Incidence and temporal evolution of delayed peridevice leak after left atrial appendage closure.

BACKGROUND: Peridevice leak (PDL) after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) portends adverse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, predictors, clinical implications, and temporal evolution of PDL after LAAC. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study included all patients who underwent LAAC with Watchman FLX and had no PDL detected at the time of implantation. The primary end point was the incidence of new PDL at initial imaging. The composite secondary end point included continued oral anticoagulation after initial imaging, device-related thrombus, stroke or transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, and need for PDL closure at longest follow-up. Temporal evolution of PDL was assessed in patients with available surveillance imaging. RESULTS: Of the 355 patients who completed imaging at 47 days (interquartile range [IQR] 6 days), 139 (39%) had new PDL with a mean leak size of 3.2 ± 1.4 mm (median 3.0 mm; IQR 2.0 mm; range 1.0-9.0 mm]. Multiple deployment attempts and larger device size were positive predictors of PDL, while increased contrast volume administration was a negative predictor of PDL. The composite secondary end point occurred in 42 (30%) and 33 (15%) patients with and without PDL, respectively (P < .001). Of the 139 patients with PDL, 43 (31%) had surveillance imaging where the leak size regressed from 3.7 ± 1.8 mm at 46 days (IQR 7 days) to 1.7 ± 2.0 mm at 189 days (IQR 127 days) (P < .001). The leak size regressed in 33 (77%), remained stable in 4 (9%), and progressed in 6 (14%) cases. CONCLUSION: Despite design improvements, LAAC with Watchman FLX demonstrates a significant incidence of PDL with meaningful clinical implications. Regardless of initial size, most leaks regressed over time.

Prevalence of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients Undergoing Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Based on Resting and Post-Tachycardia Pacing Left Atrial Pressure.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are frequent co-morbid conditions. In patients with symptomatic AF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction the clinical diagnosis of HFpEF may be difficult, as history, examination, and echocardiography are not sensitive or specific. This study sought to assess the prevalence of HFpEF in patients undergoing AF ablation utilizing resting and post-tachycardia pacing left atrial pressure (LAP) measurements. This retrospective cohort study consisted of consecutive patients with symptomatic AF and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who had invasive hemodynamic assessment (IHA) of LAP under resting and post-tachycardia pacing conditions while undergoing AF ablation from 2020 to 2022 at a tertiary care academic medical center. Elevated LAP was defined as ≥15 mm Hg at rest and ≥15 mm Hg post-tachycardia pacing. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: (1) normal resting and post-tachycardia pacing LAP (control group), (2) elevated resting LAP (apparent HFpEF), (3) normal resting but elevated post-tachycardia pacing LAP (occult HFpEF). A total of 78 patients were included with age 64.6 ± 9.1 years, 28 (36%) female, body mass index 33.3 ± 6.5 kg/m2, 5 (6%) paroxysmal and 73 (94%) persistent AF, and CHA2DS2-VASc 3.0 ± 1.5. IHA categorized 31 (40%), 32 (41%), and 15 patients (19%) into groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Notably, while only 9 patients (12%) were diagnosed with HFpEF based on clinical evaluation, 47 patients (60%) were diagnosed by IHA. IHA in patients undergoing AF ablation suggests a high prevalence of clinically undiagnosed HFpEF through a novel methodology measuring resting and post-tachycardia pacing LAP.

Direct current cardioversion practices following percutaneous left atrial appendage closure.

INTRODUCTION: Among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) undergoing direct current cardioversion (DCCV), the need for and use of LAA imaging and oral anticoagulation (OAC) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the real-world use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) before DCCV and use of OAC pre- and post-DCCV in patients with AF status post percutaneous LAAC. METHODS: This retrospective single center study included all patients who underwent DCCV after percutaneous LAAC from 2016 to 2022. Key measures were completion of TEE or CCTA pre-DCCV, OAC use pre- and post-DCCV, incidence of left atrial thrombus (LAT) or device-related thrombus (DRT), incidence of peri-device leak (PDL), and DCCV-related complications (stroke, systemic embolism, device embolization, major bleeding, or death) within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients with AF and LAAC underwent 122 cases of DCCV. LAAC consisted of 47 (62%), 28 (37%), and 1 (1%) case of Watchman 2.5, Watchman FLX, and Lariat, respectively. Among the 122 DCCV cases, 31 (25%) cases were identified as "non-guideline based" due to: (1) no OAC for 3 weeks and no LAA imaging within 48 h before DCCV in 12 (10%) cases, (2) no OAC for 4 weeks following DCCV in 16 (13%) cases, or (3) both in 3 (2%) cases. Among the 70 (57%) cases that underwent TEE or CCTA before DCCV, 16 (23%) cases had a PDL with a mean size of 3.0 ± 1.1 mm, and 4 (6%) cases had a LAT/DRT on TEE resulting in cancellation. There were no DCCV-related complications within 30 days. DISCUSSION: There is a widely varied practice pattern of TEE, CCTA, and OAC use with DCCV after LAAC, with a 6% rate of LAT/DRT. LAA imaging before DCCV appears prudent in all cases, especially within 1 year of LAAC, to assess for device position, PDL, and LAT/DRT.

Approaches for Successful Implantation of Cardiac Implantable Devices in Patients with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava.

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is the most common congenital thoracic venous anomaly, with 0.47% of patients undergoing pacemaker or cardiac implantable device placement found to have PLSVC. This review article describes challenges and interventions to successfully insert cardiac implantable electronic device leads into patients with PLSVC by providing multiple unique case examples.

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for left atrial appendage closure planning.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) are currently utilized for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) planning. During the recent global iodine contrast media shortage in 2022, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized for the first time for LAAC planning. This study sought to assess the utility of CMR versus TEE for LAAC planning. METHODS: This single center retrospective study consisted of all patients who underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC with Watchman FLX or Amplatzer Amulet. Key measures were accuracy of LAA thrombus exclusion, ostial diameter, depth, lobe count, morphology, accuracy of predicted device size, and devices deployed per case. Bland-Altman Analysis was used to compare CMR versus TEE measurements of LAA ostial diameter and depth. RESULTS: 25 patients underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC planning. A total of 24 (96%) cases were successfully completed with 1.2 ± 0.5 devices deployed per case. Among the 18 patients who underwent intraoperative TEE, there was no significant difference between CMR versus TEE in LAA thrombus exclusion (CMR 83% vs. TEE 100% cases, p = .229), lobe count (CMR 1.7 ± 0.8 vs. TEE 1.4 ± 0.6, p = .177), morphology (p = .422), and accuracy of predicted device size (CMR 67% vs. TEE 72% cases, p = 1.000). When comparing the difference between CMR and TEE measurements, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated no significant difference in LAA ostial diameter (CMR-TEE bias 0.7 mm, 95% CI [-1.1, 2.4], p = .420), but LAA depth was significantly larger with CMR versus TEE (CMR-TEE bias 7.4 mm, 95% CI [1.6, 13.2], p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: CMR is a promising alternative for LAAC planning in cases where TEE or CCTA are contraindicated or unavailable.

Oral factor Xa inhibitor underutilization following lower extremity peripheral vascular intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) (ie, endovascular revascularization) for symptomatic lower extremity peripheral artery disease remain at high risk for major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. High-quality evidence demonstrates the addition of a low-dose oral factor Xa inhibitor to single antiplatelet therapy, termed dual pathway inhibition (DPI), reduces the incidence of major adverse events in this population. This study aims to describe the longitudinal trends in factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI, identify patient and procedural characteristics associated with factor Xa inhibitor use, and describe temporal trends in antithrombic therapy post-PVI before vs after VOYAGER PAD. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using data from the Vascular Quality Initiative PVI registry from January 2018 through June 2022. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to determine predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation following PVI, reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 91,569 PVI procedures were deemed potentially eligible for factor Xa inhibitor initiation and were included in this analysis. Overall rates of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI increased from 3.5% in 2018 to 9.1% in 2022 (P < .0001). The strongest positive predictors of factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI were non-elective (OR, 4.36; 95% CI, 4.06-4.68; P < .0001) or emergent (OR, 8.20; 95% CI, 7.14-9.41; P < .0001) status. The strongest negative predictor was postoperative dual antiplatelet therapy prescription (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.17-0.23; P < .0001), highlighting significant hesitation about use of DPI after PVI and limited translation of VOYAGER PAD findings into clinical practice. Antiplatelet medications remain the most common antithrombotic regimen after PVI, with almost 70% of subjects discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy and approximately 20% discharged on single antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Factor Xa inhibitor initiation after PVI has increased in recent years, although the absolute rate remains low, and most eligible patients are not prescribed this treatment.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Infective Endocarditis in the COVID-19 Era.

In the COVID-19 pandemic, to minimize aerosol-generating procedures, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized at our institution as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for diagnosing infective endocarditis (IE). This retrospective study evaluated the clinical utility of CMR for detecting IE among 14 patients growing typical microorganisms on blood cultures or meeting modified Duke Criteria. Seven cases were treated for IE. In 2 cases, CMR results were notable for possible leaflet vegetations and were clinically meaningful in guiding antibiotic therapy, obtaining further imaging, and/or pursuing surgical intervention. In 2 cases, vegetations were missed on CMR but detected on TEE. In 3 cases, CMR was non-diagnostic, but patients were treated empirically. There was no difference in antibiotic duration or outcomes over 1 year. CMR demonstrated mixed results in diagnosing valvular vegetations and guiding clinical decision-making. Further prospective controlled trials of CMR Vs TEE are warranted.

Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy following Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With High Bleeding Risk.

Our study aims to compare the utility of single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following Left atrial appendage occlusion in patients whose post-procedural oral anticoagulation therapy was deemed high-risk or contraindicated. A total of 14 observational studies with 3,151 patients were included. Our study demonstrates that SAPT and DAPT were similar in preventing device-related thrombosis. Although SAPT and DAPT had a tendency toward a higher risk for stroke and major bleeding respectively, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Large-scale Randomized Controlled Studies are warranted to validate if our results could be translated into clinical practice.

Pulse versus nonpulse steroid regimens in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systemic steroids are associated with reduced mortality in hypoxic patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is no consensus on the doses of steroid therapy in these patients. Several studies showed that pulse dose steroids (PDS) could reduce the progression of COVID-19 pneumonia. However, data regarding the role of PDS in COVID-19 is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of PDS in COVID-19 patients compared to nonpulse steroids (NPDS). Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception through February 10, 2022 was performed for all published studies comparing PDS to NPDS therapy to manage hypoxic patients with COVID-19. Primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were the need for endotracheal intubation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and adverse events in the form of superimposed infections. A total of 10 observational studies involving 3065 patients (1289 patients received PDS and 1776 received NPDS) were included. The mortality rate was similar between PDS and NPDS groups (risk ratio [RR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-1.65, p = 0.16). There were no differences in the need for endotracheal intubation (RR: 0.71, 95%: CI 0.37-1.137, p = 0.31), LOS (mean difference: 1.93 days; 95% CI: -1.46-5.33; p = 0.26), or adverse events (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.57, p = 0.80) between the two groups. Compared to NPDS, PDS was associated with similar mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, LOS, and adverse events. Given the observational nature of the included studies, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Fluvoxamine in Nonhospitalized Patients With Acute COVID-19 Infection and the Lack of Efficacy in Reducing Rates of Hospitalization, Mechanical Ventilation, and Mortality in Placebo-Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trials have investigated the use of fluvoxamine in preventing clinical deterioration in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection via stimulation of sigma-1 receptors, which regulates cytokine production and functional inhibition of acid sphingomyelinase activity, which may prevent infection of epithelial cells with SARS-CoV-2. However, the role of fluvoxamine is currently unclear because of a paucity of studies, particularly because the drug is being repurposed as an immunomodulatory and antiviral agent. STUDY QUESTION: Aim of our meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of fluvoxamine in nonhospitalized patients with acute COVID-19 infection. DATA SOURCE: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases, and Web of Science was performed from inception to February 10, 2022, for studies comparing fluvoxamine versus placebo for outpatient management of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: The primary outcome of interest was rate of hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were rates of patients requiring mechanical ventilation and mortality. The random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RR) and confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Higgins I2 index. RESULTS: Three studies (2 randomized controlled trials and one prospective cohort trial) involving 1762 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who received fluvoxamine compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in rates of hospitalization (RR 0.26, 95% CI, 0.04-1.73, P = 0.16, I2 = 62%), mechanical ventilation (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.45-1.19, P = 0.21, I2 = 0%), and mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.37-1.22, P = 0.19, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not indicate a significant effect of fluvoxamine on the rates of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality of patients with COVID-19 infection.

Hemopericardium with subsequent cardiac tamponade secondary to rivaroxaban treatment: a case report.

BACKGROUND: The use and utility of novel oral anticoagulants has been increasing in clinical practice due to their relatively lower incidence of side effects such as intracranial haemorrhage, particularly in the elderly, when compared with vitamin K antagonists. Rivaroxaban is a factor Xa and prothrombinase inhibitor indicated for stroke and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in non-valvular atrial fibrillation as well as treatment of venous thromboembolism. CASE SUMMARY: A patient with history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation on Rivaroxaban presented with generalized malaise, lightheadedness, and dizziness. The patient was found to be in profound cardiogenic shock despite unremarkable cardiac enzymes. Electrocardiogram revealed rate controlled atrial fibrillation and T-wave inversions in the inferolateral leads without associated electrical alternans. Bedside echocardiogram revealed a large pericardial effusion consistent with cardiac tamponade physiology. Following anticoagulation reversal, the patient underwent urgent pericardiocentesis yielding haemorrhagic fluid, with subsequent improvement in haemodynamic status. Despite the presence of retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy on previous computed tomography of the abdomen and concern for underlying malignant effusion secondary to lymphoma, cytology of the fluid revealed no evidence of malignant cells and follow-up flow cytometry and bone marrow biopsy were unremarkable. DISCUSSION: While hemopericardium is not listed as a known side effect of Rivaroxaban, previous cases of hemopericardium secondary to Rivaroxaban have been described in the literature secondary to pre-disposing risk factors including CYP450 drug interactions or cardiac device implantations. In this case, the patient experienced a spontaneous hemopericardium on Rivaroxaban without any previously elucidated risk factors or evidence of malignancy.

Intraluminal Esophageal Temperature Monitoring Using the Circa S-Cath™ Temperature Probe to Guide Left Atrial Ablation in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency catheter ablation is a common treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), during which thermal esophageal injury may rarely occur and lead to an atrio-esophageal fistula. Therefore, we studied the utility of the Circa S-Cath™ multi-sensor luminal esophageal temperature (LET) probe to prevent esophageal thermal injury. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-six patients, enrolled prospectively, underwent circumferential or segmental pulmonary vein isolation for treatment of AF. A maximum ablation electrode temperature of 42ºC was programmed for automatic power delivery cutoff. In addition, energy delivery was manually discontinued when the maximum LET on any sensor of the probe rose abruptly (i.e. ˃0.2ºC) or exceeded 39º C. Esophagoscopy was performed immediately after ablation in 18 patients (with the temperature probe still in place) and at approximately 24 hours after ablation in 18 patients. Esophageal lesions were classified as likely traumatic or thermally related. Of the 36 patients enrolled in the study, 21 had persistent and 15 had paroxysmal AF, average LVEF 57±16% and CHA2DS2VASc score 1.6±1.2 (range 0-4). Average maximum LET was 37.8±1.4ºC, power delivery 31.1±8 watts and ablation electrode temperature 36.4±4.1ºC. Average maximum contact force was 44.5±20.5 grams where measured. Only 1 patient (<3%) had an esophageal lesion that could potentially represent thermal injury and 4 patients (11.1%) had minor traumatic mechanical injury. CONCLUSIONS: LET guided titration of power and duration of energy application, using an insulated multi-sensor esophageal temperature probe, is associated with a low risk of esophageal thermal injury during AF ablation. In only rare cases, LET monitoring resulted in the need to manipulate the esophagus to avoid unacceptable temperature rises, that could not be achieved by adjustment of power and duration of energy application.