The utility of a novel mapping algorithm utilizing vectors and global pattern of propagation for scar-related atrial tachycardias.

BACKGROUND: Activation maps of scar-related atrial tachycardias (AT) can be challenging to interpret due to difficulty in inaccurate annotation of electrograms, and an arbitrarily predefined mapping window. A novel mapping software integrating vector data and applying an algorithmic solution taking into consideration global activation pattern has been recently described (Coherent™, Biosense Webster "Investigational"). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the investigational algorithm to determine the mechanism of AT compared with the standard algorithm. METHODS: This study included patients who underwent ablation of scar-related AT using the Carto 3 and the standard activation algorithm. The mapping data were analyzed retrospectively using the investigational algorithm, and the mechanisms were evaluated by two independent electrophysiologists. RESULTS: A total of 77 scar-related AT activation maps were analyzed (89.6% left atrium, median tachycardia cycle length of 273 ms). Of those, 67 cases with a confirmed mechanism of arrhythmia were used to compare the activation software. The actual mechanism of the arrhythmia was more likely to be identified with the investigational algorithm (67.2% vs. 44.8%, p = .009). In five patients with dual-loop circuits, 3/5 (60%) were correctly identified by the investigational algorithm compared to 0/5 (0%) with the standard software. The reduced atrial voltage was prone to lead to less capable identification of mechanism (p for trend: .05). The investigational algorithm showed higher inter-reviewer agreement (Cohen's kappa .62 vs. .47). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with scar-related ATs, activation mapping algorithms integrating vector data and "best-fit" propagation solution may help in identifying the mechanism and the successful site of termination.

A focus group study to inform design of a symptom management intervention for adults with atrial fibrillation.

Background: Current symptom management approaches for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) focus on addressing heart rhythm and do not include management of behavioral or emotional contributors to symptom manifestation or severity. Objective: To inform content development of a digitally delivered AF symptom self-management program by exploring patients' experiences of the impact of AF symptoms and their perspectives on behavioral approaches to symptom management. Methods: This was a qualitative study of 3 focus groups composed of adults living with symptomatic AF. Group transcripts underwent thematic content analysis to identify themes and subthemes. Themes were matched to available self-management strategies that could be adapted for use in a digitally delivered AF symptom self-management program. Results: Six major themes (with subthemes) were identified: symptoms (anxiety, fatigue, stress/other negative emotions, AF-specific symptoms, heart rhythm); social aspects (social impact, social support); AF treatments (medication, procedures); health behaviors (sleep, physical activity, hydration, breathing/mindfulness/relaxation); positive emotions; and AF education and information gathering. Symptom self-management strategies were identified that could be used to address these symptom-related themes. Conclusion: Patients with AF reported a wide range of emotional, physical, and social impacts of the condition. They endorsed attempts to self-manage symptoms and an interest in learning more about how to effectively self-manage. Findings indicate the potential for a digital self-management program to address existing gaps in AF symptom-related care.

Use of virtual visits for the care of the arrhythmia patient.

BACKGROUND: Virtual visits (VVs) are a modality for delivering health care services remotely through videoconferencing tools. Data about patient and physician experience in using VVs are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patient and physician experience with the use of VVs in cardiac electrophysiology. METHODS: We performed a prospective survey of cardiac electrophysiology patients and physicians who participated in an outpatient VV from December 2018 to July 2019. RESULTS: One-hundred consecutive VVs were included. Sixty-four patients elected to complete a survey. Patients rated their experience as either excellent/very good in scheduling a VV (87%), seeing their physician of choice (100%), transmitting arrhythmia data (88%), rating their physician's ability to communicate (98%), asking all questions (98%), rating the level of care received (98%), paying for the cost of a VV (67%), and rating their overall level of satisfaction (98%). Thirty-eight of 64 patients (59.4%) preferred a VV for their next visit, 12 of 64 (18.8%) preferred an in-office visit, 13 of 64 (20.3%) responded that their decision for a virtual or office visit depended on indication, and 1 of 64 (1.6%) had no preference. A total of 14 cardiac electrophysiologists participated in 100 VVs. Nine visits were not included due to technical difficulty. Physician responses to survey questions were rated as excellent/very good in the ability to communicate (92%), accessing monitoring data (95%), and overall level of satisfaction (98%). CONCLUSION: In our small study population, most patients and physicians prefer VVs. Convenience, cost, and reason for follow-up were important determinants that affected both patient and physician preference.

The gap between what patients know and desire to learn about their cardiac implantable electronic devices.

BACKGROUND: Advancement of digital technology now allows patients to have access to data from their cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, patients' understanding regarding CIED data and perceived personal usability remain unclear. The present study is a prospective survey to examine patients' understanding of their CIEDs and their perception of what is important. METHODS: We screened 400 patients between July and December 2018 who presented to our outpatient clinic for a CIED interrogation. Patients received a one-page questionnaire asking baseline demographics, their perception about their own knowledge about their device, and multiple-choice questions in seven basic categories: type of CIED, original indication, functionality, manufacturer, number of active leads, estimated battery life, and number of shocks received. We compared these answers to their interrogation reports to assess accuracy. We also asked participants what they would like to be aware of regarding their CIED. RESULTS: From this cohort, 344 of 400 (86%) (62.9 ± 12.8 years and 64 % males) agreed to take the survey and were included in the analysis. At baseline, 63.2% agreed or strongly agreed that they were knowledgeable about their devices. The overwhelming majority of patients demonstrated CIED knowledge deficits in at least one content area (n = 294, 86%), or more than two content areas (n = 176, 51%). Patients agreed or strongly agreed that they had a desire to have information regarding each of the following: battery life (84%), activity level (79%), heart rate trend (75%), and ventricular arrhythmias (74%). CONCLUSION: There is a large discrepancy in patients' level of knowledge regarding their CIEDs and their wish to know more details. Future technologies should satisfy providers' goals to educate their patients with basic information and fulfill patients' desire to obtain more data from their CIEDs.