Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation is typically performed with uninterrupted anticoagulation with warfarin or interrupted non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant therapy. Uninterrupted ...anticoagulation with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant, such as dabigatran, may be safer; however, controlled data are lacking. We investigated the safety of uninterrupted dabigatran versus warfarin in patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation.
In this randomized, open-label, multicenter, controlled trial with blinded adjudicated end-point assessments, we randomly assigned patients scheduled for catheter ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation to receive either dabigatran (150 mg twice daily) or warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0). Ablation was performed after 4 to 8 weeks of uninterrupted anticoagulation, which was continued during and for 8 weeks after ablation. The primary end point was the incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation; secondary end points included thromboembolic and other bleeding events.
The trial enrolled 704 patients across 104 sites; 635 patients underwent ablation. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. The incidence of major bleeding events during and up to 8 weeks after ablation was lower with dabigatran than with warfarin (5 patients 1.6% vs. 22 patients 6.9%; absolute risk difference, -5.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -8.4 to -2.2; P<0.001). Dabigatran was associated with fewer periprocedural pericardial tamponades and groin hematomas than warfarin. The two treatment groups had a similar incidence of minor bleeding events. One thromboembolic event occurred in the warfarin group.
In patients undergoing ablation for atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation with uninterrupted dabigatran was associated with fewer bleeding complications than uninterrupted warfarin. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-CIRCUIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02348723 .).
Catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation is an effective treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pulsed field ablation, which delivers microsecond high-voltage electrical fields, may limit ...damage to tissues outside the myocardium. The efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation as compared with conventional thermal ablation are not known.
In this randomized, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we assigned patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to undergo pulsed field ablation or conventional radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety end point included acute and chronic device- and procedure-related serious adverse events.
A total of 305 patients were assigned to undergo pulsed field ablation, and 302 were assigned to undergo thermal ablation. At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point was met (i.e., no events occurred) in 204 patients (estimated probability, 73.3%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 194 patients (estimated probability, 71.3%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -5.2 to 9.2; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Primary safety end-point events occurred in 6 patients (estimated incidence, 2.1%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 4 patients (estimated incidence, 1.5%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 0.6 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -1.5 to 2.8; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999).
Among patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation receiving a catheter-based therapy, pulsed field ablation was noninferior to conventional thermal ablation with respect to freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation and with respect to device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 year. (Funded by Farapulse-Boston Scientific; ADVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04612244.).
Antiarrhythmic therapy is commonly used for suppression of arrhythmias in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) in conjunction with implantable ...cardioverter-defibrillators and catheter ablation. The efficacy of combination flecainide and sotalol/metoprolol therapy for patients refractory to single agents and/or catheter ablation has not been well established.
The purpose of this study was to describe our experience with the addition of flecainide in combination with sotalol/metoprolol for treatment of arrhythmias in patients with ARVC.
We reviewed all patients within our genetic arrhythmia program with a definite diagnosis of ARVC (45 patients) and identified 8 patients treated with a combination of flecainide with sotalol/metoprolol after failure of single-agent therapy and/or catheter ablation. These patients were monitored with at least yearly clinic visits and device interrogations focused on the detection of major ventricular arrhythmias.
Of the 8 patients reviewed, 6 demonstrated excellent arrhythmia control after initiation of combination therapy with flecainide and sotalol/metoprolol. These patients have been arrhythmia-free for an average of 35.5 months. Two patients have demonstrated recurrent arrhythmias despite combination therapy and have undergone repeat epicardial and endocardial ablation. Recurrence was noted to occur within 2 months of therapy. Patients were diverse with regard to the severity of disease as well as in the presence of genetic mutations.
The addition of flecainide in combination with sotalol/metoprolol may be an effective antiarrhythmic strategy for the control of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with ARVC refractory to single-agent therapy and/or catheter ablation.
The pathophysiology of cardiomyopathy associated with premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) remains unclear.
This study prospectively explored cardiomyopathy development in a swine model of paced ...ectopic beats.
A total of 35 swine underwent pacemaker implantation. A group exposed to paced bigeminy from the right ventricular apex (RVA) for 14 weeks (RVA PVC) (n = 10) were compared with a group exposed to regular pacing from the RVA at 140 beats/min (RV-140) (n = 5) and a control group (n = 5). To test the role of ectopic beat dyssynchrony, further groups were exposed for 12 weeks to bigeminy from the right ventricular free wall (RVFW PVC) (n = 5), the left ventricular epicardium (LV Epi PVC) (n = 5) or the right atrium (premature atrial complex) (n = 5).
After 14 weeks, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly lower in the RVA PVC group than in the RV-140 or control groups (p < 0.05). LVEF declined significantly in the LV Epi PVC (65.2 ± 2.4% to 39.7 ± 3.0%; p < 0.01) and RVFW PVC (66.1 ± 2.6% to 48.6 ± 2.7%; p < 0.01) groups, with final LVEF significantly lower and ventricular fibrosis significantly higher in the LV Epi PVC group compared with all others (p < 0.05). Protein levels of pRyR2, NCX-1, CaMKII-α, and PLN were up-regulated and levels of SERCA2a were down-regulated in the LV Epi PVC group compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Longer ectopic beat QRS duration and greater LV dyssynchrony were significantly associated with larger declines in LV systolic function.
In a swine model of paced ectopic beats, PVC-induced cardiomyopathy is phenotypically distinct from a tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. Cardiomyopathy severity is strongly associated with severity of the hemodynamic derangement associated with the paced ectopic beats, particularly the extent of LV dyssynchrony.
Display omitted
PDF
