Atrial flutter: from ECG to electroanatomical 3D mapping

Atrial flutter is a common arrhythmia that may cause significant symptoms, including palpitations, dyspnea, chest pain and even syncope. Frequently it’s possible to diagnose atrial flutter with a 12-lead surface ECG, looking for distinctive waves in leads II, III, aVF, aVL, V1,V2. Puech and Waldo developed the first classification of atrial flutter in the 1970s. These authors divided the arrhythmia into type I and type II. Therefore, in 2001 the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology developed a new classification of atrial flutter, based not only on the ECG, but also on the electrophysiological mechanism. New developments in endocardial mapping, including the electroanatomical 3D mapping system, have greatly expanded our understanding of the mechanism of arrhythmias. More recently, Scheinman et al, provided an updated classification and nomenclature. The terms like common, uncommon, typical, reverse typical or atypical flutter are abandoned because they may generate confusion. The authors worked out a new terminology, which differentiates atrial flutter only on the basis of electrophysiological mechanism

PROGNOSTIC IMPACT OF DISCORDANT VERSUS CONCORDANT LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH BLOCK IN HEART FAILURE PATIENTS UNDERGOING CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY

n/

Clinical discussions in antithrombotic therapy management in patients with atrial fibrillation: a delphi consensus panel

n/

CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores to predict morbidity and mortality in heart failure patients candidates to cardiac resynchronization therapy

AimsCHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores are pivotal in assessing the risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation patients, and were recently proved to predict hospitalizations and mortality in specific clinical settings. Aim of this study was to evaluate whether these scores could predict clinical outcomes [first hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and a combined event of HF hospitalization and death for any cause] in patients candidates to cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable defibrillator (CRT-D).Methods and resultsIn a retrospective multicentre Italian study, we enrolled 559 consecutive HF patients candidates to CRT-D, and we grouped them in three pre-specified risk classes: low (CHADS2/CHA2DS 2-VASc 1-2), moderate (CHADS2/CHA2DS 2-VASc 3-4), and high (CHADS2 5-6/CHA2DS 2-VASc 5-8). All patients underwent regular follow-up at implanting centres every 6 months; data collection was extended till the 72th month of follow-up. At a median FU of 30 months, 143 patients (25.4%) were hospitalized for HF and 110 (19.5%) died. Event-free survival analysis showed a significant difference according to baseline CHADS2 and CHA2DS 2-VASc scores (Log-Rank for HF P < 0.001 for CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc; Log-Rank for combined end-point P = 0.001 for CHADS2, P < 0.001 for CHA2DS2-VASc). At multivariate analysis, independent predictors of endpoints were: previous atrial fibrillation (AF) or AF at implant, NYHA class, QRS duration and the CHA 2DS2-VASc score (for HF hospitalization P = 0.013; for the combined event, P = 0.007), while the CHADS2 score was not independently associated with either the end-points.ConclusionIn CRT-D patients, pre-implant CHA2DS2-VASc score is an independent predictor of major clinical events at 30-month follow-up. © 2013 The Author

Prognostic Impact of QRS Axis Deviation in Patients Treated with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Prognosis of QRS Axis Deviation in CRT-D Introduction QRS duration and morphology are currently recognized as recommended criteria for the selection of CRT candidates. It has recently been shown that patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) derive substantial clinical benefit from CRT. The aim of this study is to investigate the prognostic impact of QRS axis deviation (AD) in HF patients with LBBB undergoing CRT. Methods and Results We retrospectively evaluated 707 HF patients with LBBB who underwent CRT at five centers. Baseline QRS axis was defined as normal (NA: -30° to 90°), right axis deviation (RAD: 90° to 180°) and left axis deviation (LAD: <-30°). The primary endpoint was a composite of all cause death/HF hospitalization. The risk of endpoint by AD was evaluated with both Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard analysis. Among 707 patients (73% M, median age: 71 [62,77] years), 323 (46%) had NA, 359 (51%) LAD, and 25 (3.5%) RAD. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the three groups. Over a mean follow-up of 32 ± 25 months, 141 deaths occurred (21%) and 36% (n = 255) met with the composite endpoint. A significantly higher proportion of RAD patients (52%) reached the endpoint (LAD 40%, NA 30%). KM analysis showed that RAD and LAD patients had worse event free survival and in multivariate analysis both LAD (HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.05-1.86; P = 0.021) and RAD (HR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.31-4.74; P = 0.005) were independently associated with worse clinical outcome. Conclusions Right or left axis deviation in the presence of LBBB in HF patients undergoing CRT are independent predictors of poor prognosis

Impact of prior statin use on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients: data from tertiary referral hospitals during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy

AIMS: Epidemiological evidence suggests that anti-inflammatory and immuno-modulatory properties of statins may reduce the risk of infections and infection-related complications. In this observational multi-centre study, we aimed to assess the impact of prior statin use on coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 were considered and enrolled in four tertiary referral hospitals (Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan; Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome; Spedali Civili Hospital, Brescia; Humanitas Gavazzeni Hospital; Bergamo) From 23 February 2020 to 31 March 2020, in-hospital mortality and severity of COVID-19 assessed with National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were deemed primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Among 842 patients enrolled, 179 (21%) were treated with statins before admission. Statin patients showed more comorbidities and more severe COVID-19 [NEWS 4 (IQR: 2–6) vs. 3 (IQR: 2–5), P < 0.001]. Despite having similar rates of intensive care unit admission, noninvasive ventilation, and mechanical ventilation, statin users appeared to show higher mortality rates. After balancing pre-existing relevant clinical conditions that could affect COVID-19 prognosis with propensity score matching, statin therapy confirmed its association with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥ 5; 61% vs. 48%, P = 0.025) but not with in-hospital mortality (26% vs. 28%, P = 0.185). At univariate logistic regression analysis, statin use was confirmed not to be associated with mortality (OR: 0.901; 95% CI: 0.537–1.51; P = 0.692) and to be associated with a more severe disease (NEWS ≥ 5 OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.067–2.71; P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Our results did not confirm the supposed favourable effects of statin therapy on COVID-19 outcomes. Conversely, they suggest that statin use should be considered as a proxy of underlying comorbidities, which indeed expose to increased risks of more severe COVID-19