Search

Background: Long-term oral anticoagulation is the mainstay therapy for thromboembolic (TE) prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) could be a safe alternative to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with a very high TE risk profile., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of LAAO vs DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation at very high stroke risk (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc [congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥ 75 years, diabetes mellitus, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack or thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 years, sex category] score ≥ 5)., Methods: Data from patients with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 5 were extracted from a prospective multicenter database. To attenuate the imbalance in covariates between groups, propensity score matching was used (covariates: CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and HAS-BLED [hypertension, abnormal renal or liver function, stroke, bleeding, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs or alcohol] scores), which resulted in a matched population of 277 patients per group. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, TE events, and clinically relevant bleeding during follow-up., Results: Of 2381 patients, 554 very high risk patients were included in the study (mean age 79 ± 7 years; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 5.8 ± 0.9; HAS-BLED score 3.0 ± 0.9). The mean follow-up duration was 25 ± 11 months. A higher incidence of the composite end point was documented with DOACs compared with LAAO (14.9 events per 100 patient-years in the DOAC group vs 9.4 events per 100 patient-years in the LAAO group; P = .03). The annualized clinically relevant bleeding risk was higher with DOACs (6.3% vs 3.2%; P = .04), while the risk of TE events was not different between groups (4.1% vs 3.2%; P = .63)., Conclusion: In high-risk patients, LAAO had a similar stroke prevention efficacy but a significantly lower risk of clinically relevant bleeding when compared with DOACs. The clinical benefit of LAAO became significant after 18 months of follow-up., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Burkhardt is a consultant for Biosense Webster and Stereotaxis. Dr Chierchia has received compensation for teaching purposes and proctoring from Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Acutus Medical. Dr de Asmundis has received research grants on behalf of the center from Biotronik, Medtronic, Abbott, LivaNova, Boston Scientific, AtriCure, Philips, and Acutus Medical and compensation for teaching purposes and proctoring from Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, LivaNova, Boston Scientific, AtriCure, Acutus Medical, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Di Biase is a consultant for Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, Stereotaxis, and St. Jude Medical. Dr Di Biase has received speaker honoraria/travel support from Medtronic, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Pfizer, and Biotronik. Dr Natale has received speaker honoraria from Boston Scientific, Biosense Webster, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, and Medtronic and is a consultant for Biosense Webster, St. Jude Medical, and Janssen. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies evaluating the systematic use of cardiac computed tomography (CCT) for the preprocedural assessment of myocardial fibrosis are limited. Their implementation in the electrophysiology workflow has not been extensively described., Objective: This study aimed to explore the degree of concordance between CCT and electroanatomic mapping (EAM) for the evaluation of cardiac fibrosis in patients undergoing endo-epicardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation., Methods: From November 2017 to December 2021, patients undergoing endo-epicardial VT catheter ablation with CCT as the only source of preprocedural scar assessment were prospectively enrolled. After image integration, myocardial fibrosis detected with CCT was compared with low-voltage areas identified by endo-epicardial EAM. Postprocedural VT recurrences of this approach were evaluated after at least 1 year of follow-up., Results: The study enrolled 35 patients (mean age, 60.7 ± 13.2 years; 94.2% male). The most common underlying arrhythmic substrate was dilated cardiomyopathy (48.6%). CCT was employed for contraindications to cardiac magnetic resonance, such as unstable VTs (31.4%) or nonconditional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (28.6%), but also for patients' and operators' preferences (14.3%-25.7%). Myocardial fibrosis was correctly identified by CCT and EAM, with strong agreement between these techniques both overall (Cohen κ for agreement, 0.933) and in per-segment analysis (κ ranging from 0.796 to 1.0). Ischemic patients showed the best correlation (κ = 1.000), whereas myocarditis showed the worst (κ = 0.750). After a median follow-up of 14 (12-24) months, 1-year freedom from recurrences was achieved in 74.3% patients; overall freedom from recurrences was 60.0%., Conclusion: A CCT-based preprocedural assessment before VT ablation is feasible, showing high diagnostic concordance with EAM in detecting myocardial fibrosis., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A few limited case series have shown that the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) system is safe for teenagers and young adults, but a large-scale analysis currently is lacking., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare mid-term device-associated outcomes in a large real-world cohort of S-ICD patients, stratified by age at implantation., Methods: Two propensity-matched cohorts of teenagers + young adults (≤30 years old) and adults (>30 years old) were retrieved from the ELISIR Registry. The primary outcome was the comparison of inappropriate shock rate. Complications, freedom from sustained ventricular arrhythmias, and overall and cardiovascular mortality were deemed secondary outcomes., Results: Teenagers + young adults represented 11.0% of the entire cohort. Two propensity-matched groups of 161 patients each were used for the analysis. Median follow-up was 23.1 (13.2-40.5) months. In total, 15.2% patients experienced inappropriate shocks, and 9.3% device-related complications were observed, with no age-related differences in inappropriate shocks (16.1% vs 14.3%; P = .642) and complication rates (9.9% vs 8.7%; P = .701). At univariate analysis, young age was not associated with increased rates of inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.204 [0.675-2.148]: P = .529). At multivariate analysis, use of the SMART Pass algorithm was associated with a strong reduction in inappropriate shocks (adjusted HR 0.292 [0.161-0.525]; P <.001), whereas arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) was associated with higher rates of inappropriate shocks (adjusted HR 2.380 [1.205-4.697]; P = .012)., Conclusion: In a large multicenter registry of propensity-matched patients, use of the S-ICD in teenagers/young adults was safe and effective. The rates of inappropriate shocks and complications between cohorts were not significantly different. The only predictor of increased inappropriate shocks was a diagnosis of ARVC., (Copyright © 2022 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)