Multicentre safety of adding Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) to conventional ablation for atrial fibrillation

Aims Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) uses 64-electrode basket catheters to identify atrial fibrillation (AF)-sustaining sites for ablation, with promising results in many studies. Accordingly, new basket designs are being tested by several groups. We set out to determine the procedural safety of adding basket mapping and map-guided ablation to conventional pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Methods and results We collected 30 day procedural safety data in five US centres for consecutive patients undergoing FIRM plus PVI (FIRM-PVI) compared with contemporaneous controls undergoing PVI without FIRM. A total of 625 cases were included in this analysis: 325 FIRM-PVI and 300 PVI-controls. FIRM-PVI patients were more likely than PVI-controls to be male (83% vs. 66%, P < 0.001) and have long-standing persistent AF (26% vs. 13%, P < 0.001) reflecting patients referred for FIRM. Total ablation time was greater for FIRM-PVI (62 ± 22 min) vs. PVI-controls (52 ± 18 min, P = 0.03). The complication rate for FIRM-PVI procedures (4.3%) was similar to controls (4.0%, P = 1) for both major and minor complications; no deaths were reported. The rate of complications potentially attributable to the basket catheter was small and did not differ between basket types (Constellation 2.8% vs. FIRMap 1.8%, P = 0.7) or between cases in which basket catheters were and were not used (P = 0.5). Complication rates did not differ between centres (P = 0.6). Conclusions Procedural complications from the use of the basket catheters for AF mapping are low, and thus procedural safety appears similar between FIRM-PVI and PVI-controls in a large multicentre cohort. Future studies are required to determine the optimal approach to maximize the efficacy of FIRM-guided ablation

Comparative study of acute and mid-term complications with leadless and transvenous cardiac pacemakers

BACKGROUND: Leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs) aim to mitigate lead- and pocket-related complications seen with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare complications between the LCP cohort from the LEADLESS Pacemaker IDE Study (Leadless II) trial and a propensity score-matched real-world TVP cohort. METHODS: The multicenter LEADLESS II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Nanostim LCP (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) using structured follow-up, with serious adverse device effects independently adjudicated. TVP data were obtained from Truven Health MarketScan claims databases for patients implanted with single-chamber TVPs between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014 and more than 1 year of preimplant enrollment data. Comorbidities and complications were identified via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Short-term (≤1 months) and mid-term (\u3e1-18 months) complications were compared between the LCP cohort and a propensity score-matched subset of the TVP cohort. RESULTS: Among 718 patients with LCPs (mean age 75.6 ± 11.9 years; 62% men) and 1436 patients with TVPs (mean age 76.1 ± 12.3 years; 63% men), patients with LCPs experienced fewer complications (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.60; P \u3c .001), including short-term (5.8% vs 9.4%; P = .01) and mid-term (0.56% vs 4.9%; P \u3c .001) events. In the short-term time frame, patients with LCPs had more pericardial effusions (1.53% vs 0.35%; P = .005); similar rates of vascular events (1.11% vs 0.42%; P = .085), dislodgments (0.97% vs 1.39%; P = .54), and generator complications (0.70% vs 0.28%; P = .17); and no thoracic trauma compared to patients with TVPs (rate of thoracic trauma 3.27%). In short- and mid-term time frames, TVP events absent from the LCP group included lead-related, pocket-related, and infectious complications. CONCLUSION: Patients with LCPs experienced fewer overall short- and mid-term complications, including infectious and lead- and pocket-related events, but more pericardial effusions, which were uncommon but serious

Creation and Implementation of an Outpatient Pathway for Atrial Fibrillation in the Emergency Department Setting: Results of an Expert Panel.

Atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF) is a common condition among emergency department (ED) patients in the United States. Traditionally, ED care for primary complaints related to AF focus on rate control, and patients are often admitted to an inpatient setting for further care. Inpatient care may include further telemetry monitoring and diagnostic testing, rhythm control, a search for identification of AF etiology, and stroke prophylaxis. However, many patients are eligible for safe and effective outpatient management pathways. They are widely used in Canada and other countries but less widely adopted in the United States. In this project, we convened an expert panel to create a practical framework for the process of creating, implementing, and maintaining an outpatient AF pathway for emergency physicians to assess and treat AF patients, safely reduce hospitalization rates, ensure appropriate stroke prophylaxis, and effectively transition patients to longitudinal outpatient treatment settings from the ED and/or observation unit. To support local pathway creation, the panel also reached agreement on a protocol development plan, a sample pathway, consensus recommendations for pathway components, sample pathway metrics, and a structured literature review framework using a modified Delphi technique by a technical expert panel of emergency medicine, cardiology, and other stakeholder groups

Percutaneous implantation of an entirely intracardiac leadless pacemaker

BACKGROUND: Cardiac pacemakers are limited by device-related complications, notably infection and problems related to pacemaker leads. We studied a miniaturized, fully self-contained leadless pacemaker that is nonsurgically implanted in the right ventricle with the use of a catheter. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we implanted an active-fixation leadless cardiac pacemaker in patients who required permanent single-chamber ventricular pacing. The primary efficacy end point was both an acceptable pacing threshold (≤2.0 V at 0.4 msec) and an acceptable sensing amplitude (R wave ≥5.0 mV, or a value equal to or greater than the value at implantation) through 6 months. The primary safety end point was freedom from device-related serious adverse events through 6 months. In this ongoing study, the prespecified analysis of the primary end points was performed on data from the first 300 patients who completed 6 months of follow-up (primary cohort). The rates of the efficacy end point and safety end point were compared with performance goals (based on historical data) of 85% and 86%, respectively. Additional outcomes were assessed in all 526 patients who were enrolled as of June 2015 (the total cohort). RESULTS: The leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in 504 of the 526 patients in the total cohort (95.8%). The intention-to-treat primary efficacy end point was met in 270 of the 300 patients in the primary cohort (90.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0 to 93.2, P=0.007), and the primary safety end point was met in 280 of the 300 patients (93.3%; 95% CI, 89.9 to 95.9; P CONCLUSIONS: The leadless cardiac pacemaker met prespecified pacing and sensing requirements in the large majority of patients. Device-related serious adverse events occurred in approximately 1 in 15 patients. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; LEADLESS II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030418.)

Acute and early outcomes of focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided rotors-only ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation

Background Focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation targets sites that are thought to sustain atrial fibrillation (AF). Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute and mid-term outcomes of FIRM-guided only ablation in patients with nonparoxysmal AF. Methods We prospectively enrolled patients with persistent and long-standing persistent (LSP) AF at three centers to undergo FIRM-guided only ablation. We evaluated acute procedural success (defined as AF termination, organization, or ≥10% slowing), safety (incidence of periprocedural complications), and long-term success (single-procedure freedom from atrial tachycardia [AT]/AF off antiarrhythmic drugs [AAD] after a 2-month blanking period). Results Twenty-nine patients with persistent (N = 20) and LSP (N = 9) AF underwent FIRM mapping. Rotors were presents in all patients, with a mean of 4 ± 1.2 per patient (62% were left atrial); 1 focal impulse was identified. All sources were successfully ablated, and overall acute success rate was 41% (0 AF termination, 2 AF slowing, 10 AF organization). There were no major procedure-related adverse events. After a mean 5.7 months of follow-up, single-procedure freedom from AT/AF without AADs was 17%. Conclusion In nonparoxysmal AF patients, targeted ablation of FIRM-identified rotors is not effective in obtaining AF termination, organization, or slowing during the procedure. After mid-term follow-up, the strategy of ablating FIRM-identified rotors alone did not prevent recurrence from AT/AF

Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator

BACKGROUND The presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device has long been a contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We established a prospective registry to determine the risks associated with MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 tesla for patients who had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverterdefibrillator (ICD) that was "non-MRI-conditional" (i.e., not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MRI scanning). METHODS Patients in the registry were referred for clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at a field strength of 1.5 tesla. Devices were interrogated before and after MRI with the use of a standardized protocol and were appropriately reprogrammed before the scanning. The primary end points were death, generator or lead failure, induced arrhythmia, loss of capture, or electrical reset during the scanning. The secondary end points were changes in device settings. RESULTS MRI was performed in 1000 cases in which patients had a pacemaker and in 500 cases in which patients had an ICD. No deaths, lead failures, losses of capture, or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during MRI. One ICD generator could not be interrogated after MRI and required immediate replacement; the device had not been appropriately programmed per protocol before the MRI. We observed six cases of self-terminating atrial fibrillation or flutter and six cases of partial electrical reset. Changes in lead impedance, pacing threshold, battery voltage, and P-wave and R-wave amplitude exceeded prespecified thresholds in a small number of cases. Repeat MRI was not associated with an increase in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS In this study, device or lead failure did not occur in any patient with a non-MRIconditional pacemaker or ICD who underwent clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 tesla, was appropriately screened, and had the device reprogrammed in accordance with the prespecified protocol.St. Jude Medical; Biotronik; Boston Scientific; Hewitt Foundation for Medical Research6 month embargo; first published: February 23, 2017This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]