Search

Aims: Despite general agreement on the benefits of the Heart Team approach for patients with cardiac diseases, few data are available on its real impact on the decision-making process. The aim of the study is to define the evolution over time of the level of agreement with the systematic discussion of patients in the Heart Team and to evaluate the adherence to the Heart Team recommendations and the impact of the Heart Team on the clinical outcome of the patients., Methods: In 2015--2016, an experienced cardiac surgeon and a cardiologist independently reviewed clinical data of a series of 100 patients (Group 1, G1) and subsequently for each patient recommended treatment (surgical, percutaneous, hybrid or medical therapy) or further diagnostic investigations. The next day, each case was discussed by the Hospital Heart Team. The Heart Team recommendation, the subsequent treatment received by the patient and the in-hospital outcome were recorded. The same study procedure was repeated in 2017 in a second (G2) and in 2018 in a third (G3) group, both of them including 100 patients., Results: Complete agreement in treatment selection by the cardiac surgeon, cardiologist and the Heart Team was observed in 43% of cases in G1 and in 70% and 68% in G2 and G3, respectively (G1 vs. G2: P  < 0.001, G1 vs. G3: P  = 0.01, G2 vs. G3: P  = 0.30). Agreement was less frequent in patients with a higher risk profile and in patients with aortic valve stenosis. The Heart Team decision was implemented in 95% of cases with a 30-day mortality of 0.67%., Conclusion: Agreement in treatment selection among the cardiac surgeon, cardiologist and Heart Team appears to be low in the initial experience. Subsequently, it seems to steadily increase over time up to a limit, when it reaches a plateau of stable results. Heart Team clinical cases discussion, based on both guidelines and multidisciplinary experience, represents a key step in defining the best patient treatment pathway, potentially improving the decision-making process and clinical results., (Copyright © 2023 Italian Federation of Cardiology - I.F.C. All rights reserved.)

Aims: In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of single pulmonary vein isolation with the second-generation cryoballoon (CB-Adv) and predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrences in patients with paroxysmal (PAF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF)., Methods: Consecutive PAF and PersAF patients undergoing CB-Adv for the first time were enrolled. Patients were followed with in-clinic visits including Holter ECG. Atrial arrhythmic episodes symptomatic or documented lasting more than 30 s were considered as recurrences., Results: A total of 96 consecutive patients [77 men (80%), mean age 57.4 ± 9.9 years] were included in this analysis. About 56 (58%) patients had PAF and 40 had (42%) PersAF. The mean procedural and fluoroscopy times were 116 ± 24 and 33 ± 12 min, respectively. Procedure-related complications occurred in four (4.2%) patients.At the 12-month follow-up, after a 3-month blanking period, freedom from recurrences was achieved in 59% [confidence interval (CI): 49-69%] of patients, 62% (CI: 48-75%) in PAF, and 54% (CI: 38-71%) in PersAF group. The difference was not statistically significant at the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = 0.242). Cardioversion to restore sinus rhythm was less frequently needed in PAF group [5% (CI: 1-15%) vs. 25% (CI: 13-41%), P < 0.001]. Redo procedure was performed in 7% (CI: 3-15%) of patients. In the Cox regression analysis, early atrial-tachyarrhythmia recurrence was the only independent predictor of 1-year recurrence (hazard ratio 2.11, CI: 1.06-4.20, P = 0.03)., Conclusion: The success rate at 12 months after a single CB-Adv procedure was 62% in patients with PAF and 54% in study participants with PersAF. Early atrial-tachyarrhythmia recurrence appeared to be the only independent predictor of late atrial fibrillation recurrence.

Aims: Ranolazine is an antiischemic and antianginal agent, but experimental and preclinical data provided evidence of additional antiarrhythmic properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ranolazine in reducing episodes of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with recurrent antiarrhythmic drug-refractory ventricular arrhythmias or with chronic angina., Methods: Seventeen implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients, who had experienced a worsening of their ventricular arrhythmia burden, and 12 ICD recipients with angina were enrolled. Patients were followed up for 6 months after the addition of ranolazine (postranolazine). Data were compared with before its administration (preranolazine)., Results: In the Arrhythmias group, a significant reduction was found in the median number of ventricular tachycardia episodes per patient (4 vs. 0, P = 0.01), and in ICD interventions in terms of both antitachycardia pacing (2 vs. 0, P = 0.04) and shock delivery (2 vs. 0, P = 0.02) after the addition of ranolazine. Moreover, fewer patients experienced episodes of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (71 vs. 41%, P = 0.04), ventricular tachycardia (76 vs. 24%, P = 0.01), ICD antitachycardia pacing (47 vs. 18%, P = 0.02), and ICD shocks (47 vs. 6%, P = 0.03). In the Angina group, none of the patients developed major ventricular arrhythmias while on ranolazine treatment. No adverse effects were observed., Conclusion: In this small study, ranolazine proved to be effective, well tolerated, and safe in reducing ventricular arrhythmia episodes and ICD interventions in patients with recurrent antiarrhythmic drug-refractory events. In addition, none of the patients with chronic angina developed major ventricular arrhythmias.