Meta-analysis of the influence of chronic kidney disease on the risk of thromboembolism among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist. However, the extent to which CKD increases the risk of thromboembolism in patients with nonvalvular AF and the benefits of anticoagulation in this group remain unclear. We addressed the role of CKD in the prediction of thromboembolic events and the impact of anticoagulation using a meta-analysis method. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane (from inception to January 2014). Three independent reviewers selected studies. Descriptive and quantitative information was extracted from each selected study and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. After screening 962 search results, 19 studies were considered eligible. Among patients with AF, the presence of CKD resulted in an increased risk of thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20 to 1.76, p = 0.0001), particularly in case of end-stage CKD (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.14, p <0.00001). Warfarin decreased the incidence of thromboembolic events in patients with non-end-stage CKD (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.86, p <0.00001). Recent data on novel oral anticoagulants suggested a higher efficacy of these agents compared with warfarin (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p = 0.02) and aspirin (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.55, p <0.0001) in treating non-end-stage CKD. In conclusion, the presence of CKD in patients with AF is associated with an almost 50% increased thromboembolic risk, which can be effectively decreased with appropriate antithrombotic therapy. Further prospective studies are needed to better evaluate the interest of anticoagulation in patients with severe CKD

Atrial Fibrillation Ablation and Reduction of Stroke Events: Understanding the Paradoxical Lack of Evidence

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent chronic arrhythmia and a major cause of stroke and mortality. It is thought to confer an overall 5-fold increased risk of a cerebrovascular event, causing ≈one-third of all ischemic strokes. Half of the 2 to 3 fold higher risk of mortality among AF patients is related to AF itself, not only via fatal progression of heart failure, the most frequent mode, but also sudden death and embolic events.1,2 Importantly, AF patients who suffer a cardioembolic stroke have a worse outcome compared with stroke patients without AF. Anticoagulation has been shown to reduce the risk of a cerebrovascular event in AF patients. However, despite adequate anticoagulation, some patients remain at risk of stroke. Whether successful catheter ablation can reduce this risk remains unclear. Although there has not been any convincing evidence thus far that AF ablation leads to a reduction in the risk of stroke, no randomized study was powered to address this question. In this review article, we discuss the AF-stroke association, as well as the apparent lack of evidence supporting the use of ablation for the specific reduction of this end point

The use of remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices during the COVID-19 pandemic: an EHRA physician survey

It is unclear to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the use of remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The present physician-based European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey aimed to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on RM of CIEDs among EHRA members and how it changed the current practice. The survey comprised 27 questions focusing on RM use before and during the pandemic. Questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 on the frequency of in-office visits, data filtering, reasons for initiating in-person visits, underutilization of RM during COVID-19, and RM reimbursement. A total of 160 participants from 28 countries completed the survey. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the use of RM in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable loop recorders (ILRs) during the COVID-19 pandemic (PM 24.2 vs. 39.9%, P = 0.002; ILRs 61.5 vs. 73.5%, P = 0.028), while there was a trend towards higher utilization of RM for cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices during the pandemic (44.5 vs. 55%, P = 0.063). The use of RM with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) did not significantly change during the pandemic (ICD 65.2 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.408; CRT-D 65.2 vs. 68.8%, P = 0.513). The frequency of in-office visits was significantly lower during the pandemic (P < 0.001). Nearly two-thirds of participants (57 out of 87 respondents), established new RM connections for CIEDs implanted before the pandemic with 33.3% (n = 29) delivering RM transmitters to the patient's home address, and the remaining 32.1% (n = 28) activating RM connections during an in-office visit. The results of this survey suggest that the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to a significant increase in the use of RM of CIEDs

Association of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with mortality and stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Maintenance of sinus rhythm has been associated with lower mortality, but whether atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation per se benefits hard outcomes such as mortality and stroke is still debated. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether AF ablation is associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality and stroke compared with medical therapy alone. METHODS: Literature search looking for both randomized and observational studies comparing AF catheter ablation vs. medical management. Data pooled using random-effects. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) used as a measure of treatment effect. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and occurrence of cerebrovascular events during follow-up, respectively. RESULTS: Thirty studies were eligible for inclusion, comprising 78,966 patients (25,129 receiving AF ablation and 53,837 on medical treatment) and 233,990 patient-years of follow-up. The pooled data of studies revealed that ablation was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality: 5.7% vs. 17.9%; RR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.32–0.62, p < 0.001. In a sensitivity analysis by study design, a survival benefit of AF ablation was seen in randomized studies, with no heterogeneity (mortality risk 4.2% vs. 8.9%; RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.39–0.79, p = 0.001, I2= 0%), and also in observational studies, but with marked heterogeneity (6.1% vs. 18.3%; RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.26–0.59, p < 0.001, I2= 95%). The mortality benefit in randomized studies was mainly driven by trials performed in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and heart failure. The pooled risk of a cerebrovascular event was lower in patients receiving AF ablation (2.3% vs. 5.5%; RR = 0.57, 95% CI 0.46–0.70, p < 0.001, I2= 62%), but no difference was seen in randomized trials (2.2% vs. 2.1%; RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.46–1.94, p = 0.87, I2= 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Ablation of atrial fibrillation associates with a survival benefit compared with medical treatment alone, although evidence is restricted to the setting of heart failure and LV systolic dysfunction

Do women benefit equally as men from the primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator?

Women traditionally have been and are still underrepresented in research in many important areas of cardiology, and guideline recommendations which also encompass women are mostly based on research conducted predominantly in men. However, there is plausible cause to believe that sex may have a potential influence on the benefit derived from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), alone or in association with cardiac resynchronization therapy. We assessed the possible relationship between sex and outcome with ICD implantation in the setting of primary prevention, by pooling the results of MUSTT, MADIT-II, DEFINITE, COMPANION, SCD-HeFT and DANISH trials in a meta-analysis. We pooled results for female and male patients separately. The results suggest that women as a group do not seem to obtain a significant survival benefit from the primary prevention ICD, contrary to men. This in turn may also have contributed to a relative underestimation of the ICD benefit among males when looking at the results in total. It is time for the medical and research communities to actively question the presumed overarching benefit of ICDs irrespective of sex and engage in systematic scientific efforts to definitively evaluate the value of this intervention in women

Impact of QTc formulae in the prevalence of short corrected QT interval and impact on probability and diagnosis of short QT syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of short corrected QT (QTc) intervals and its impact on short QT syndrome (SQTS) diagnosis using different QT correction formulae. METHODS: Observational study. The prevalence of short QTc intervals was estimated using four different QT correction formulae in 14 662 young adults from the 'Sudden Cardiac Death Screening of Risk FactOrS' (SCD-SOS) cohort. Then, using data from this cohort and the pooled-cohort analysed by Gollob et al, comprising 61 patients with SQTS, we assessed the impact of the different QTc correction formulae on SQTS probability and diagnosis based on the Expert Consensus recommendations (QTc ≤330 ms or QTc 330-360 ms+1 additional risk feature). RESULTS: The prevalence of individuals with a QTc ≤330 and ≤320 ms in the SCD-SOS cohort was extremely low (≤0.07% and≤0.02%, respectively), and these were more frequently identified by the Framingham correction. The different QTc correction formulae led to a shift in SQTS probability in 5%-10% of individuals in both the SCD-SOS and Gollob cohort). Intermediate probability individuals were rare (<0.1%), and no high-SQTS probability individuals were identified in the SCD-SOS cohort. Based on Consensus criteria, instead of 12 (0.08%) individuals being diagnosed with SQTS using the Bazett equation, a different number of individuals would meet diagnostic criteria with the other formulae: 11 (0.08%) using Fridericia, 9 (0.06%) with Hodges and 16 (0.11%) using the Framingham equation. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of SQTS in the apparently healthy adult population is low. Applying different QTc correction formulae leads to significant reclassification of SQTS probability and their impact on predicting outcomes should be assessed

Cause-of-death analysis in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without a defibrillator: A systematic review and proportional meta-analysis

AIMS: The additional benefit of a defibrillator in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients is a matter of debate. Cause-of-death analysis in a CRT population has been recently proposed as a useful approach to gain insight into this problem. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at cause of death in studies involving CRT subjects with (CRT-D) or without (CRT-P) a defibrillator. METHODS AND RESULTS: Literature search performed from inception to 31 March 2016 for relevant studies. Proportional and conventional meta-analyses were performed to obtain and compare causes of death in CRT-D vs. CRT-P patients, including sudden cardiac death (SCD), all-cause mortality, heart failure, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular mortalities. The systematic review included a total of 44 studies and 18 874 patients (13 248 receiving CRT-D and 5626 receiving CRT-P), representing 48 504 patient-years of follow-up. CRT-D recipients were younger, more often male, had lower NYHA class, less atrial fibrillation, more ischaemic heart disease and were more often on beta-blockers than those receiving CRT-P. There were an additional 42 deaths per 1000 patient-years in the CRT-P group compared with CRT-D (97 ± 9, 95% CI 79-115 vs. 55 ± 5, 95% CI 44-65, respectively), of which 35.7% were due to SCD (20 ± 2, 95% CI 15-24 vs. 5 ± 1, 95% CI 3-6) and the remaining 64.3% due to non-SCD. Of all deaths reported in CRT-D and CRT-P patients, 9.1% and 20.6% were due to SCD, respectively. The extent of SCD in CRT-P patients significantly increased in studies with higher percentage of males, ischaemic cardiomyopathy and NYHA class 3. CONCLUSION: Overall, compared with CRT-D patients, unadjusted mortality rate was almost two-fold higher in CRT-P recipients, with SCD representing one third of the excess mortality. Rate of SCD was significantly higher in certain subgroups (males, ischaemic cardiomyopathy, NYHA class 3), where a CRT-D may be of more pronounced benefit. This deserves further focused investigation