Abstract Background In the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial that evaluated patients with nonvalvular ...atrial fibrillation (NVAF), left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention, but a periprocedural safety hazard was identified. Objectives The goal of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of LAA occlusion for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF compared with long-term warfarin therapy. Methods This randomized trial further assessed the efficacy and safety of the Watchman device. Patients with NVAF who had a CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >75 years, diabetes mellitus, and previous stroke/transient ischemic attack) score ≥2 or 1 and another risk factor were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to undergo LAA occlusion and subsequent discontinuation of warfarin (intervention group, n = 269) or receive chronic warfarin therapy (control group, n = 138). Two efficacy and 1 safety coprimary endpoints were assessed. Results At 18 months, the rate of the first coprimary efficacy endpoint (composite of stroke, systemic embolism SE, and cardiovascular/unexplained death) was 0.064 in the device group versus 0.063 in the control group (rate ratio 1.07 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.57 to 1.89) and did not achieve the prespecified criteria noninferiority (upper boundary of 95% CrI ≥1.75). The rate for the second coprimary efficacy endpoint (stroke or SE >7 days’ postrandomization) was 0.0253 versus 0.0200 (risk difference 0.0053 95% CrI: –0.0190 to 0.0273), achieving noninferiority. Early safety events occurred in 2.2% of the Watchman arm, significantly lower than in PROTECT AF, satisfying the pre-specified safety performance goal. Using a broader, more inclusive definition of adverse effects, these still were lower in PREVAIL (Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) trial than in PROTECT AF (4.2% vs. 8.7%; p = 0.004). Pericardial effusions requiring surgical repair decreased from 1.6% to 0.4% (p = 0.027), and those requiring pericardiocentesis decreased from 2.9% to 1.5% (p = 0.36), although the number of events was small. Conclusions In this trial, LAA occlusion was noninferior to warfarin for ischemic stroke prevention or SE >7 days’ post-procedure. Although noninferiority was not achieved for overall efficacy, event rates were low and numerically comparable in both arms. Procedural safety has significantly improved. This trial provides additional data that LAA occlusion is a reasonable alternative to warfarin therapy for stroke prevention in patients with NVAF who do not have an absolute contraindication to short-term warfarin therapy.
A new technology, leadless pacemaker therapy, was recently introduced clinically to address lead- and pocket-related complications in conventional transvenous pacemaker therapy. These leadless ...devices are self-contained right ventricular single-chamber pacemakers implanted by using a femoral percutaneous approach. In this review of available clinical data on leadless pacemakers, early results with leadless devices are compared with historical results with conventional single-chamber pacing. Both presently manufactured leadless pacemakers show similar complications, which are mostly related to the implant procedure: cardiac perforation, device dislocation, and femoral vascular access site complications. In comparison with conventional transvenous single-chamber pacemakers, slightly higher short-term complication rates have been observed: 4.8% for leadless pacemakers versus 4.1% for conventional pacemakers. The complication rate of the leadless pacemakers is influenced by the implanter learning curve for this new procedure. No long-term outcome data are yet available for the leadless pacemakers. Larger leadless pacing trials, with long-term follow-up and direct randomized comparison with conventional pacing systems, will be required to define the proper clinical role of these leadless systems. Although current leadless pacemakers are limited to right ventricular pacing, future advanced, communicating, multicomponent systems are expected to expand the potential benefits of leadless therapy to a larger patient population.
Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using thermal energies such as radiofrequency or cryothermy is associated with indiscriminate tissue destruction. During pulsed field ablation (PFA), ...subsecond electric fields create microscopic pores in cell membranes—a process called electroporation. Among cell types, cardiomyocytes have among the lowest thresholds to these fields, potentially permitting preferential myocardial ablation.
The purpose of these 2 trials was to determine whether PFA allows durable pulmonary vein (PV) isolation without damage to collateral structures.
Two trials were conducted to assess the safety and effectiveness of catheter-based PFA in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Ablation was performed using proprietary bipolar PFA waveforms: either monophasic with general anesthesia and paralytics to minimize muscle contraction, or biphasic with sedation because there was minimal muscular stimulation. No esophageal protection strategy was used. Invasive electrophysiological mapping was repeated after 3 months to assess the durability of PV isolation.
In 81 patients, all PVs were acutely isolated by monophasic (n = 15) or biphasic (n = 66) PFA with ≤3 min elapsed delivery/patient, skin-to-skin procedure time of 92.2 ± 27.4 min, and fluoroscopy time of 13.1 ± 7.6 min. With successive waveform refinement, durability at 3 months improved from 18% to 100% of patients with all PVs isolated. Beyond 1 procedure-related pericardial tamponade, there were no additional primary adverse events over the 120-day median follow-up, including: stroke, phrenic nerve injury, PV stenosis, and esophageal injury. The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from arrhythmia was 87.4 ± 5.6%.
In first-in-human trials, PFA preferentially affected myocardial tissue, allowing facile ultra-rapid PV isolation with excellent durability and chronic safety. (IMPULSE: A Safety and Feasibility Study of the IOWA Approach Endocardial Ablation System to Treat Atrial Fibrillation; NCT03700385; and PEFCAT: A Safety and Feasibility Study of the FARAPULSE Endocardial Ablation System to Treat Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation; NCT03714178)
Display omitted
Long-term data on the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation remain limited.
The purpose of this study was ...to evaluate 4.5- to 5-year data in 2 U.S. Food and Drug Association LAAC mandated registries (CAP Continued Access to PROTECT-AF and CAP2 Continued Access to PREVAIL) for safety and efficacy.
Two registries of patients implanted with LAAC devices provide the largest source of follow-up data. Both accompanied their respective randomized clinical trials, PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic PROTECTion in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) and PREVAIL (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Device In Patients with Atrial Fibrillation versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), which used the same endpoints (primary efficacy of composite of stroke, systemic embolism, cardiovascular/unexplained death, and safety).
CAP included 566 patients with an average follow-up of 50.1 months (2,293 patient-years), and CAP2 included 578 patients with an average follow-up of 50.3 months (2,227 patient-years). CAP2 patients were significantly older and had higher CHA2DS2-VASc (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack, vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, sex category) scores (4.51 vs. 3.88; p < 0.001). Procedural success was similar in both (94%). The primary composite endpoint occurred at a rate of 3.05 per 100 patient-years in CAP and 4.80 per 100 patient-years in CAP2; events contributing to this endpoint were most commonly cardiovascular/unexplained death (1.69 per 100 patient-years for CAP and 2.92 per 100 patient-years for CAP2). Hemorrhagic stroke was significantly less than ischemic stroke (0.17 per 100 patient-years in CAP and 0.09 per 100 patient-years in CAP2), and total stroke rates were significantly less than predicted by CHA2DS2-VASc score (78% reduction with CAP, 69% reduction with CAP2).
These registries, which contain the longest and largest follow-up data of patients with the Watchman device, support LAAC as a safe and effective therapy for long-term anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and document the lowest rate of hemorrhagic stroke identified in this population.
Display omitted
Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy in COVID-19 Giustino, Gennaro; Croft, Lori B.; Oates, Connor P. ...
Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
08/2020, Letnik:
76, Številka:
5
Journal Article
The Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) randomized trial compared left atrial appendage closure against warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) ...patients with CHADS₂ ≥1. Although the study met the primary efficacy end point of being noninferior to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism/cardiovascular death, there was a significantly higher risk of complications, predominantly pericardial effusion and procedural stroke related to air embolism. Here, we report the influence of experience on the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure.
The study cohort for this analysis included patients in the PROTECT AF trial who underwent attempted device left atrial appendage closure (n=542 patients) and those from a subsequent nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing Watchman implantation (Continued Access Protocol CAP Registry; n=460 patients). The safety end point included bleeding- and procedure-related events (pericardial effusion, stroke, device embolization). There was a significant decline in the rate of procedure- or device-related safety events within 7 days of the procedure across the 2 studies, with 7.7% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.007), and between the first and second halves of PROTECT AF and CAP, with 10.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.006). The rate of serious pericardial effusion within 7 days of implantation, which had made up >50% of the safety events in PROTECT AF, was lower in the CAP Registry (5.0% versus 2.2%, respectively; P=0.019). There was a similar experience-related improvement in procedure-related stroke (0.9% versus 0%, respectively; P=0.039). Finally, the functional impact of these safety events, as defined by significant disability or death, was statistically superior in the Watchman group compared with the warfarin group in PROTECT AF. This remained true whether significance was defined as a change in the modified Rankin score of ≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 (1.8 versus 4.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.82; 1.5 versus 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.82; and 1.4 versus 3.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.88, respectively).
As with all interventional procedures, there is a significant improvement in the safety of Watchman left atrial appendage closure with increased operator experience. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.
The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients ineligible for warfarin therapy.
The PROTECT AF ...(Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial demonstrated that LAA closure with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) was noninferior to warfarin therapy. However, the PROTECT AF trial only included patients who were candidates for warfarin, and even patients randomly assigned to the LAA closure arm received concomitant warfarin for 6 weeks after Watchman implantation.
A multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted of LAA closure with the Watchman device in 150 patients with nonvalvular AF and CHADS₂ (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack) score ≥1, who were considered ineligible for warfarin. The primary efficacy endpoint was the combined events of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death.
The mean CHADS₂ score and CHA₂DS₂-VASc (CHADS₂ score plus 2 points for age ≥75 years and 1 point for vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, or female sex) score were 2.8 ± 1.2 and 4.4 ± 1.7, respectively. History of hemorrhagic/bleeding tendencies (93%) was the most common reason for warfarin ineligibility. Mean duration of follow-up was 14.4 ± 8.6 months. Serious procedure- or device-related safety events occurred in 8.7% of patients (13 of 150 patients). All-cause stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4 patients (2.3% per year): ischemic stroke in 3 patients (1.7% per year) and hemorrhagic stroke in 1 patient (0.6% per year). This ischemic stroke rate was less than that expected (7.3% per year) based on the CHADS₂ scores of the patient cohort.
LAA closure with the Watchman device can be safely performed without a warfarin transition, and is a reasonable alternative to consider for patients at high risk for stroke but with contraindications to systemic oral anticoagulation. (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology ASAP; NCT00851578).
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has a unique safety profile when used to treat atrial fibrillation, largely related to its preferentiality for myocardial tissue ablation, in particular, esophageal ...sparing. A pentaspline catheter was the first such PFA system studied clinically for atrial fibrillation ablation; in these initial regulatory trials, the catheter was used for pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial posterior wall ablation. Since its regulatory approval in Europe, in clinical practice, physicians have ablated beyond pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial posterior wall ablation to expanded lesion sets in closer proximity to coronary arteries. This is an unstudied important issue because preclinical and clinical data have raised the potential for coronary arterial spasm. Herein, we studied the vasospastic potential of PFA lesion sets, both remote from and adjacent to coronary arteries.
During routine atrial fibrillation ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter, coronary angiography was performed before, during, and after pulsed field applications. The lesion sets studied included: (1) those remote from the coronary arteries such as pulmonary vein isolation (n=25 patients) and left atrial posterior wall ablation (n=5), and (2) ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (n=20) that is situated adjacent to the right coronary artery.
During pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial posterior wall ablation, coronary spasm did not occur, but cavotricuspid isthmus ablation provoked severe subtotal vasospasm in 5 of 5 (100%) consecutive patients, and this was relieved by intracoronary nitroglycerin in 5.5±3.5 minutes. ST-segment elevation was not observed. However, no patient (0%,
=0.004) had severe spasm if first administered parenteral nitroglycerin, either intracoronary (n=5) or intravenous (n=10), before treatment.
Coronary vasospasm was not provoked during PFA at locations remote from coronary arteries, but when the energy is delivered adjacent to a coronary artery, PFA routinely provokes subclinical vasospasm. This phenomenon is attenuated by nitroglycerin, administered either post hoc to treat spasm or as prophylaxis.
Unlike for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is considered insufficient for many patients with persistent AF. Adjunctive ablation of the left atrial posterior ...wall (LAPW) may improve outcomes, but is limited by both the difficulty of achieving lesion durability and concerns of damage to the esophagus—situated behind the LAPW.
This study sought to assess the safety and lesion durability of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for both PVI and LAPW ablation in persistent AF.
PersAFOne is a single-arm study evaluating biphasic, bipolar PFA using a multispline catheter for PVI and LAPW ablation under intracardiac echocardiographic guidance. A focal PFA catheter was used for cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. No esophageal protection strategy was used. Invasive remapping was mandated at 2 to 3 months to assess lesion durability.
In 25 patients, acute PVI (96 of 96 pulmonary veins PVs; mean ablation time: 22 min; interquartile range IQR: 15 to 29 min) and LAPW ablation (24 of 24 patients; median ablation time: 10 min; IQR: 6 to 13 min) were 100% acutely successful with the multispline PFA catheter alone. Using the focal PFA catheter, acute cavotricuspid isthmus block was achieved in 13 of 13 patients (median: 9 min; IQR: 6 to 12 min). The median total procedure time was 125 min (IQR: 108 to 166 min) (including a median of 28 min IQR: 25 to 33 min for voltage mapping), with a median of 16 min (IQR: 12 to 23 min) fluoroscopy. Post-procedure esophagogastroduodenoscopy and repeat cardiac computed tomography revealed no mucosal lesions or PV narrowing, respectively. Invasive remapping demonstrated durable isolation (defined by entrance block) in 82 of 85 PVs (96%) and 21 of 21 LAPWs (100%) treated with the pentaspline catheter. In 3 patients, there was localized scar regression of the LAPW ablation, albeit without conduction breakthrough.
The unique safety profile of PFA potentiated efficient, safe, and durable PVI and LAPW ablation. This extends the potential role of PFA beyond paroxysmal to persistent forms of AF. (Pulsed Fields for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation PersAFOne; NCT04170621)
Display omitted
PDF
