Efficacy of cryoablation in atrial fibrillation: comparison with antiarrhythmic therapy.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common arrhythmia in clinical practice, characterized by irregular atrial electrical activity originating mainly in and around the pulmonary veins. This condition can manifest itself symptomatically or silently but still dangerously. Complications associated with AF include stroke, heart failure, worst clinical outcome in patients with underlying conditions, increased emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and cardiovascular mortality. Currently, according to the main international guidelines, antiarrhythmic therapy is considered the first choice for rhythm control in patients with AF despite modest efficacy and non-negligible side effects. In recent decades, radiofrequency catheter ablation has emerged as an alternative to antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm control. Cryoablation was developed with the aim of reducing procedural times and reducing complications related to the ablative procedure with radiofrequency without losing efficacy. Recent studies conducted with rigour and scientific solidity have demonstrated on the one hand that the results of this technique are not inferior compare with radiofrequency. This study aims to compare data on the safety and efficacy of cryoablation with those obtained from antiarrhythmic drugs through a review of the most recent scientific evidence.

Toxicologic analysis of 35 drugs in post mortem human blood samples with focus on antihypertensive and antiarrhythmic drugs.

Antiarrhythmic and antihypertensive drugs are frequently encountered in post mortem analysis, and the question may arise as to whether they were administered in therapeutic doses, and if they were taken in accidental, intentional, or suicidal overdose scenarios. Therefore, a novel analytical method was developed and validated for the quantification of 35 drugs with toxicological relevance, including antihypertensive and antiarrhythmic drugs (ajmaline, amlodipine, amiodarone, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, clonidine, desethylamiodarone, diltiazem, donepezil, doxazosin, dronedarone, esmolol, flecainide, lercanidipine, lidocaine, metoprolol, nebivolol, nimodipine, pindolol, prajmaline, propafenone, propranolol, sotalol, urapidil, and verapamil), as well as other medications commonly found in combination (sildenafil, tadalafil, atorvastatin, clopidogrel, dapoxetine, memantine, pentoxifylline, rivastigmine, and ivabradine). The method enables simultaneous identification and quantification in blood samples using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Validation exhibited excellent linearity across the concentration range for all analytes. Precision and accuracy were within acceptable limits, with bias and relative standard deviation (RSD) values consistently below 9 % and 10 %, respectively. Selectivity and specificity assessments confirmed the absence of any interference from contaminants or co-extracted drugs. The method demonstrated very high sensitivity, with limits of detection (LOD) as low as 0.01 ng/ml and limits of quantification (LOQ) as low as 0.04 ng/ml. Extraction recovery exceeded 57.5 % for all analytes except atenolol, and matrix effects were <17 % for all analytes except pindolol. Processed sample stability evaluations revealed consistent results with acceptable deviations for all analytes. In addition, the method was specifically tested for the use in post mortem analysis. The applicability of our method was demonstrated by the analysis of two authentic human autopsy blood samples.

Impact of an Organized Treatment Pathway on Management of Atrial Fibrillation: The ER2EP Study.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia reported worldwide. There is significant heterogeneity in AF care pathways for a patient seen in the emergency room, impacting access to guideline-driven therapies. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the difference in AF outcomes between those treated with an organized treatment pathway vs routine-care approach. Methods: The emergency room to electrophysiology service study (ER2EP) is a multicenter, prospective observational registry (NCT04476524) enrolling patients with AF from sites where a pathway for management of AF was put in place compared to sites where a pathway was not in place within the same health system and the same physicians providing services at all sites. Multivariable regression modeling was performed to identify predictors of clinical outcomes. Beta coefficient or odds ratio was reported as appropriate. Results: A total of 500 patients (ER2EP group, n = 250; control group, n = 250) were included in the study. The mean age was 73.4 ± 12.9 years, and 52.2% were males. There was a statistically significant difference in primary endpoint [time to ablation (56 ± 50.9 days vs 183.3 ± 109.5 days; P < 0.001), time to anticoagulation initiation (2.1 ± 1.6 days vs 19.7 ± 35 days, P < 0.001), antiarrhythmic drug initiation (4.8 ± 7.1 days vs 24.7 ± 44.4 days, P < 0.001) compared to the control group, respectively. As such, this resulted in reduced length of stay in the ER2EP group compared to the control group (2.4 ± 1.4 days vs 3.23 ± 2.5 days, P = 0.002). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that having an organized pathway from the emergency department for AF patients involving electrophysiology services can improve early access to definitive therapies and clinical outcomes.

Catheter Ablation as First-Line Therapy in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Patient Characteristics and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are considered a first-line rhythm-control strategy, whereas catheter ablation is a reasonable alternative. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the prevalence, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients with PerAF who underwent catheter ablation as a first or second-line strategy. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included consecutive patients with PerAF who underwent first-time ablation between January 2020 and September 2021 in 9 medical centers in the United States. Patients were divided into those who underwent ablation as first-line therapy and those who had ablation as second-line therapy. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,083 patients underwent first-time ablation for PerAF. Of these, 1,086 (52%) underwent ablation as a first-line rhythm-control treatment. Compared with patients treated with AADs as first-line therapy, these patients were predominantly male (72.6% vs 68.1%; P = 0.03), with a lower frequency of hypertension (64.0% vs 73.4%; P < 0.001) and heart failure (19.1% vs 30.5%; P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 325.9 ± 81.6 days, arrhythmia-free survival was similar between the groups (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.92-1.41); however, patients in the second-line ablation strategy were more likely to continue receiving AAD therapy (41.5% vs 15.9%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A first-line ablation strategy for PerAF is prevalent in the United States, particularly in men with fewer comorbidities. More data are needed to identify patients with PerAF who derive benefit from an early intervention strategy.

ECMO for drug-refractory electrical storm without a reversible trigger: a retrospective multicentric observational study.

AIMS: Drug-refractory electrical storm (ES) is a life-threatening medical emergency. We describe the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in drug-refractory ES without a reversible trigger, for which specific guideline recommendations are still lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective observational study in four Iberian centres on the indications, treatment, complications, and outcome of drug-refractory ES not associated with acute coronary syndromes, decompensated heart failure, drug toxicity, electrolyte disturbances, endocrine emergencies, concomitant acute illness with fever, or poor compliance with anti-arrhythmic drugs, requiring VA-ECMO for circulatory support. Thirty-four (6%) out of 552 patients with VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock were included [71% men; 57 (44-62) years], 65% underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation before VA-ECMO implantation, and 26% during cannulation. Left ventricular unloading during VA-ECMO was used in 8 (24%) patients: 3 (9%) with intraaortic balloon pump, 3 (9%) with LV vent, and 2 (6%) with Impella. Thirty (88%) had structural heart disease and 8 (24%) had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The drug-refractory ES was mostly due to monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) (59%), isolated monomorphic VT (26%), polymorphic VT (9%), or VF (6%). Thirty-one (91%) required deep sedation, 44% overdrive pacing, 36% catheter ablation, and 26% acute autonomic modulation. The main complications were nosocomial infection (47%), bleeding (24%), and limb ischaemia (21%). Eighteen (53%) were weaned from VA-ECMO, and 29% had heart transplantation. Twenty-seven (79%) survived to hospital discharge (48 (33-82) days). Non-survivors were older [62 (58-67) vs. 54 (43-58); P < 0.01] and had a higher first rhythm disorder-to-ECMO interval [0 (0-2) vs. 2 (1-11) days; P = 0.02]. Seven (20%) had rehospitalization during follow-up [29 (12-48) months], with ES recurrence in 6%. CONCLUSIONS: VA-ECMO bridged drug-refractory ES without a reversible trigger with a high success rate. This required prolonged hospital stays and coordination between the ECMO centre, the electrophysiology laboratory, and the heart transplant programme.

Programmed Ventricular Stimulation: Risk Stratification and Guiding Antiarrhythmic Therapies.

Electrophysiologic testing with programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) has been utilized to induce ventricular tachycardia (VT), thereby improving risk stratification for patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies and determining the effectiveness of antiarrhythmic therapies, especially catheter ablation. A variety of procedural aspects can be modified during PVS in order to alter the sensitivity and specificity of the test including the addition of multiple baseline pacing cycle lengths, extrastimuli, and pacing locations. The definition of a positive result is also critically important, which has varied from exclusively sustained monomorphic VT (>30 seconds) to any ventricular arrhythmia regardless of morphology. In this review, we discuss the history of PVS and evaluate its role in sudden cardiac death risk stratification in a variety of patient populations. We propose an approach to future investigations that will capitalize on the unique ability to vary the sensitivity and specificity of this test. We then discuss the application of PVS during and following catheter ablation. The strategies that have been utilized to improve the efficacy of intraprocedural PVS are highlighted during a discussion of the limitations of this probabilistic strategy. The role of noninvasive programmed stimulation is also reviewed in predicting recurrent VT and informing management decisions including repeat ablations, modifications in antiarrhythmic drugs, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming. Based on the available evidence and guidelines, we propose an approach to future investigations that will allow clinicians to optimize the use of PVS for risk stratification and assessment of therapeutic efficacy.

Association of Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy With Syncope and Pacemaker Implantation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Early rhythm control therapy mainly with antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) for new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. However, negative dromotropic effects of AADs via ion channel blocking may cause bradyarrhythmias. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the association between AAD use and the risk of pacemaker implantation or syncope in patients with new-onset AF receiving early rhythm control therapy with AADs. METHODS: This study was based on data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service system. We screened all new-onset AF diagnoses that occurred from 2013 to 2019 and identified patients who were prescribed AADs within 1 year of AF diagnosis. The risk of pacemaker implantation or syncope was compared between AAD users and nonusers. RESULTS: A total of 770,977 new-onset AF cases were identified and 142,141 patients were prescribed AADs. After multivariate adjustment, use of AADs was associated with 3.5-, 2.0-, and 5.0-fold increased risk of pacemaker implantation or syncope, syncope, and pacemaker implantation, respectively. Propensity score-matched analysis revealed similar results, demonstrating a significant association between AAD use and the risk of pacemaker implantation or syncope. This association was consistent across various subgroups. Women were more susceptible to adverse effects of AADs than men. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed an association between AADs and risk of pacemaker implantation or syncope, a consistent finding across various subgroups. Precise evaluation of such risk should be undertaken before prescription of AADs.

Class 1C Antiarrhythmics for Premature Ventricular Complex Suppression in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) are common and associated with worse outcomes in patients with heart failure. Class 1C antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) effectively suppress PVCs, but guidelines currently restrict their use in structural heart disease. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of class 1C AADs in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). METHODS: All patients with NICM and an ICD treated with flecainide or propafenone at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between 2014 and 2022 were identified. PVC burden, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and biventricular pacing percentage were compared before and during class 1C AAD treatment. Safety outcomes included sustained atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure admissions, and death. RESULTS: We identified 34 patients, 23 receiving flecainide and 11 propafenone. Most patients (62%) had failed other AADs or catheter ablation (68%) prior to class 1C AAD initiation. PVC burden decreased from 20% ± 13% to 6% ± 7% (P < 0.001), LVEF increased from 33% ± 9% to 37% ± 10% (P = 0.01), and biventricular pacing percentage increased from 85% ± 9% to 93% ± 7% (P = 0.01). Sustained ventricular tachycardia (2 vs 9 patients) and admissions for decompensated heart failure (2 vs 3 patients) decreased compared with the 12 months prior to class 1C AAD initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Class 1C AADs effectively suppressed PVCs in patients with NICM and ICDs, leading to increases in LVEF and biventricular pacing percentage. In this limited sample, their use was safe. Larger studies are needed to confirm the safety of this approach.

Ablation or drug therapy for initial atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a chronic heart rhythm disorder, characterized by exacerbations interspersed with clinical remissions. Antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) are traditionally considered to be the preferred initial therapy for the maintenance of sinus rhythm however, these medications have modest efficacy and significant adverse effects. Recent clinical trials have evaluated the role of catheter ablation as the initial therapeutic intervention, demonstrating that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduces atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence and arrhythmia burden, produces clinically meaningful improvements in symptoms and quality of life, and significantly decreases healthcare resource utilization. In contrast to AADs, catheter ablation appears to be a disease modifying therapy, significantly reducing the progression to more advanced forms of AF. These findings are relevant to patients, providers, and healthcare systems, helping inform the decision regarding the initial choice of rhythm-control therapy in patients with treatment-naïve AF.

Use of class IC antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with structural heart disease and implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Due to suspected pro-arrhythmic effects and increased mortality associated with class-IC antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) in previous trials, AAD therapy in structural heart disease (SHD) is mainly restricted to amiodarone. In the presence of diagnostic and therapeutic advancements in cardiovascular medicine, it remains unclear if previous studies adequately reflect contemporary patients. In clinical practice, class-IC-AADs are occasionally used in individual cases, particularly in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated outcome in ICD-carriers with SHD in whom class-IC-AADs were used as an individualized therapy due to failure, side effects, or unacceptable risk of alternative therapeutic options. RESULTS: Fifty patients from four tertiary centers were included (median age 48.5 years; 52% female). The most common underlying SHD were dilated (42%) or ischemic cardiomyopathy (26%) (median LVEF = 45%). Indications for AAD were sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VA) (58%), symptomatic premature ventricular contractions (26%), or atrial arrhythmias (16%). Median follow-up was 27.8 months. Freedom from sustained VA was 72%, and freedom from ICD therapy was 80%. In 19 patients (38%), AAD therapy was terminated. The most common reason was insufficient efficacy (n = 8). Pro-arrhythmia was suspected in three patients. Five patients died during follow-up (10.0%), two of cardiovascular cause (4.0%). CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort of ICD-carriers with SHD, class-IC-AADs were associated with a low rate of pro-arrhythmic effects or cardiovascular mortality. The majority of patients remained free from sustained VA during a follow-up of > 2 years. Further efforts should be made to evaluate the safety of class-IC-AADs in SHD patients receiving contemporary cardiovascular therapy.

Expedited loading with intravenous sotalol is safe and feasible-primary results of the Prospective Evaluation Analysis and Kinetics of IV Sotalol (PEAKS) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Loading of oral sotalol for atrial fibrillation requires 3 days, frequently in the hospital, to achieve steady state. The Food and Drug Administration approved loading with intravenous (IV) sotalol through model-informed development, without patient data. OBJECTIVE: We present results of the first multicenter evaluation of this recent labeling for IV sotalol. METHODS: The Prospective Evaluation Analysis and Kinetics of IV Sotalol (PEAKS) Registry was a multicenter observational registry of patients undergoing elective IV sotalol load for atrial arrhythmias. Outcomes, measured from hospital admission until first outpatient follow-up, included adverse arrhythmia events, efficacy, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of 167 consecutively enrolled patients, 23% were female; the median age was 68 (interquartile range, 61-74) years, and the median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). Overall, 99% were admitted for sotalol initiation (1% for dose escalation), with a target oral sotalol dose of either 80 mg twice daily (85 [51%]) or 120 mg twice daily (78 [47%]); 62 patients (37%) had an estimated creatinine clearance ≤90 mL/min. On presentation, 40% of patients were in sinus rhythm, whereas 26% underwent cardioversion before sotalol infusion. In 2 patients, sotalol infusion was stopped for bradycardia or hypotension. In 6 patients, sotalol was discontinued before discharge because of QTc prolongation (3), bradycardia (1), or recurrent atrial arrhythmia (2). The mean length of stay was 1.1 days, and 95% (n = 159) were discharged within 1 night. CONCLUSION: IV sotalol loading is safe and feasible for atrial arrhythmias, with low rates of adverse events, and yields shorter hospitalizations. More data are needed on the minimal duration required for monitoring in the hospital.

Radiofrequency ablation using the ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by ablation index versus antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation treatment in China: a cost-consequence analysis.

Aim: To evaluate the costs and consequences of two front-line atrial fibrillation (AF) treatments from Chinese healthcare system perspective: radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) using ThermoCool SmartTouch Catheter guided by Ablation Index (STAI), in comparison to antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs). Patients & methods: We simulated clinical and economic consequences for AF patients initially receiving STAI or AADs using a short-term decision tree model leading to a 10-year long-term Markov model. The model projected both clinical consequences and costs associated with, among others, AF, heart failure (HF), strokes, and deaths due to AF or AF related complications. Data informing the models included combination of a local real-world study and published clinical studies. Results: STAI was advantageous versus AADs on all 4 main clinical outcomes evaluated; AF: 25.83% lower (12.84% vs 38.67%), HF: 2.22% lower (1.33% vs 3.55%), stroke or post stroke: 1.82% lower (10.00% vs 11.82%) and deaths due to AF or AF related complications: 0.64% lower (4.11% vs 4.75%). The average total cost per patient in STAI group was ¥16,682 lower (¥123,124 vs ¥139,806). The one-way sensitivity analysis indicated that the difference in total cost was most sensitive to annual AF recurrence probability in AADs-treated patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 98.5% probability that RFCA treatment would result in cost savings by the end of the 10th year. Conclusion: Radiofrequency catheter ablation using SmartTouch catheter guided by Ablation Index was superior to AADs as the first-line AF treatment in Chinese setting with better clinical outcomes and at lower costs over a 10-year time horizon.

Heart failure and atrial fibrillation: Is atrial fibrillation ablation in heart failure pointless or mandatory?

A vast amount of now well-established clinical and epidemiological data indicates a close, interdependent, and symbiotic association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF). Both AF and HF, when co-exist in a patient, have serious treatment and prognostic implications. Based on the prevailing knowledge of the topic, various societies have issued a number of guidelines regarding the management of patients with AF and HF. Overall, it is the rhythm control strategy that has shown beneficial effect over the rate control strategy with improvement in symptoms of AF and HF. While antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) and catheter ablation (CA) may be utilized as rhythm control strategy for AF, both AADs and CA have limitations of their own. Furthermore, with the progress made in various pharmacotherapeutic agents in HF, one could question the utility of CA in HF (i.e., whether ablation is mandatory or pointless in patients who have HF). The purpose of this review is to discuss this very point, focusing on the beneficial, neutral, or detrimental outcome of CA based on the category and class of HF.

Ablation versus medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis.

To investigate the effect of ablation compared to medical therapy on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using ablation, medical treatment, AF, and related words. The effect of ablation and medical therapy was sought to be gathered on stroke or transitional ischemic attack, mortality, hospitalization, recurrence of AF, progression of AF, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Analyses were performed using R software. 31 studies (the results of 27 randomized controlled trials), compromising an overall 6965 patients (Ablation, n = 3643; Medical treatment, n = 3322) were reviewed in our study, revealed that catheter ablation would result in substantial benefits for patients with AF without significant difference in serious adverse events compared to medical management (Risk Ratio: 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.64-1.33]). Catheter ablation in patients with AF significantly resulted in a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71, [95% CI, 0.57-0.88]), a 57% reduction in hospitalization (RR: 0.43, [95% CI, 0.27-0.67]), a 53% reduction in AF recurrence (RR: 0.47, [95% CI, 0.36-0.61]), and a dramatic reduction, 89%, in progression of paroxysmal to persistent AF (RR: 0.11, [95% CI, 0.02-0.65]); also associated with a remarkable improvement in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (Mean Difference, MD: 6.84%, [95% CI, 3.27-10.42]) compared to medical therapy. Our study showed that ablation may be superior to medical therapy in patients with AF regarding AF recurrence, mortality, LVEF improvement, hospitalization, and AF progression outcomes.