolation/Posterior Wall Isolation (PVI/PWI) in the setting of persistent cardiogenic shock from refractory atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response (AF/RVR), has not been reported in the literature to the best of our knowledge. CASE: A 61-year-old male truck driver was admitted with acute HFrEF with AF/RVR 130 - 150. His EF was 20% with global hypokinesis. He was diuresed and cardioverted to sinus rhythm and had QTc of 532. He reverted to AF/RVR in less than 24 hours, requiring amiodarone drip. Shortly, amiodarone was discontinued because of intense anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. Class III and Class 1c agents were contraindicated due to prolonged QTc and cardiomyopathy. He developed cardiogenic shock, worsening cardiorenal syndrome, and shock liver requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Inotropes and vasopressors were contraindicated. AVN ablation was refused because he wanted to return to truck driving. EF dropped to 10%, and moderate RV dysfunction ensued. Right heart catheterization showed PASP 53, PADP 38, and PCWP 37 with RAP 28mmHg. Coronary angiogram was normal. An Impella device was inserted, and support was set to P6 with 3.4 L/min cardiac output. PVI with cryoablation, PWI, and anterior mitral isthmus ablation was successful. The adequacy of isolation was verified by demonstrating a complete exit block 30 mins after ablation. Normal sinus rhythm was restored after cardioversion. Echo 48 hours later revealed improvement in EF from 10% to 40% in sinus rhythm. Impella and CRRT were weaned. He was discharged on GDMT. CONCLUSION: There are no recommendations regarding PVI for AF/RVR on mechanical circulatory support (MCS). MCS assisted PVI/PWI may be the only resort to restore hemodynamic stability in cases where a pacemaker is not desirable. PVI/PWI is a lengthy procedure; the use of the Impella support for PVI/PWI in cardiogenic shock allows adequate time for exit block testing and PWI. The operator can do thorough mapping and ablation, knowing that the patient is receiving adjustable support based on hemodynamic demands. We had a good outcome; nevertheless, the potential pitfalls are unknown.

Effect of sex hormones on neuromuscular control patterns during landing.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of sex hormones across menstrual cycle phases on lower extremity neuromuscular control patterns during the landing phase of a drop jump. A repeated-measures design was utilized to examine sex hormone effects in 26 recreationally active eumenorrheic women. Varus/valgus knee angle and EMG activity from six lower extremity muscles were recorded during three drop jumps from a 50 cm platform in each phase of the menstrual cycle. Blood assays verified sex hormone levels and cycle phase. The semitendinosus muscle exhibited onset delays (p0.006) relative to ground contact during the luteal phase, and demonstrated a significant (p0.05) difference between early and late follicular phases. Muscle timing differences between the gluteus maximus and semitendinosus were decreased (p0.05) in the luteal compared to early follicular phases. These results suggest a different co-contractive behavior between the gluteus maximus and semitendinosus, signifying a shift in neuromuscular control patterns. It appears that female recreational athletes utilize a different neuromuscular control pattern for performing a drop jump sequence when estrogen levels are high (luteal phase) compared to when they are low (early follicular phase).