Feasibility and Safety of Uninterrupted Rivaroxaban for Periprocedural Anticoagulation in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Results From a Multicenter Prospective Registry

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of uninterrupted rivaroxaban therapy during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.BackgroundOptimal periprocedural anticoagulation strategy is essential for minimizing bleeding and thromboembolic complications during and after AF ablation. The safety and efficacy of uninterrupted rivaroxaban therapy as a periprocedural anticoagulant for AF ablation are unknown.MethodsWe performed a multicenter, observational, prospective study of a registry of patients undergoing AF ablation in 8 centers in North America. Patients taking uninterrupted periprocedural rivaroxaban were matched by age, sex, and type of AF with an equal number of patients taking uninterrupted warfarin therapy who were undergoing AF ablation during the same period.ResultsA total of 642 patients were included in the study, with 321 in each group. Mean age was 63 ± 10 years, with 442 (69%) males and 328 (51%) patients with paroxysmal AF equally distributed between the 2 groups. Patients in the warfarin group had a slightly higher mean HAS- BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) score (1.70 ± 1.0 vs. 1.47 ± 0.9, respectively; p = 0.032). Bleeding and embolic complications occurred in 47 (7.3%) and 2 (0.3%) patients (both had transient ischemic attacks) respectively. There were no differences in the number of major bleeding complications (5 [1.6%] vs. 7 [1.9%], respectively; p = 0.772), minor bleeding complications (16 [5.0%] vs. 19 [5.9%], respectively; p = 0.602), or embolic complications (1 [0.3%] vs. 1 [0.3%], respectively; p = 1.0) between the rivaroxaban and warfarin groups in the first 30 days.ConclusionsUninterrupted rivaroxaban therapy appears to be as safe and efficacious in preventing bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing AF ablation as uninterrupted warfarin therapy

Multicenter experience with extraction of the Riata/Riata ST ICD lead

In November 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued a class I recall of Riata and Riata ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Management recommendations regarding the recall have remained controversial. Data regarding the safety and feasibility of extraction of Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are limited. We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing extraction of Riata/Riata ST leads at 11 centers. Between July 2003 and April 2013, 577 Riata/Riata ST leads were extracted from 577 patients (Riata 467, [84%]; Riata ST 89, [16%]). Complete procedural success achieved in 99.1%. The cohort was 78% men, with a mean age of 60 years and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34% ± 14%. The mean implant duration was 44.7 months (range 0-124.6 months). The majority of leads extracted were for infection (305 [53.0%]) and 220 (35.7%) for lead malfunction. Evaluation for lead integrity was performed in 295 cases. Of these, 34.9% were found to have externalized cables. Implant duration was significantly longer in leads with externalized cables (P < .0001). No difference in lead integrity was noted between Riata and Riata ST leads (11.7% vs. 17.7% failure; P = .23). Among leads in which cable externalization was noted, laser sheaths were used more frequently (P = .01). Major complications included 3 superior vena cava/right ventricular perforations requiring surgical intervention with 1 death 12 days after the procedure and 1 pericardial effusion requiring percutaneous drainage (0.87%). Extraction of the Riata/Riata ST leads can be challenging, and leads with externalized cables may require specific extraction techniques. Extraction of the Riata/Riata ST leads can be performed safely by experienced operators at high-volume centers with a complication rate comparable to published data