Peri-procedural use of direct anticoagulation agents during cardiac device implantation: vitamin K antagonists vs direct oral anticoagulants.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is deemed safe compared to bridging with heparin in the peri-procedure setting while implanting cardiac devices. The timing of discontinuation and re-initiation of direct anticoagulant agents (DOACs) such as dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban in the peri-procedural setting in comparison to warfarin is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to compare three DOAC agents with warfarin during cardiac device implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients on treatment with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban (group A) undergoing a cardiac device generator change, upgrade, or new implantation procedure were compared to those on warfarin (group B). Incidence of hematoma, infection, effusion, stroke, and other complications were noted at 1 day, 1 week, and 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients in group A underwent the above procedures with 73 patients on dabigatran, 153 on rivaroxaban, and 85 on apixaban. There were 467 patients on warfarin in group B. Mean age of the total population was 68 ± 12 years with 67% males and > 80% Caucasians. The last dose of the DOAC was the night prior to the procedure and resumed the night of the procedure (single dose interruption for apixaban and dabigatran and no un-interruption for rivaroxaban). There was no difference noted in the incidence of minor or major hematoma (9% vs 8.5%, p = 0.7). No stroke occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: Use of DOAC agents with transient interruption of one dose is as safe as warfarin in the peri-procedural setting during implantation of cardiac devices.

Risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias following improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators implanted for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

PURPOSE: In patients who undergo implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), data is unclear whether their ICD generator needs to be replaced at end of life if their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) improves. Despite improvement in EF, the underlying scar may represent a potential substrate for ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: Data on 280 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD was obtained from two centers. Patients were followed for any improvement in EF to ≥35%. All arrhythmic events during follow-up, including appropriate and inappropriate shocks/ATP, were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty percent (n = 86/280) of patients improved their EF to >35% of which 41% (n = 37) underwent a generator change by the study ending period with the rest not yet at ERI. Mean baseline EF in patients with and without target EF improvement was 26 ± 7 and 23 ± 7% (p = 0.2). After excluding patients whose arrhythmic events data were unavailable, the final sample consisted of 62 patients in the EF improvement group and 156 patients in the group without EF improvement. In the group with EF improvement, appropriate events (shock + ATP) were noted in 19% of patients (n = 12/62) and inappropriate shocks and ATP in 6% of (n = 4/62) patients after their EF improved to >35%. Four patients received appropriate therapies when their EF was low prior to improvement. In contrast, in patients who had no improvement in EF, 27% (n = 43/156) received an appropriate therapy (p = 0.6) while 11% (n = 18/156) (p = 0.2) received inappropriate shocks and ATP. All-cause mortality was higher in patients without subsequent improvement in EF versus those with EF improvement (31 vs. 15% (p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the number of appropriate therapies received by each group. Patients continue to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death despite improvement in EF.

Elevated brain natriuretic peptide level in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation: is it a predictor of failed ablation or a mere function of atrial rhythm and rate at a point in time?

BACKGROUND: Pre- and postablation atrial fibrillation (AF) brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels were shown to predict increased recurrence of AF following ablation. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess whether elevated BNP levels merely represent the presence of AF at the time of measurement or indeed the true recurrence of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective study of 88 patients undergoing AF ablation, BNP levels were measured immediately before, after, 24 h, and 4-6 months postablation. BNP levels were stratified by presenting rhythm and ventricular rate at the time of measurement. Median BNP level preablation was higher in patients presenting in AF compared to sinus rhythm (SR) (54(44-79) pg/ml vs. 30(18-47) pg/ml, p < 0.001). Postablation restoration of SR in patients presenting in AF reduced median BNP levels from 54(44-79) pg/ml to 40(37-51) pg/ml, (p < 0.001). However, no change was noted in patients who presented in and maintained SR throughout the procedure (30(18-47) pg/ml to 27(16-40) pg/ml, p = 0.270). At 4-6 months, BNP measured in patients in SR was not significantly different from postablation BNP (35(22-53) pg/ml vs. 38(20-52) pg/ml, p = 0.656), although 35% of them had AF recurrence in 1-year follow-up. Median BNP level measured in five patients while in atrial arrhythmia was elevated compared to postablation BNP (464(421-464) pg/ml to 37(36-37) pg/ml, p = 0.043). BNP levels and ventricular rates are positively correlated at all times pre- and postablation. CONCLUSIONS: BNP level rises acutely during AF and with rapid ventricular rates. BNP level seems to be a function of atrial rhythm and ventricular rate rather than short- or long-term predictor of AF ablation success.