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

Perioperative hematoma with subcutaneous ICD implantation: Impact of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies

BackgroundThe safety of perioperative anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) implantation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with hematoma complicating S‐ICD implantation.MethodsRecords were retrospectively reviewed from 200 consecutive patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation at two academic medical centers. A hematoma was defined as a device site blood accumulation requiring surgical evacuation, extended hospital stay, or transfusion.ResultsAmong 200 patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation (age 49 ± 17 years, 67% men), 10 patients (5%) had a hematoma, which required evacuation in six patients (3%). Warfarin was bridged or uninterrupted in 12 and 13 patients, respectively (6% and 6.5%). Four of 12 patients with warfarin and bridging AC (33%) and two of 13 patients with uninterrupted warfarin (15%) developed a hematoma. Neither of the two patients with uninterrupted DOAC had a hematoma. No patients on interrupted AC without bridging (n = 26, 13 with warfarin, 13 with DOAC) developed a hematoma. A hematoma was also more likely with the use of clopidogrel (n = 4/10 vs 10/190, 40% vs 5.3%, P < 0.0001) in combination with aspirin in 12/14 patients. Any bridging AC (odds ratio [OR] 10.3, 1.8–60.8, P = 0.01), clopidogrel (OR 10.0, 1.7–57.7, P = 0.01), and uninterrupted warfarin without bridging (OR 11.1, 1.7–74.3, P = 0.013) were independently associated with hematoma formation.ConclusionAC and/or AP therapy with clopidogrel appears to increase the risk for hematoma following S‐ICD implantation. Interruption of AC without bridging should be considered when it is an acceptable risk to hold AC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145383/1/pace13349_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145383/2/pace13349.pd

Perioperative hematoma with subcutaneous ICD implantation: Impact of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies

BackgroundThe safety of perioperative anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) implantation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with hematoma complicating S‐ICD implantation.MethodsRecords were retrospectively reviewed from 200 consecutive patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation at two academic medical centers. A hematoma was defined as a device site blood accumulation requiring surgical evacuation, extended hospital stay, or transfusion.ResultsAmong 200 patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation (age 49 ± 17 years, 67% men), 10 patients (5%) had a hematoma, which required evacuation in six patients (3%). Warfarin was bridged or uninterrupted in 12 and 13 patients, respectively (6% and 6.5%). Four of 12 patients with warfarin and bridging AC (33%) and two of 13 patients with uninterrupted warfarin (15%) developed a hematoma. Neither of the two patients with uninterrupted DOAC had a hematoma. No patients on interrupted AC without bridging (n = 26, 13 with warfarin, 13 with DOAC) developed a hematoma. A hematoma was also more likely with the use of clopidogrel (n = 4/10 vs 10/190, 40% vs 5.3%, P < 0.0001) in combination with aspirin in 12/14 patients. Any bridging AC (odds ratio [OR] 10.3, 1.8–60.8, P = 0.01), clopidogrel (OR 10.0, 1.7–57.7, P = 0.01), and uninterrupted warfarin without bridging (OR 11.1, 1.7–74.3, P = 0.013) were independently associated with hematoma formation.ConclusionAC and/or AP therapy with clopidogrel appears to increase the risk for hematoma following S‐ICD implantation. Interruption of AC without bridging should be considered when it is an acceptable risk to hold AC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145383/1/pace13349_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145383/2/pace13349.pd

Radiofrequency ablation of drug refractory ventricular tachycardia related to cocaine use: a feasibility, safety, and efficacy study.

BackgroundCocaine use is a known but rare cause of cardiac arrhythmias. Ventricular arrhythmias related to cocaine may not respond to antiarrhythmic drugs and may need treatment with radiofrequency ablation.ObjectivesWe describe the clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of cocaine-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) from a multicenter registry.MethodsSubjects presenting with VT related to cocaine use and being considered for radiofrequency ablation have been included in the study. Patients who were refractory to maximal medical therapy underwent radiofrequency ablation of the VT. Clinical, procedural variables, efficacy, and safety outcomes were assessed.ResultsA total of 14 subjects met study criteria (age 44 ± 13, range 18- to 68-year-old with 79% male, 71% Caucasian). MRI showed evidence of scar only in 43% of patients (6/14). The mechanism of VT was focal in 50% (n = 7) and scar related reentry in 50% (n = 7) based on 3D mapping. The mean VT cycle length was 429 ± 96 milliseconds. The site of origin was epicardial in 16% (3/18) of VTs. Most clinical VTs were hemodynamically stable (75%). Mean ejection fraction at the time of admission was 44 ± 14%. Duration of procedure was 289 ± 50 minutes. One subject developed pericardial tamponade requiring drainage. At 18 ± 11 months follow-up, freedom from arrhythmia was seen in 86% (1 case lost to follow-up and 2 died).ConclusionRadiofrequency ablation is not only feasible but also safe and effective in patients who have drug refractory VT related to chronic cocaine use

Initial real world experience with a novel insertable (Reveal LinQ(@Medtronic)) compared to the conventional (Reveal XT(@Medtronic)) implantable loop recorder at a tertiary care center - Points to ponder!

Limited data is available regarding the novel Reveal LinQ (LinQ) which is a new generation implantable loop recorders (ILRs)

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in ventricular tachycardia ablation: multicenter experience.

BackgroundData on relative safety, efficacy, and role of different percutaneous left ventricular assist devices for hemodynamic support during the ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation procedure are limited.Methods and resultsWe performed a multicenter, observational study from a prospective registry including all consecutive patients (N=66) undergoing VT ablation with a percutaneous left ventricular assist devices in 6 centers in the United States. Patients with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP group; N=22) were compared with patients with either an Impella or a TandemHeart device (non-IABP group; N=44). There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between both the groups. In non-IABP group (1) more patients could undergo entrainment/activation mapping (82% versus 59%; P=0.046), (2) more number of unstable VTs could be mapped and ablated per patient (1.05±0.78 versus 0.32±0.48; P&lt;0.001), (3) more number of VTs could be terminated by ablation (1.59±1.0 versus 0.91±0.81; P=0.007), and (4) fewer VTs were terminated with rescue shocks (1.9±2.2 versus 3.0±1.5; P=0.049) when compared with IABP group. Complications of the procedure trended to be more in the non-IABP group when compared with those in the IABP group (32% versus 14%; P=0.143). Intermediate term outcomes (mortality and VT recurrence) during 12±5-month follow-up were not different between both groups. Left ventricular ejection fraction ≤15% was a strong and independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (53% versus 4%; P&lt;0.001).ConclusionsImpella and TandemHeart use in VT ablation facilitates extensive activation mapping of several unstable VTs and requires fewer rescue shocks during the procedure when compared with using IABP