High-Throughput COVID-19 Testing of Naso-Oropharyngeal Swabs Using a Sensitive Extraction-Free Sample Preparation Method.

High-throughput diagnostic assays are required for large-scale population testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The gold standard technique for SARS-CoV-2 detection in nasopharyngeal swab specimens is nucleic acid extraction followed by real-time reverse transcription-PCR. Two high-throughput commercial extraction and detection systems are used routinely in our laboratory: the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 assay (cobas) and the Roche MagNA Pure 96 system combined with the SpeeDx PlexPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay (Plex). As an alternative to more costly instrumentation, or tedious sample pooling to increase throughput, we developed a high-throughput extraction-free sample preparation method for naso-oropharyngeal swabs using the PlexPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay (Direct). A collection of SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 185) and -negative (n = 354) naso-oropharyngeal swabs in transport medium were tested in parallel to compare Plex to Direct. The overall agreement comparing the qualitative outcomes was 99.3%. The mean cycle of quantification (Cq) increase and corresponding mean reduction in viral load for Direct ORF1ab and RdRp compared to Plex was 3.11 Cq (-0.91 log10 IU/mL) and 4.78 Cq (-1.35 log10 IU/mL), respectively. We also compared Direct to a four-sample pool by combining each positive sample (n = 185) with three SARS-CoV-2-negative samples extracted with MagNA Pure 96 and tested with the PlexPCR SARS-CoV-2 assay (Pool). Although less sensitive than Plex or Pool, the Direct method is a sufficiently sensitive and viable approach to increase our throughput by 12,032 results per day. Combining cobas, Plex, and Direct, an overall throughput of 19,364 results can be achieved in a 24-h period. IMPORTANCE Laboratories have experienced extraordinary demand globally for reagents, consumables, and instrumentation, while facing unprecedented testing demand needed for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A major bottleneck in testing throughput is the purification of viral RNA. Extraction-based methods provide the greatest yield and purity of RNA for downstream PCR. However, these techniques are expensive, time-consuming, and depend on commercial availability of consumables. Extraction-free methods offer an accessible and cost-effective alternative for sample preparation. However, extraction-free methods often lack sensitivity compared to extraction-based methods. We describe a sensitive extraction-free protocol based on a simple purification step using a chelating resin, combined with proteinase K and thermal treatment. We compare the sensitivity qualitatively and quantitatively to a well-known commercial extraction-based system, using a PCR assay calibrated to the 1st WHO international standard for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. This method entails high throughput and is suitable for all laboratories, particularly in jurisdictions where access to instrumentation and reagents is problematic.

Subcutaneouscardiac Rhythm Monitors: A Comprehensive Review.

Subcutaneous loop recorders (SCRMs) are subcutaneous electronic devices which have revolutionized the field of arrhythmia detection. They have become increasingly appealing due to advances such as miniaturization of device, longer battery life, bluetooth capabilities and relatively simple implantation technique without the need for complex surgical suites. They can be implanted in the office, patient bedside without the need to go to the operating room. One of the most common indications for their implantation is detection of atrial fibrillation (AF) after a cryptogenic stroke. They have also been utilized for assessing the success of rhythm control strategies such post pulmonary venous isolation. More recently studies have assessed the utility of SCRMs for detecting silent AF in at risk populations such as patients with sleep apnea or those on hemodialysis. In this paper, we review the evolution of SCRMs, the clinical studies assessing their value for different indications, their role incurrent clinical practice and future avenues in the era of smart wearable devices like apple watch etc.

Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted health care delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for arrhythmia patients. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Guidance for rebooting electrophysiology through the COVID-19 pandemic from the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted health care delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for arrhythmia patients. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serologic testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Exclusion of electrical and mechanical function of the left atrial appendage in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: differences in efficacy and safety between endocardial ablation vs epicardial LARIAT ligation (the EXCLUDE LAA study).

BACKGROUND: Electrical isolation of the left atrial appendage (LAA) may provide incremental benefits for arrhythmia management in patients undergoing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of endocardial ablation and LAA exclusion with LARIAT device for electrical and mechanical exclusion of LAA. METHODS: We compared patients who underwent endocardial LAA isolation during index RFA for persistent AF and underwent a repeat RFA to patients who underwent LAA exclusion with LARIAT device followed by RFA for AF in this multicenter registry. Efficacy of electrical and mechanical isolation of LAA was assessed. RESULTS: We included 182 patients of which 91 patients underwent endocardial LAA isolation during RFA for AF, and 91 patients underwent LAA exclusion with LARIAT device followed by RFA for AF. Baseline characteristics were similar except for higher CHA2DS2-VASc score, coronary artery disease, and prior stroke rate in LARIAT arm. Persistence of electrical isolation (measured at beginning of second procedure) after LARIAT procedure was higher than one-time AF-RFA (96.7% vs 52.8%, p < 0.01). Acute pulmonary vein isolation rates were similar in both arms. AF recurrence rate after second isolation attempts at 1 year was similar in both arms. No difference in major complications was noted between both arms. CONCLUSIONS: LAA exclusion with LARIAT device appears to be more efficacious as compared to one-time endocardial ablation, but not compared to repeat isolation, in achieving complete electrical isolation of LAA for persistent AF.

Systematic Review of Contiguous Vessel and Valve Injury Associated with Endocardial Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Devices.

Endocardial LAAO has been increasingly utilized in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients who are not suitable for long term oral anticoagulation. While overall procedural complications have decreased, rare complications like contiguous vessel and valve injury may be more frequently seen in the future with increase in the procedure volume. We performed a systematic search using predefined terms which reviewed all cases published in literature of contiguous vessel (pulmonary artery, pulmonary vein and left circumflex artery) and mitral valve injury caused by LAAO devices. Our results showed that Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) and Amplatzer Amulet devices were the most commonly used devices. Pulmonary artery perforation was the most commonly seen collateral vessel injury associated with LAAO. Close proximity of left atrial appendage to pulmonary artery was noted in all cases of pulmonary artery injury. Pulmonary artery injury commonly manifests as pericardial tamponade with hemodynamic collapse and is often fatal. Most common denominator of all the reviewed cases was the presence of an oversized LAAO device. In conclusion, collateral vessels and valve injury can be seen after LAAO mostly with double lobe devices such as ACP or Amulet. Increased awareness by the operators along with proper imaging and investigations could potentially mitigate such rare complications associated with LAAO.

Replacing warfarin with a novel oral anticoagulant: Risk of recurrent bleeding and stroke in patients with warfarin ineligible or failure in patients with atrial fibrillation (The ROAR study).

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients treated with warfarin for atrial fibrillation (AF) become warfarin ineligible (WI) due to major bleeding events (MBE) or systemic thromboembolism (STE). We report a large multicenter real-world experience of the use of direct oral antagonists (DOACs) in these WI patients. METHODS: We report the outcomes of 263 WI patients treated with DOACs. The primary objective was to evaluate clinical outcomes of STE and MBE with DOACs. Secondary objective was to assess clinical predictors of repeat MBE and STE on DOACs. RESULTS: Note that 63% (166 of 263) patients had a repeat MBE on DOACs. Repeat MBE was significantly higher in patients with prior gastrointestinal bleeding (74.5% vs. 30%, P < 0.0001). Five percent (12 of 263) developed repeat STE. Higher mean CHA2DS2VASC (6.5 ± 1.7 vs. 3.3 ± 1.6 = 0.001) score was associated with repeat STE. About 34% (57 of 166) of patients had an intervention to manage repeat MBE. LAAO devices were successfully used in 67% (12 of 18) high-risk patients who underwent major interventions to manage MBE. CONCLUSION: In WI patients rechallenged with DOACs, a significant proportion developed repeat MBE. LAAO devices seem reasonable in those patients who undergo major interventions to manage MBE with cautious and temporary continuation of DOAC.

Initial real world experience with a novel insertable (Reveal LinQ(@Medtronic)) compared to the conventional (Reveal XT(@Medtronic)) implantable loop recorder at a tertiary care center - Points to ponder!

INTRODUCTION: Limited data is available regarding the novel Reveal LinQ (LinQ) which is a new generation implantable loop recorders (ILRs). METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational study of all consecutive patients undergoing conventional (Reveal XT; XT) and LinQ devices at our institution between January 2012 and December 2014. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients underwent ILR implantation. XT was implanted in 105 and LinQ in 112 patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. LinQ implantation using the manufacturer's technique termed, "manufacturer's method" group had significantly higher incidence of pocket infection compared to XT (6/50, 12% vs 3/105, 3%, p=0.032). With modifications to the LinQ implantation technique (using a conventional scalpel and placing a suture when needed to the incision) termed "modified method" group, the rate of infection has decreased significantly compared to "manufacturer's method group" (0/62, 0% vs 6/50, 12%, p=0.004) (Table 3). In multivariate regression analysis, the only independent predictors of infection were younger age (OR 0.95; p=0.04), insertion of LinQ device (OR 30.02; p=0.006) and procedure time (OR 1.07; p=0.03). CONCLUSION: In our single-center, prospective, observational study we found that with the current implantable techniques, the novel insertable LinQ device is associated with increased risk of complications.