2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary.

S

2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary.

S

withdrawn 2017 hrs ehra ecas aphrs solaece expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

n/

Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), for which pre-clinical and early-stage clinical data are suggestive of some degree of preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation without damage to adjacent structures. Here in the MANIFEST-17K study we assessed the safety of PFA by studying the post-approval use of this treatment modality. Of the 116 centers performing post-approval PFA with a pentaspline catheter, data were received from 106 centers (91.4% participation) regarding 17,642 patients undergoing PFA (mean age 64, 34.7% female, 57.8% paroxysmal AF and 35.2% persistent AF). No esophageal complications, pulmonary vein stenosis or persistent phrenic palsy was reported (transient palsy was reported in 0.06% of patients; 11 of 17,642). Major complications, reported for ~1% of patients (173 of 17,642), were pericardial tamponade (0.36%; 63 of 17,642) and vascular events (0.30%; 53 of 17,642). Stroke was rare (0.12%; 22 of 17,642) and death was even rarer (0.03%; 5 of 17,642). Unexpected complications of PFA were coronary arterial spasm in 0.14% of patients (25 of 17,642) and hemolysis-related acute renal failure necessitating hemodialysis in 0.03% of patients (5 of 17,642). Taken together, these data indicate that PFA demonstrates a favorable safety profile by avoiding much of the collateral damage seen with conventional thermal ablation. PFA has the potential to be transformative for the management of patients with AF.Peer reviewe

Device therapy and hospital reimbursement practices across European countries: a heterogeneous scenario

As in other settings, in the field of clinical use of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), the implementation, in various ways, of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) has created new scenarios in most European healthcare systems. A DRG system is primarily a financial tool with the aim of promoting efficiency and improving utilization of resources. However, there are a variety of ways in which this system is used for funding the activity of centres implanting CIEDs. It is possible that the specific type and method of reimbursement may influence the implementation of CIEDs in the ‘real world’ through a variable spectrum of practices. These may range from the situation where reimbursement may, together with other factors, constitute a true barrier to the implementation of guidelines, to scenarios where reimbursement is adequate, and/or to situations where reimbursement may be adequate for standard devices but not for prompt implementation of effective technological innovations. The variety in reimbursement also affects how in-office checks of CIEDs are covered and, above all, the possibility to pay for remote follow-up of CIEDs. In the field of medical devices, refinement of DRG systems and adoption of new strategies and policies are needed to sustain and enhance those effective technological innovations that may be beneficial for specific patient populations. It is also important that physicians are deeply involved in the development and deployment of DRGs, and that each country DRGs agency has a transparent approach to engagement with stakeholders, along with robust and transparent mechanisms for updating these systems

Cabins, castles, and constant hearts: rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Recent innovations have the potential to improve rhythm control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Controlled trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness and safety of rhythm control therapy, particularly in patients with AF and heart failure. This review summarizes evidence supporting the use of rhythm control therapy in patients with AF for different outcomes, discusses implications for indications, and highlights remaining clinical gaps in evidence. Rhythm control therapy improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with symptomatic AF and can be safely delivered in elderly patients with comorbidities (mean age 70 years, 3-7% complications at 1 year). Atrial fibrillation ablation maintains sinus rhythm more effectively than antiarrhythmic drug therapy, but recurrent AF remains common, highlighting the need for better patient selection (precision medicine). Antiarrhythmic drugs remain effective after AF ablation, underpinning the synergistic mechanisms of action of AF ablation and antiarrhythmic drugs. Atrial fibrillation ablation appears to improve left ventricular function in a subset of patients with AF and heart failure. Data on the prognostic effect of rhythm control therapy are heterogeneous without a clear signal for either benefit or harm. Rhythm control therapy has acceptable safety and improves quality of life in patients with symptomatic AF, including in elderly populations with stroke risk factors. There is a clinical need to better stratify patients for rhythm control therapy. Further studies are needed to determine whether rhythm control therapy, and particularly AF ablation, improves left ventricular function and reduces AF-related complications

Impact of body mass index on the outcome of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

The association between obesity and atrial fibrillation (AF) is well-established. We aimed to evaluate the impact of index body mass index (BMI) on AF recurrence at 12 months following catheter ablation using propensity-weighted analysis. In addition, periprocedural complications and fluoroscopy details were examined to assess overall safety in relationship to increasing BMI ranges. Baseline, periprocedural and follow-up data were collected on consecutive patients scheduled for AF ablation. There were no specific exclusion criteria. Patients were categorised according to baseline BMI in order to assess the outcomes for each category. Among 3333 patients, 728 (21.8%) were classified as normal (BMI <25.0 kg/m), 1537 (46.1%) as overweight (BMI 25.5-29.0 kg/m) and 1068 (32.0%) as obese (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m). Procedural duration and radiation dose were higher for overweight and obese patients compared with those with a normal BMI (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively). An index BMI ≥30 kg/m led to a 1.2-fold increased likelihood of experiencing recurrent AF at 12-months follow-up as compared with overweight patients (HR 1.223; 95% CI 1.047 to 1.429; p=0.011), while no significant correlation was found between overweight and normal BMI groups (HR 0.954; 95% CI 0.798 to 1.140; p=0.605) and obese versus normal BMI (HR 1.16; 95% CI 0.965 to 1.412; p=0.112). Patients with a baseline BMI ≥30 kg/m have a higher recurrence rate of AF following catheter ablation and therefore lifestyle modification to target obesity preprocedure should be considered in these patients