Development and validation of the Atri-Risk Conduction Index risk score to predict risk of atrial fibrillation after typical atrial flutter ablation.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients at risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) after typical atrial flutter (tAFL) ablation is important to guide monitoring and treatment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to create and validate a risk score to predict AF after tAFL ablation METHODS: We identified patients who underwent tAFL ablation with no AF history between 2017 and 2022 and randomly allocated to derivation and validation cohorts. We collected clinical variables and measured conduction parameters in sinus rhythm on an electrophysiology recording system (CardioLab, GE Healthcare). Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions (LogR) were used to evaluate association with AF development. RESULTS: A total of 242 consecutive patients (81% male; mean age 66 ± 11 years) were divided into derivation (n =142) and validation (n = 100) cohorts. Forty-two percent developed AF over median follow-up of 330 days. In multivariate LogR (derivation cohort), proximal to distal coronary sinus time (pCS-dCS) ≥70 ms (odds ratio [OR] 16.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-49), pCS time ≥36 ms (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.5-13), and CHADS2-VASc score ≥3 (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.6-11.8) were independently associated with new AF during follow-up. The Atri-Risk Conduction Index (ARCI) score was created with 0 as minimal and 4 as high-risk using pCS-dCS ≥70 ms = 2 points; pCS ≥36 ms = 1 point; and CHADS2-VASc score ≥3 = 1 point. In the validation cohort, 0% of patients with ARCI score = 0 developed AF, whereas 89% of patients with ARCI score = 4 developed AF. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a risk score using atrial conduction parameters and clinical risk factors to predict AF after tAFL ablation. It stratifies low-, moderate-, and high-risk patients and may be helpful in individualizing approaches to AF monitoring and anticoagulation.

Predicting Major Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry (LAAO) includes the vast majority of transcatheter LAAO procedures performed in the United States. The objective of this study was to develop a model predicting adverse events among patients undergoing LAAO with Watchman FLX. METHODS: Data from 41 001 LAAO procedures with Watchman FLX from July 2020 to September 2021 were used to develop and validate a model predicting in-hospital major adverse events. Randomly selected development (70%, n=28 530) and validation (30%, n=12 471) cohorts were analyzed with 1000 bootstrapped samples, using forward stepwise logistic regression to create the final model. A simplified bedside risk score was also developed using this model. RESULTS: Increased age, female sex, low preprocedure hemoglobin, no prior attempt at atrial fibrillation termination, and increased fall risk most strongly predicted in-hospital major adverse events and were included in the final model along with other clinically relevant variables. The median in-hospital risk-standardized adverse event rate was 1.50% (range, 1.03%-2.84%; interquartile range, 1.42%-1.64%). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (development C-index, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.65-0.70] and validation C-index, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62-0.70]) with good calibration. The simplified risk score was well calibrated with risk of in-hospital major adverse events ranging from 0.26% to 3.90% for a score of 0 to 8, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A transcatheter LAAO risk model using National Cardiovascular Data Registry and LAAO Registry data can predict in-hospital major adverse events, demonstrated consistency across hospitals and can be used for quality improvement efforts. A simple bedside risk score was similarly predictive and may inform shared decision-making.

Predictors of first pass isolation of the pulmonary veins in real world ablations: An analysis of 2671 patients from the REAL-AF registry.

INTRODUCTION: During atrial fibrillation ablation (AFA), achievement of first pass isolation (FPI) reflects effective lesion formation and predicts long-term freedom from arrhythmia recurrence. We aim to determine the clinical and procedural predictors of pulmonary vein FPI. METHODS: We reviewed AFA procedures in a multicenter prospective registry of AFA (REAL-AF). A multivariate ordinal logistic regression, weighted by inverse proceduralist volume, was used to determine predictors of FPI. RESULTS: A total of 2671 patients were included with 1806 achieving FPI in both vein sides, 702 achieving FPI in one, and 163 having no FPI. Individually, age, left atrial (LA) scar, higher power usage (50 W), greater posterior contact force, ablation index >350 posteriorly, Vizigo™ sheath utilization, nonstandard ventilation, and high operator volume (>6 monthly cases) were all related to improved odds of FPI. Conversely sleep apnea, elevated body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus, LA enlargement, antiarrhythmic drug use, and center's higher fluoroscopy use were related to reduced odds of FPI. Multivariate analysis showed that BMI > 30 (OR 0.78 [0.64-0.96]) and LA volume (OR per mL increase = 1.00 [0.99-1.00]) predicted lower odds of achieving FPI, whereas significant left atrial scarring (>20%) was related to higher rates of FPI. Procedurally, the use of high power (50 W) (OR 1.32 [1.05-1.65]), increasing force posteriorly (OR 2.03 [1.19-3.46]), and nonstandard ventilation (OR 1.26 [1.00-1.59]) predicted higher FPI rates. At a site level, high procedural volume (OR 1.89 [1.48-2.41]) and low fluoroscopy centers (OR 0.72 [0.61-0.84]) had higher rates of FPI. CONCLUSION: FPI rates are affected by operator experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural strategies. These factors may be postulated to impact acute lesion formation.

Appropriateness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device implants in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria (AUCs) are a diverse group of indications aimed to better evaluate the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the proportion of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implants as appropriate, may be appropriate (MA), or rarely appropriate (RA) on the basis of the AUC guidelines. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry undergoing ICD implantation between April 2018 and March 2019 at >1500 US hospitals. The appropriateness of ICD implants was adjudicated using the AUC. RESULTS: Of 309,318 ICDs, 241,438 were primary prevention implants (78.1%) and 67,880 secondary prevention implants (21.9%); 243,532 (79%) were mappable to the AUC. For primary prevention, 185,431 ICDs (96.4%) were appropriate, 5660 (2.9%) MA, and 1205 (0.6%) RA. For secondary prevention, 47,498 ICDs (92.7%) were appropriate, 2581 (5%) MA, and 1157 (2.3%) RA. A significant number of RA devices were implanted in patients with New York Heart Association class IV heart failure who were ineligible for advanced therapies (53.9%) and those with myocardial infarction within 40 days (18.1%). The appropriateness of the pacing lead was more variable, with 48,470 dual-chamber ICD implants (62%) being classified as appropriate, 29,209 (37.4%) MA, and 448 (0.6%) RA. Among CRT-D implants, 63,848 (82.2%) were appropriate, 9900 (12.7%) MA, and 3940 (5.1%) RA for left ventricular pacing. A total of 99,754 implants were deemed appropriate but excluded from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination. More than 92% of hospitals had an RA implant rate of <4%. CONCLUSION: In this large national registry, 95% of mappable ICD and CRT-D implants were considered appropriate, with <2% of RA implants. Nearly 100,000 appropriate implants are excluded by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services National Coverage Determination.

Off-Label Dosing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Among Inpatients With Atrial Fibrillation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Among patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, the frequency of off-label direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing, associated factors, hospital-level variation, and temporal trends in contemporary practice are unknown. METHODS: Using the Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation registry, patients admitted from January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2020, and discharged on DOACs were stratified according to receipt of underdosing, overdosing, or recommended dosing. Factors associated with off-label dosing (defined as underdosing or overdosing) were identified using logistic regression. Median odds ratio (OR) and time-series analyses were used to assess hospital-level variation and temporal trends, respectively. RESULTS: Of 22 470 patients (70.1±12.1 years, 48.1% female, 82.5% White) prescribed a DOAC at discharge from hospitalization for atrial fibrillation (66% apixaban, 29% rivaroxaban, and 5% dabigatran), underdosing occurred among 2006 (8.9%), overdosing among 511 (2.3%), and recommended dosing among 19 953 (88.8%). The overall rate of off-label dosing was 11.2%. Patient-related factors associated with off-label dose included age (underdosing: OR, 1.06 per 1-year increase [95% CI, 1.06-1.07]; overdosing: OR, 1.07 per 1-year increase [95% CI, 1.06-1.09]), dialysis dependence (underdosing: OR, 5.50 [95% CI, 3.76-8.05]; overdosing: OR, 5.47 [95% CI, 2.74-10.88]), female sex (overdosing: OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.99]), and weight (overdosing: OR, 0.96 per 1-kg increase [95% CI, 0.95-1.00]). Across hospitals, the adjusted median OR for off-label DOAC dose was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.34-1.65; underdosing: OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.39-1.76]; overdosing: OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.20-1.84]), indicating significant hospital-level variation. Over the study period, recommended dosing significantly increased over time (81.9%-90.9%; P<0.0001 for trend) with a corresponding decline in underdosing (14.4%-6.6%; P<0.0001 for trend) and overdosing (3.8%-2.5%; P=0.001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: Over 1 in 10 patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation are discharged on an off-label DOAC dose with significant variation across hospitals. While the proportion of patients receiving recommended dosing has significantly improved over time, opportunities to improve DOAC dosing persist.

PRIME score for prediction of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to produce a simple scoring system that can be applied at clinical visits before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to stratify the risk of permanent pacemaker (PPM) after the procedure. BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular block is a known complication of TAVR. Current models for predicting the risk of PPM after TAVR are not designed to be applied clinically to assist with preprocedural planning. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVR at the University of Colorado were split into a training cohort for the development of a predictive model, and a testing cohort for model validation. Stepwise and binary logistic regressions were performed on the training cohort to produce a predictive model. Beta coefficients from the binary logistic regression were used to create a simple scoring system for predicting the need for PPM implantation. Scores were then applied to the validation cohort to assess predictive accuracy. RESULTS: Patients undergoing TAVR from 2013 to 2019 were analyzed: with 483 included in the training cohort and 123 included in the validation cohort. The need for a pacemaker was associated with five preprocedure variables in the training cohort: PR interval > 200 ms, Right bundle branch block, valve-In-valve procedure, prior Myocardial infarction, and self-Expandable valve. The PRIME score was developed using these clinical features, and was highly accurate for predicting PPM in both the training and model validation cohorts (area under the curve 0.804 and 0.830 in the model training and validation cohorts, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PRIME score is a simple and accurate preprocedural tool for predicting the need for PPM implantation after TAVR.

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS Expert Consensus Statement on Practical Management of the Remote Device Clinic.

Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

Evaluation of Quantitative Decision-Making for Rhythm Management of Atrial Fibrillation Using Tabular Q-Learning.

Background Rhythm management is a complex decision for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Although clinical trials have identified subsets of patients who might benefit from a given rhythm-management strategy, for individual patients it is not always clear which strategy is expected to have the greatest mortality benefit or durability. Methods and Results In this investigation 52 547 patients with a new atrial fibrillation diagnosis between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. We applied a type of artificial intelligence called tabular Q-learning to identify the optimal initial rhythm-management strategy, based on a composite outcome of mortality, change in treatment, and sustainability of the given treatment, termed the reward function. We first applied an unsupervised learning algorithm using a variational autoencoder with K-means clustering to cluster atrial fibrillation patients into 8 distinct phenotypes. We then fit a Q-learning algorithm to predict the best outcome for each cluster. Although rate-control strategy was most frequently selected by treating providers, the outcome was superior for rhythm-control strategies across all clusters. Subjects in whom provider-selected treatment matched the Q-table recommendation had fewer total deaths (4 [8.5%] versus 473 [22.4%], odds ratio=0.32, P=0.02) and a greater reward (P=4.8×10-6). We then demonstrated application of dynamic learning by updating the Q-table prospectively using batch gradient descent, in which the optimal strategy in some clusters changed from cardioversion to ablation. Conclusions Tabular Q-learning provides a dynamic and interpretable approach to apply artificial intelligence to clinical decision-making for atrial fibrillation. Further work is needed to examine application of Q-learning prospectively in clinical patients.

Initial Findings From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Procedures.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) AFib Ablation Registry was created to assess real-world prevalence, demographic characteristics, procedural management, and outcomes of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedures. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to characterize the patient, hospital, and physician characteristics and in-hospital outcomes related to AF ablation in the first 5 years of the registry. METHODS: This paper describes the AFib Ablation Registry structure and governance, outcome assessment processes, data quality, and data collection processes. The characteristics of the patient population, hospitals, and in-hospital outcomes are also described. RESULTS: A total of 76,219 patients were included in the registry between January 2016 and December 2020 (mean age 65.5 ± 10.3 years, 65.2% male, 55.8% paroxysmal AF, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 2.7 ± 1.6) treated by 708 physicians in 162 hospitals. Successful isolation of all pulmonary veins was achieved in 92.4% of patients. The prevalence of any complication during procedural admission was 2.50% and major complication was 0.9%, including significant bradycardia in 0.47%, heart failure in 0.47%, and pericardial effusion requiring intervention in 0.44%. Hospitalization >1 day occurred in 11.8% of patients, and in-hospital death was rare (n = 41 [0.05%]). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR AFib Ablation Registry is the largest multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing catheter ablation worldwide. Results in the first 5 years showed that successful pulmonary vein isolation is achieved in the majority of patients, with a low rate of complications. Future studies from the registry will assess practice trends, evaluate treatment patterns associated with different patient outcomes, and support development of evidence-based guidelines.

Evaluating temperature gradients across the posterior left atrium with radiofrequency ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal injury is a well-known complication associated with catheter ablation. Though novel methods to mitigate esophageal injury have been developed, few studies have evaluated temperature gradients with catheter ablation across the posterior wall of the left atrium, interstitium, and esophagus. METHODS: To investigate temperature gradients across the tissue, we developed a porcine heart-esophageal model to perform ex vivo catheter ablation on the posterior wall of the left atrium (LA), with juxtaposed interstitial tissue and esophagus. Circulating saline (5 L/min) was used to mimic blood flow along the LA and alteration of ionic content to modulate impedance. Thermistors along the region of interest were used to analyze temperature gradients. Varying time and power, radiofrequency (RF) ablation lesions were applied with an externally irrigated ablation catheter. Ablation strategies were divided into standard approaches (SAs, 10-15 g, 25-35 W, 30 s) or high-power short duration (HPSD, 10-15 g, 40-50 W, 10 s). Temperature gradients, time to the maximum measured temperature, and the relationship between measured temperature as a function of distance from the site of ablation was analyzed. RESULTS: In total, five experiments were conducted each utilizing new porcine posterior LA wall-esophageal specimens for RF ablation (n = 60 lesions each for SA and HPSD). For both SA and HPSD, maximum temperature rise from baseline was markedly higher at the anterior wall (AW) of the esophagus compared to the esophageal lumen (SA: 4.29°C vs. 0.41°C, p < .0001 and HPSD: 3.13°C vs. 0.28°C, p < .0001). Across ablation strategies, the average temperature rise at the AW of the esophagus was significantly higher with SA relative to HPSD ablation (4.29°C vs. 3.13°C, p = .01). From the start of ablation, the average time to reach a maximum temperature as measured at the AW of the esophagus with SA was 36.49 ± 12.12 s, compared to 16.57 ± 4.54 s with HPSD ablation, p < .0001. Fit to a linear scale, a 0.37°C drop in temperature was seen for every 1 cm increase in distance from the site of ablation and thermistor location at the AW of the esophagus. CONCLUSION: Both SA and HPSD ablation strategies resulted in markedly higher temperatures measured at the AW of the esophagus compared to the esophageal lumen, raising concern about the value of clinical intraluminal temperature monitoring. The temperature rise at the AW was lower with HPSD. A significant time delay was seen to reach the maximum measured temperature and a modest increase in distance between the site of ablation and thermistor location impacted the accuracy of monitored temperatures.

'Replace uncertainty with information': shared decision-making and decision quality surrounding catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: As a first step in developing a decision aid to support shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to evaluate treatment options for rhythm and symptom control, we aimed to measure decision quality and describe decision-making processes among patients and clinicians involved in decision-making around catheter ablation for AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study guided by an SDM model outlining decision antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Patients and clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about decision-making around ablation, feelings of decision conflict and regret, and preferences for the content, delivery, and format of a hypothetical decision aid for ablation. Patients also completed surveys about AF symptoms and aspects of decision quality. Fifteen patients (mean age 71.1 ± 8.6 years; 27% female) and five clinicians were recruited. For most patients, decisional conflict and regret were low, but they also reported low levels of information and agency in the decision-making process. Most clinicians report routinely providing patients with information and encouraging engagement during consultations. Patients reported preferences for an interactive, web-based decision aid that clearly presents evidence regarding outcomes using data, visualizations, videos, and personalized risk assessments, and is available in multiple languages. CONCLUSION: Disconnects between clinician efforts to provide information and bolster agency and patient experiences of decision-making suggest decision aids may be needed to improve decision quality in practice. Reported experiences with current decision-making practices and preferences for decision aid content, format, and delivery can support the user-centred design and development of a decision aid.

Device-Sizing and Associated Complications With Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion: Findings From the NCDR LAAO Registry.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion is an important alternative to anticoagulation in select patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Trends in real-world device sizing and associated short-term complications have not been characterized. METHODS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (NCDR LAAO) Registry, patients who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion with a Watchman 2.5 device from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020, were identified. Patients were stratified by device size based on left atrial appendage orifice size, and categorized as receiving a device that was undersized, oversized, or per manufacturer recommendation. Relationships between device sizing and short-term outcomes, including pericardial effusion, device embolism, and significant leak, were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 68 456 patients, 6539 (10.5%) of patients received undersized devices, 17 791 (26.0%) according to manufacturer recommendations, and 44 126 (64.4%) received an oversized device. The 27-mm device was most commonly deployed [21 736 (31.8%)], whereas the smallest and largest devices (21 and 33 mm) were least commonly deployed [7695 (11.2%) and 9077 (13.3%), respectively]. Compared with manufacturer recommended sizing, there was no difference in the odds of pericardial effusion for either undersized (1.048 [95% CI' 0.801-1.372]; P=0.733) or oversized (1.101 [95% CI' 0.933-1.298]; P=0.254) devices. Similarly, relative to manufacturer recommended sizing, the odds of a composite adverse outcome of device migration or embolization and significant peridevice leak at 45 days were similar among undersized devices (1.030 [95% CI' 0.735-1.444]; P=0.863) and favorable for oversized devices (0.701 [95% CI' 0.561-0.876]; P=0.002) devices, primarily driven by lower odds of leak. Selection of oversized devices increased significantly over the study period (from 60.3% in 2016 to 66.0% in 2020; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion with the first-generation Watchman device, receipt of oversized devices was common and increased over time. The high prevalence of oversizing was associated with lower odds of significant leak or device embolization without increased odds of other adverse events.

Experiences Implementing a Suite of Decision Aids for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Qualitative Insights From the DECIDE-ICD Trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is gaining importance in cardiology, including Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement policies requiring documented SDM for patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The DECIDE-ICD Trial (Decision Support Intervention for Patients offered implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators) assessed the implementation and effectiveness of patient decision aids (DAs) using a stepped-wedge design at 7 sites. The purpose of this subanalysis was to qualitatively describe electrophysiology clinicians' experience implementing and using the DAs. METHODS: This included semi-structured individual interviews with electrophysiology clinicians at participating sites across the US, at least 6 months following conversion into the implementation phase of the trial (from June 2020 through February 2022). The interview guide was structured according to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [implementation evaluation model]) framework, assessing clinician experiences, which can impact implementation domains, and was qualitatively assessed using a mixed inductive/deductive method. RESULTS: We completed 22 interviews post-implementation across all 7 sites. Participants included both physicians (n=16) and other clinicians who counsel patients regarding treatment options (n=6). While perception of SDM and the DA were positive, participants highlighted reasons for uneven delivery of DAs to appropriate patients. The CMS mandate for SDM was not universally viewed as associating with patients receiving DA's, but rather (1) logistics of DA delivery, (2) perceived effectiveness in improving patient decision-making, and (3) match of DA content to current patient populations. Remaining tensions include the specific trial data used in DAs and reconciling timing of delivery with when patients are actively making decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians charged with delivering DAs to patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators were generally supportive of the tenets of SDM, and of the DA tools themselves, but noted several opportunities to improve the reach and continued use of them in routine care. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03374891.

Indications for Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in the United States and Associated In-Hospital Outcomes: Results From the NCDR LAAO Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman device for patients who are at increased stroke risk and are suitable for oral anticoagulation but who have an appropriate reason to seek a nondrug alternative. These broad criteria raise the question of their interpretation in clinical practice. There is a lack of studies comprehensively evaluating the indications for Watchman implantation among a large series of patients from contemporary, real-world practice in the United States. METHODS: We used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry to identify Watchman procedures performed between 2016 and 2018. We assessed procedural indications for Watchman implantation in the United States and evaluated the association between procedural indications and in-hospital adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 38 314 procedures were included. The mean patient age was 76.1±8.1 years, and 58.9% were men. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.8±1.5, whereas the mean hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) score was 3.0±1.1. Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 40.2% and prior bleeding in 70.1%, with gastrointestinal bleeding being most common (41.9%). The most common site-reported procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk (64.8%) and history of major bleed (64.3%), followed by high fall risk (35.5%). Most (71.9%) had ≥2 procedural indications. Patients with high fall risk had increased risk of in-hospital adverse events (adjusted OR, 1.12; P=0.025), but no other differences were found in the risk of in-hospital adverse events by procedural indication. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry, the most common procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk, history of major bleed, and high fall risk. A majority of patients had multiple procedural indications. High fall risk conferred a modestly increased risk of in-hospital adverse events.

Development and validation of an automated algorithm for end point adjudication for a large U.S. national registry.

BACKGROUND: Clinical events committee (CEC) evaluation is the standard approach for end point adjudication in clinical trials. Due to resource constraints, large registries typically rely on site-reported end points without further confirmation, which may preclude use for regulatory oversight. METHODS: We developed a novel automated adjudication algorithm (AAA) for end point adjudication in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (LAAO) Registry using an iterative process using CEC adjudication as the "gold standard." A ≥80% agreement rate between automated algorithm adjudication and CEC adjudication was prespecified as clinically acceptable. Agreement rates were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 92 in-hospital and 127 post-discharge end points were evaluated between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2019 using AAA and CEC. Agreement for neurologic events was >90%. Percent agreement for in-hospital and post-discharge events was as follows: ischemic stroke 95.7% and 94.5%, hemorrhagic stroke 97.8% and 96.1%, undetermined stroke 97.8% and 99.2%, transient ischemic attack 98.9% and 98.4% and intracranial hemorrhage 100.0% and 94.5%. Agreement was >80% for major bleeding (83.7% and 90.6%) and major vascular complication (89.1% and 97.6%). With this approach, <1% of site reported end points require CEC adjudication. Agreement remained very good during the period after algorithm derivation. CONCLUSIONS: An AAA-guided approach for end point adjudication was successfully developed and validated for the LAAO Registry. With this approach, the need for formal CEC adjudication was substantially reduced, with accuracy maintained above an 80% agreement threshold. After application specific validation, these methods could be applied to large registries and clinical trials to reduce the cost of event adjudication while preserving scientific validity.

Limitations of Unipolar Signals in Guiding Successful Outflow Tract Premature Ventricular Contraction Ablation.

BACKGROUND: Unipolar electrograms (UniEGMs) are commonly used to annotate earliest local activation of focal arrhythmias. However, their utility in guiding premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) ablation may be limited when the PVC source is less superficial. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare bipolar electrograms (BiEGMs) vs UniEGMs in guiding successful ablation of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) vs intramural outflow tract (OT) PVCs. The authors hypothesized that: 1) earliest bipolar local activation time (LATBi) would better guide mapping and ablation, vs UniEGM dV/dt (LATUni) or QS morphology; and 2) LAT differences using bipolar vs unipolar EGMs (ΔLATBi-Uni) would be greater for intramural OT than RVOT PVCs. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing successful PVC ablation 2017 to2020 requiring only RVOT or RVOT+left ventricular OT (RVOT+LVOT) ablation were retrospectively analyzed. BiEGMs and UniEGMs at successful ablation sites were compared. RESULTS: Of 70 patients, 50 required RVOT-only, and 20 required RVOT+LVOT ablation for acute and long-term PVC suppression. Mean ΔLATBi-Uni was lower for RVOT vs RVOT+LVOT groups (9.3 ± 6.4 ms vs 17.4 ± 9.9 ms; P < 0.01). QS UniEGM was seen in 78% of RVOT, compared with 53% of RVOT+LVOT patients (P < 0.016). RVOT+LVOT sites most frequently included the posteroseptal RVOT and adjacent LVOT (73%), and 43% lacked a QS unipolar EGM. ΔLATBi-Uni ≥15 ms best distinguished sites in which RVOT-only vs RVOT+LVOT ablation achieved acute PVC suppression (area under the curve: 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Earliest BiEGM activation guides successful ablation of OT PVCs better than UniEGM-guided analysis, especially when an intramural PVC source is present.

Antithrombotic Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pivotal trials of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) used specific postprocedure treatment protocols. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate patterns of postprocedure care after LAAO with the Watchman device in clinical practice and compare the risk of adverse events for different discharge antithrombotic strategies. METHODS: We evaluated patients in the LAAO Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry who underwent LAAO with the Watchman device between 2016 and 2018. We assessed adherence to the full postprocedure trial protocol including standardized follow-up, imaging, and antithrombotic agents and then evaluated the most commonly used antithrombotic strategies and compared the rates and risk of adverse events at 45 days and 6 months by means of multivariable COX frailty regression. RESULTS: Among 31,994 patients undergoing successful LAAO, only 12.2% received the full postprocedure treatment protocol studied in pivotal trials; the most common protocol deviations were with discharge antithrombotic medications. The most common discharge medication strategies were warfarin and aspirin (36.9%), direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and aspirin (20.8%), warfarin only (13.5%), DOAC only (12.3%), and dual antiplatelet therapy (5.0%). In multivariable Cox frailty regression, the adjusted risk of any adverse event through the 45-day follow-up visit were significantly lower for discharge on warfarin alone (HR: 0.692; 95% CI: 0.569-0.841) and DOAC alone (HR: 0.731; 95% CI: 0.574-0.930) compared with warfarin and aspirin. Warfarin alone retained lower risk at the 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary U.S. practice, practitioners rarely used the full U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved postprocedure treatment protocols studied in pivotal trials of the Watchman device. Discharge after implantation on warfarin or DOAC without concomitant aspirin was associated with lower risk of adverse outcomes.