Feasibility of Amulet occluder implantation after failed left atrial appendage occlusion attempt: Insights from the EMERGE LAA postapproval study.

BACKGROUND: Although expertise in left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) has grown, certain intricate anatomies may pose challenges, rendering them unsuitable for LAAO with the selected device. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to characterize outcomes of patients with prior failed percutaneous LAAO procedures who underwent a subsequent attempt with an Amulet occluder in the EMERGE LAA postapproval study. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry who had an Amulet occluder implantation attempt between Food and Drug Administration approval (August 14, 2021) and June 30, 2023, were evaluated. A safety end point through 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever was later) and major adverse events through 45 days were reported. RESULTS: A total of 8591 patients underwent attempted Amulet occluder implantation, of whom 244 patients had prior failed LAAO. Implantation success was 88.9% and 96.2% in patients with prior failed LAAO and index LAAO, respectively (P < .001). The safety composite end point was low, occurring in 1.6% and 0.8% of patients with prior failed LAAO and index LAAO, respectively (P = .148). Any major adverse event through 45 days occurred in 7.4% and 6.3% of prior failed LAAO and index LAAO patient cohorts, respectively (P = .497); most adverse events were similar between the groups (P > .05). At 45 days, peridevice leak ≤3 mm was achieved in >90% of patients in either group. CONCLUSION: A high degree of implantation success with a low rate of adverse events can be achieved with the Amulet occluder. The findings imply that the dual occlusive mechanism Amulet occluder facilitates successful closure, even in challenging anatomic scenarios.

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.

Pericarditis prophylactic therapy after sinus node-sparing hybrid ablation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia/postural orthostatic sinus tachycardia.

Background: Pericarditis is the most common complication following hybrid sinus node-sparing ablation for inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST)/postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Objective: The study sought to evaluate the association of prophylaxis therapy on the risk of symptomatic pericarditis following hybrid IST/POTS ablation. Methods: All consecutive patients undergoing to hybrid ablation of symptomatic IST/POTS refractory or intolerant to drugs were retrospectively analyzed. Pharmacological prophylaxis therapy was based on acetylsalicylic acid and colchicine started on the day of the ablation and continued for at least 3 months. The primary endpoint was occurrence of symptomatic pericarditis. The secondary endpoint was occurrence of pericarditis-related complications, including the following: duration of pericarditis >3 months, hospitalization for pericarditis, postpericardiectomy pleuro-pericarditis, and pericardiectomy. Results: A total of 220 patients undergone to hybrid IST/POTS ablation were included and 44 (20%) underwent prophylaxis therapy. Pericarditis occurred in 101 (45.9%) patients, with 97 (96%) in the first 5 days. At survival analysis, prophylaxis was associated with higher rate of freedom from pericarditis (81.9% vs 47.2%, log-rank P < .001). Pericarditis-related complications were low, occurring in 7 (3.2%) patients. There was no difference in pericarditis-related complications between the patients who underwent prophylaxis therapy and patients who did not. At Cox multivariate analysis, predictors of pericarditis were IST (vs POTS) (hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval0.39-0.99, P = .04) and prophylaxis therapy (hazard ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.55, P < .001). Conclusion: In a large cohort of patients undergoing hybrid ablation for IST/POTS, a prophylaxis therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and colchicine was associated with a lower rate of symptomatic pericarditis.

New-generation electronic appliances and cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic literature review of mechanisms and in vivo studies.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) functions are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from electromagnetic fields (EMF). Data on EMI risks from new-generation electronic appliances (EA) are limited. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic literature review on the mechanisms of EMI, current evidence, and recently published trials evaluating the effect of EMF on CIEDs from electric vehicles (EV), smartphone, and smartwatch technology and summarize its safety data. METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, were searched for in vivo studies evaluating EMF strength and incidence between CIEDs and commercial EVs, new-generation smartphones, and new-generation smartwatches. RESULTS: A total of ten studies (three on EVs, five on smartphones, one on smartphones, one on smartphones and smartwatches) were included in our systematic review. There was no report of EMI incidence associated with EVs or smartwatches. Magnet-containing smartphones (iPhone 12) can cause EMI when placed directly over CIEDs - thereby triggering the magnet mode; otherwise, no report of EMI was observed with other positions or smartphone models. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests CIED recipients are safe from general interaction with EVs/HEVs, smartphones, and smartwatches. Strictly, results may only be applied to commercial brands or models tested in the published studies. There is limited data on EMI risk from EVs wireless charging and smartphones with MagSafe technology.

The Zero Calcium Score Paradox.

Our study presents a case of angina with a zero calcium score yet severe coronary stenosis from noncalcified plaque. We highlight the limitation of otherwise prognostically powerful coronary calcium score as a singular predictive tool especially when used in symptomatic patients.

Predicting Major Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry (LAAO) includes the vast majority of transcatheter LAAO procedures performed in the United States. The objective of this study was to develop a model predicting adverse events among patients undergoing LAAO with Watchman FLX. METHODS: Data from 41 001 LAAO procedures with Watchman FLX from July 2020 to September 2021 were used to develop and validate a model predicting in-hospital major adverse events. Randomly selected development (70%, n=28 530) and validation (30%, n=12 471) cohorts were analyzed with 1000 bootstrapped samples, using forward stepwise logistic regression to create the final model. A simplified bedside risk score was also developed using this model. RESULTS: Increased age, female sex, low preprocedure hemoglobin, no prior attempt at atrial fibrillation termination, and increased fall risk most strongly predicted in-hospital major adverse events and were included in the final model along with other clinically relevant variables. The median in-hospital risk-standardized adverse event rate was 1.50% (range, 1.03%-2.84%; interquartile range, 1.42%-1.64%). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (development C-index, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.65-0.70] and validation C-index, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62-0.70]) with good calibration. The simplified risk score was well calibrated with risk of in-hospital major adverse events ranging from 0.26% to 3.90% for a score of 0 to 8, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A transcatheter LAAO risk model using National Cardiovascular Data Registry and LAAO Registry data can predict in-hospital major adverse events, demonstrated consistency across hospitals and can be used for quality improvement efforts. A simple bedside risk score was similarly predictive and may inform shared decision-making.

First Experience With Amulet in the United States: Early Insights From EMERGE LAA Postapproval Study.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved the Amulet occluder (Abbott) after demonstrating safety and effectiveness in the Amulet IDE (AMPLATZER Amulet LAA Occluder) trial. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the EMERGE Left Atrial Appendage study is to evaluate early postapproval outcomes of the Amulet occluder in the United States using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry. METHODS: Patients with a commercial Amulet occluder implant attempt between Food and Drug Administration approval (August 14, 2021) and December 31, 2022, were included. The safety composite endpoint included all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or device/procedure-related events requiring open cardiac surgery or endovascular intervention between device implantation and 7 days or hospital discharge (whichever is later). Major adverse events through 45 days were also reported and stratified by operator experience (early [<10 cases], moderate [10-29 cases], and high [30+ cases]). RESULTS: A total of 5,499 patients underwent attempted Amulet occluder implantation. Implant success was 95.8%, and complete closure was 97.2% post-left atrial appendage occlusion and 87.1% at 45 days. A safety composite endpoint event occurred in 0.76% patients. Any major adverse event occurred in 2.9% and 5.7% of patients in-hospital and through 45 days, respectively, driven by major bleeding and pericardial effusion (PE) requiring intervention. PE requiring surgery or percutaneous intervention decreased significantly with increasing experience both in-hospital (early vs high operator experience 1.8% vs 1.1%; P = 0.006) and at 45 days (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: The EMERGE Left Atrial Appendage study demonstrates favorable safety and effectiveness of the Amulet occluder in the real-world setting. More experienced operators had improved implant success and fewer PEs, suggesting a learning curve effect implanting this dual occlusive mechanism device.

Safety and Efficacy of Combining Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion With Another Cardiac Procedure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) combined with other cardiac procedures have not been previously examined. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining LAAO with other cardiac procedures vs isolated LAAO. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2016 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample database to compare patients undergoing LAAO combined with another cardiac procedure vs isolated LAAO. Outcomes included risk-adjusted major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), in-hospital mortality, major complications, length of stay (LOS), and total costs. RESULTS: The total cohort included 88,910 weighted encounters, of which 1,225 (1.4%) involved concomitant cardiac procedures. After risk adjustment, patients in the concomitant procedure group had similar odds of MACEs (adjusted OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 0.94-2.74); in-hospital mortality; and complications including stroke, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, blood transfusion, and vascular injury. They also had similar LOS (1 day vs 1 day; P = 0.32) and higher costs ($44,723 vs $32,364; P < 0.01) compared with isolated LAAO but shorter LOS (1 day vs 2 days; P < 0.01) and lower costs ($51,552 vs $63,170; P = 0.04) compared with LAAO with sequential procedures. In subgroup analyses, concomitant atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter ablation had higher adjusted odds of heart block (P < 0.01), and concomitant transcatheter aortic valve replacement had higher adjusted odds of stroke (P = 0.02) and vascular injury (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective observational study, combining LAAO with another cardiac intervention appeared to be associated with similar MACEs and LOS. However, certain complications appeared to be more frequent, and the cost was higher with combined procedures.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Electrophysiological and Interventional Procedures: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Electrophysiological and interventional procedures have been increasingly used to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients experiencing cardiovascular diseases. Although antithrombotic therapies are critical to reduce the risk of stroke or other thromboembolic events, they can nonetheless increase the bleeding hazard. This is even more true in an aging population undergoing cardiac procedures in which the combination of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapies would further increase the hemorrhagic risk. Hence, the timing, dose, and combination of antithrombotic therapies should be carefully chosen in each case. However, the maze of society guidelines and consensus documents published so far have progressively led to a hazier scenario in this setting. Aim of this review is to provide-in a single document-a quick, evidenced-based practical summary of the antithrombotic approaches used in different cardiac electrophysiology and interventional procedures to guide the busy clinician and the cardiac proceduralist in their everyday practice.

Atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure patients: Where do we stand in 2023? - State of the art review.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are common overlapping cardiovascular disorders. Despite important therapeutic advances over the past several decades, controversy persists about whether a rate control or rhythm control approach constitutes the best option in this population. There is also considerable debate about whether antiarrhythmic drug therapy or ablation is the best approach when rhythm control is pursued.  A brief historical examination of the literature addressing this issue will be performed. An analysis of several important clinical outcomes observed in the prospective, randomized studies, which have compared AF ablation to non-ablation treatment options, will be discussed. This review will conclude with recommendations to guide clinicians on the status of AF ablation as a treatment option when considering management options in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

Bilateral Cardiac Sympathetic Denervation for Refractory Multifocal Premature Ventricular Contractions in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral cardiac sympathetic denervation (BCSD) for refractory life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias is a neuromodulatory intervention targeting sympathetically driven focal or re-entrant ventricular arrhythmias. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to provide a more complete and successful option for intervention in patients in whom premature ventricular contraction (PVC) ablation is not feasible or has been unsuccessful. METHODS: A total of 43 patients with >5% PVC burden and concomitant nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) who previously failed medical and ablation therapies were referred for BCSD. All patients underwent bilateral video-assisted thoracoscopic surgical approach with T1-T4 sympathectomy. Primary effectiveness endpoints were postprocedural PVC burden resolution, improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and cessation of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Safety endpoints included peri- and postprocedural complications. Outcomes were assessed over a 1-year follow-up period. RESULTS: Among the 43 patients who underwent BCSD, the mean age was 52.3 ± 14.7 years, 69.8% of whom were male patients. Presenting mean LVEF was 38.7% ± 7.8%, and PVC burden was 23.7% ± 9.9%. There were significant reductions in PVC burden postprocedurally (1.3% ± 1.1% post-BCSD, compared with 23.7% ± 9.9% pre-BCSD, P < 0.001) and improvements in LVEF (46.3% ± 9.5% post-BCSD, compared with 38.7% ± 7.8% pre-BCSD, P < 0.001). The rate of ICD therapies decreased from 81.4% (n = 35) to 11.6% (n = 5) (P < 0.001), leading to a significant reduction in use of AADs (100.0% to 11.6%, P < 0.001) and improvement in mean NYHA functional class (2.5 ± 0.5 to 1.4 ± 0.2, P < 0.001). Major intraoperative complications were seen in 4.7% of patients (hemothorax and chylothorax). Of the patients, 81.4% (n = 35) experienced no mortality or major complications over a 1-year follow-up period, with the remaining still within their first year postprocedure. CONCLUSIONS: BCSD is effective for the management of refractory PVCs and ventricular tachycardia who have failed previous ablation therapy.

Frailty and associated outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion: findings from the NCDR LAAO registry.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and may have clinical implications in an advanced age population with atrial fibrillation undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). We sought to develop a novel frailty scale to predict worse outcomes in patients undergoing LAAO. METHODS: Patients in the NCDR LAAO Registry between 2016 and 2021 receiving percutaneous LAAO devices were categorized as non-frail (0 points), pre-frail (1-3 points), or frail (4-5 points) based on a 5-point scale representing multiple domains of frailty: hemoglobin <13.0 g/dL in male, <12.0 g/dL in female; creatinine ≥1.2 mg/dL; albumin <3.5 g/dL; body mass index <20 kg/m2; and increased risk of falls. RESULTS: Of 57,728 patients, 44,360 (76.8%) were pre-frail and 7693 (13.3%) were frail. Compared to non-frail, pre-frail and frail patients were older, had a higher burden of co-morbidities, and more disability based on the Modified Rankin Scale. Compared to non-frail patients after adjustment, frail patients were at higher risk of in-hospital major complication (OR 1.29, 95% 1.02-1.62, p = 0.01), any complication (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.09-1.52, p = 0.0005), and death (OR 5.79, 95% CI 1.75-19.17, p = 0.001), while no difference was observed in pre-frail patients. At 45-day follow-up, there was no difference in the risk of complications in frail patients as compared to non-frail, although mortality was significantly higher (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.97-4.85, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A simple and practical frailty scale accurately predicts adverse events in patients undergoing LAAO. The 13% of patients considered frail were at significantly higher risk of in-hospital adverse events and 45-day mortality.