Changes in quality of life, cognition and functional status following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Objective To investigate changes in quality of life (QoL), cognition and functional status according to arrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods We compared QoL, cognition and functional status in patients with recurrent atrial tachycardia (AT)/AF versus those without recurrent AT/AF in the AXAFA-AFNET 5 clinical trial. We also sought to identify factors associated with improvement in QoL and functional status following AF ablation by overall change scores with and without analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Results Among 518 patients who underwent AF ablation, 154 (29.7%) experienced recurrent AT/AF at 3 months. Patients with recurrent AT/AF had higher mean CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc scores (2.8 vs 2.3, p Conclusions Patients without recurrent AT/AF appear to experience greater improvement in functional status but similar QoL as those with recurrent AT/AF after AF ablation

Contractility sensor-guided optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the RESPOND-CRT trial

Aims Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) and a wide QRS interval, a substantial proportion of patients remain non-responsive. The SonR contractility sensor embedded in the right atrial lead enables individualized automatic optimization of the atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular (VV) timings. The RESPOND-CRT study investigated the safety and efficacy of the contractility sensor system in HF patients undergoing CRT. Methods and results RESPOND-CRT was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. Patients were randomized (2:1, respectively) to receive weekly, automatic CRT optimization with SonR vs. an Echo-guided optimization of AV and VV timings. The primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of clinical responders (patients alive, without adjudicated HF-related events, with improvement in New York Heart Association class or quality of life), at 12 months. The study randomized 998 patients. Responder rates were 75.0% in the SonR arm and 70.4% in the Echo arm (mean difference, 4.6%; 95% CI, −1.4% to 10.6%; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority margin −10.0%) (Table 2). At an overall mean follow-up of 548 ± 190 days SonR was associated with a 35% risk reduction in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46–0.92; log-rank P = 0.01). Conclusion: Automatic AV and VV optimization using the contractility sensor was safe and as effective as Echo-guided AV and VV optimization in increasing response to CRT. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT0153423

Randomized evaluation of redo ablation procedures of atrial fibrillation with focal impulse and rotor modulation-guided procedures: the REDO-FIRM study

Aims REDO-FIRM evaluated safety and effectiveness of conventional vs. focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation of recurrent persistent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) after an initial AF ablation procedure. Methods This prospective, multicentre, randomized study included patients with a single prior AF ablation, but with recurrent AF and reconnected pulmonary veins (PVs). Conventional ablation generally included PV re-isolation; however, additional ablation was permitted per physician discretion. In the FIRM arm, beyond PV re-isolation, basket catheter-based FIRM mapping created dynamic animations of putative rotors, which were targeted for ablation. Results Between May 2016 and July 2019, 269 subjects were randomized, with 243 subjects completing 12-month follow-up. Ablation beyond re-pulmonary vein isolation, the FIRM vs. Conventional arms did not differ significantly: cavo-tricuspid isthmus -9.0% vs. 15.3%, caval vein isolation -1.5% vs. 0.8%, non-PV trigger -2.2% vs. 3.8%, other -11.9% vs. 13.0%. Single procedure 12-month freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter-recurrence was 63.3% (76/120) vs. 59.0% (72/122) in the FIRM and Conventional arms (P = 0.3503). Efficacy was similar in the paroxysmal and persistent AF subgroups (P = 0.22 and P = 0.48). The 10-day and 12-month safety endpoints were achieved in 93.3% vs. 93.8% (P = 0.89) and 88.4% vs. 93.4% (P = 0.22) in the FIRM and Conventional arms, respectively. Conclusions In REDO-FIRM, as compared to standard ablation, FIRM-guided ablation did not provide additional efficacy in redo ablation procedures, but FIRM-guided ablation was equally safe. Additional studies are necessary to identify any potential population able to benefit from FIRM-guided ablation

Electrophysiology lab efficiency comparison between cryoballoon and point-by-point radiofrequency ablation: a German sub-analysis of the FREEZE Cohort study

Abstract Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is recommended to treat paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). This analysis aimed to assess the hospital efficiency of single-shot cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and point-by-point radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Methods The discrete event simulation used PVI procedure times from the FREEZE Cohort study to establish the electrophysiology (EP) lab occupancy time. 1000 EP lab days were simulated according to an illustrative German hospital, including 3 PVI cases per day using CBA at one site and RFA at the other. Results The analysis included 1560 CBA patients and 1344 RFA patients from the FREEZE Cohort. Some baseline patients’ characteristics were different between groups (age, AF type, and some concomitant diseases), without being statistically associated to ablation procedure time. Mean procedure time was 122.2 ± 39.4 min for CBA and 160.3 ± 53.5 min for RFA (p < 0.0001). RFA was associated with a more than five-fold increase of cumulative overtime compared to CBA over the simulated period (1285 h with RFA and 253 h with CBA). 70.7% of RFA lab days included overtime versus 25.7% for CBA. CBA was associated with more days with an additional hour at the end of the EP lab shift compared to RFA (47.8% vs 11.5% days with one hour left, respectively). Conclusion CBA is faster and more predictable than point-by-point RFA, and enables improvements in EP lab efficiency, including: fewer cumulative overtime hours, more days where overtime is avoided and more days with remaining time for the staff or for any EP lab usage. Clinical trial registration NCT01360008 (first registration 25/05/2011)

Internal Versus External Electrical Cardioversion of Atrial Arrhythmia in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Atrial arrhythmias are common in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). External shocks and internal cardioversion through commanded ICD shock for electrical cardioversion are used for rhythm-control. However, there is a paucity of data on efficacy of external versus internal cardioversion and on the risk of lead and device malfunction. We hypothesized that external cardioversion is noninferior to internal cardioversion for safety, and superior for successful restoration of sinus rhythm. Methods: Consecutive patients with ICD undergoing elective cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias at 13 centers were randomized in 1:1 fashion to either internal or external cardioversion. The primary safety end point was a composite of surrogate events of lead or device malfunction. Conversion of atrial arrhythmia to sinus rhythm was the primary efficacy end point. Myocardial damage was studied by measuring troponin release in both groups. Results: N=230 patients were randomized. Shock efficacy was 93% in the external cardioversion group and 65% in the internal cardioversion group (P<0.001). Clinically relevant adverse events caused by external or internal cardioversion were not observed. Three cases of pre-existing silent lead malfunction were unmasked by internal shock, resulting in lead failure. Troponin release did not differ between groups. Conclusions: This is the first randomized trial on external vs internal cardioversion in patients with ICDs. External cardioversion was superior for the restoration of sinus rhythm. The unmasking of silent lead malfunction in the internal cardioversion group suggests that an internal shock attempt may be reasonable in selected ICD patients presenting for electrical cardioversion