Meta-analysis of the influence of chronic kidney disease on the risk of thromboembolism among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist. However, the extent to which CKD increases the risk of thromboembolism in patients with nonvalvular AF and the benefits of anticoagulation in this group remain unclear. We addressed the role of CKD in the prediction of thromboembolic events and the impact of anticoagulation using a meta-analysis method. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane (from inception to January 2014). Three independent reviewers selected studies. Descriptive and quantitative information was extracted from each selected study and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. After screening 962 search results, 19 studies were considered eligible. Among patients with AF, the presence of CKD resulted in an increased risk of thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.76, p = 0.0001), particularly in case of end-stage CKD (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.14, p <0.00001). Warfarin decreased the incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with non-end-stage CKD (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86, p <0.00001). Recent data on novel oral anticoagulants suggested a higher efficacy of these agents compared with warfarin (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p = 0.02) and aspirin (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55, p <0.0001) in treating non-end-stage CKD. In conclusion, the presence of CKD in patients with AF is associated with an almost 50% increased thromboembolic risk, which can be effectively decreased with appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed to better evaluate the interest of anticoagulation in patients with severe CKD

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation and Reduction of Stroke Events: Understanding the Paradoxical Lack of Evidence

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent chronic arrhythmia and a major cause of stroke and mortality. It is thought to confer an overall 5-fold increased risk of a cerebrovascular event, causing ≈one-third of all ischemic strokes. Half of the 2 to 3 fold higher risk of mortality among AF patients is related to AF itself, not only via fatal progression of heart failure, the most frequent mode, but also sudden death and embolic events.1,2 Importantly, AF patients who suffer a cardioembolic stroke have a worse outcome compared with stroke patients without AF. Anticoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of a cerebrovascular event in AF patients. However, despite adequate anticoagulation, some patients remain at risk of stroke. Whether successful catheter ablation can reduce this risk remains unclear. Although there has not been any convincing evidence thus far that AF ablation leads to a reduction in the risk of stroke, no randomized study was powered to address this question. In this review article, we discuss the AF-stroke association, as well as the apparent lack of evidence supporting the use of ablation for the specific reduction of this end point

The use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices during the COVID-19 pandemic: an EHRA physician survey

It is unclear to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the use of remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The present physician-based European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey aimed to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on RM of CIEDs among EHRA members and how it changed the current practice. The survey comprised 27 questions focusing on RM use before and during the pandemic. Questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 on the frequency of in-office visits, data filtering, reasons for initiating in-person visits, underutilization of RM during COVID-19, and RM reimbursement. A total of 160 participants from 28 countries completed the survey. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the use of RM in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable loop recorders (ILRs) during the COVID-19 pandemic (PM 24.2 vs. 39.9%, P = 0.002; ILRs 61.5 vs. 73.5%, P = 0.028), while there was a trend towards higher utilization of RM for cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices during the pandemic (44.5 vs. 55%, P = 0.063). The use of RM with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) did not significantly change during the pandemic (ICD 65.2 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.408; CRT-D 65.2 vs. 68.8%, P = 0.513). The frequency of in-office visits was significantly lower during the pandemic (P < 0.001). Nearly two-thirds of participants (57 out of 87 respondents), established new RM connections for CIEDs implanted before the pandemic with 33.3% (n = 29) delivering RM transmitters to the patient's home address, and the remaining 32.1% (n = 28) activating RM connections during an in-office visit. The results of this survey suggest that the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to a significant increase in the use of RM of CIEDs

Association of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with mortality and stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Maintenance of sinus rhythm has been associated with lower mortality, but whether atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation per se benefits hard outcomes such as mortality and stroke is still debated. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether AF ablation is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and stroke compared with medical therapy alone. METHODS: Literature search looking for both randomized and observational studies comparing AF catheter ablation vs. medical management. Data pooled using random-effects. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) used as a measure of treatment effect. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and occurrence of cerebrovascular events during follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty studies were eligible for inclusion, comprising 78,966 patients (25,129 receiving AF ablation and 53,837 on medical treatment) and 233,990 patient-years of follow-up. The pooled data of studies revealed that ablation was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality: 5.7% vs. 17.9%; RR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.32–0.62, p < 0.001. In a sensitivity analysis by study design, a survival benefit of AF ablation was seen in randomized studies, with no heterogeneity (mortality risk 4.2% vs. 8.9%; RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.39–0.79, p = 0.001, I2= 0%), and also in observational studies, but with marked heterogeneity (6.1% vs. 18.3%; RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.26–0.59, p < 0.001, I2= 95%). The mortality benefit in randomized studies was mainly driven by trials performed in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and heart failure. The pooled risk of a cerebrovascular event was lower in patients receiving AF ablation (2.3% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.46–0.70, p < 0.001, I2= 62%), but no difference was seen in randomized trials (2.2% vs. 2.1%; RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.46–1.94, p = 0.87, I2= 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Ablation of atrial fibrillation associates with a survival benefit compared with medical treatment alone, although evidence is restricted to the setting of heart failure and LV systolic dysfunction

Effectiveness and safety of a single freeze strategy of cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation: an EHRA systematic review and meta-analysis

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) performed using a single freeze strategy in comparison to an empiric double ('bonus') freeze strategy. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to 12 July 2020, for prospective and retrospective studies of patients undergoing cryoballoon for paroxysmal or persistent AF comparing a single vs. bonus freeze strategy. The main outcome was atrial arrhythmia-free survival and eligible studies required at least 12 months of follow-up; the primary safety outcome was a composite of all complications. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Thirteen studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies) comprising 3163 patients were eligible for inclusion (64% males, 71.5% paroxysmal AF, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score 1.3 ± 0.9). There was no significant difference in pooled effectiveness between single freeze strategy compared to double freeze strategy [relative risk (RR) 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.07; I2 = 0%]. Single freeze procedures were associated with a significantly lower adverse event rate (RR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.53-0.98; I2 = 0%) and shorter average procedure time (90 ± 27 min vs. 121 ± 36 min, P < 0.001). A trend for lower risk of persistent phrenic nerve palsy was observed (RR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37-1.01; I2 = 0%). The quality of included studies was moderate/good, with no evidence of significant publication bias. Single freeze strategy for cryoballoon of AF is as effective as an empiric double ('bonus') freeze strategy while appearing safer and probably quicker

Do women benefit equally as men from the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?

Women traditionally have been and are still underrepresented in research in many important areas of cardiology, and guideline recommendations which also encompass women are mostly based on research conducted predominantly in men. However, there is plausible cause to believe that sex may have a potential influence on the benefit derived from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), alone or in association with cardiac resynchronization therapy. We assessed the possible relationship between sex and outcome with ICD implantation in the setting of primary prevention, by pooling the results of MUSTT, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, COMPANION, SCD-HeFT and DANISH trials in a meta-analysis. We pooled results for female and male patients separately. The results suggest that women as a group do not seem to obtain a significant survival benefit from the primary prevention ICD, contrary to men. This in turn may also have contributed to a relative underestimation of the ICD benefit among males when looking at the results in total. It is time for the medical and research communities to actively question the presumed overarching benefit of ICDs irrespective of sex and engage in systematic scientific efforts to definitively evaluate the value of this intervention in women

Long-term clinical effects of ventricular pacing reduction with a changeover mode to minimize ventricular pacing in a general pacemaker population

AIM: Right ventricular pacing (VP) has been hypothesized to increase the risk in heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF). The ANSWER study evaluated, whether an AAI-DDD changeover mode to minimize VP (SafeR) improves outcome compared with DDD in a general dual-chamber pacemaker population. METHODS AND RESULTS: ANSWER was a randomized controlled multicentre trial assessing SafeR vs. standard DDD in sinus node disease (SND) or AV block (AVB) patients. After a 1-month run-in period, they were randomized (1 : 1) and followed for 3 years. Pre-specified co-primary end-points were VP and the composite of hospitalization for HF, AF, or cardioversion. Pre-specified secondary end-points were cardiac death or HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations. ANSWER enrolled 650 patients (52.0% SND, 48% AVB) at 43 European centres and randomized in SafeR (n = 314) or DDD (n = 318). The SafeR mode showed a significant decrease in VP compared with DDD (11.5 vs. 93.6%, P < 0.0001 at 3 years). Deaths and syncope did not differ between randomization arms. No significant difference between groups [HR = 0.78; 95% CI (0.48-1.25); P = 0.30] was found in the time to event of the co-primary composite of hospitalization for HF, AF, or cardioversion, nor in the individual components. SafeR showed a 51% risk reduction (RR) in experiencing cardiac death or HF hospitalization [HR = 0.49; 95% CI (0.27-0.90); P = 0.02] and 30% RR in experiencing cardiovascular hospitalizations [HR = 0.70; 95% CI (0.49-1.00); P = 0.05]. CONCLUSION: SafeR safely and significantly reduced VP in a general pacemaker population though had no effect on hospitalization for HF, AF, or cardioversion, when compared with DDD