Search

Background: Favorable clinical outcomes are difficult to achieve in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) with catheter ablation (CA). The CONVERGE (Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent Atrial FIbrillation) trial evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid convergent (HC) ablation vs endocardial CA. Objective: The study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of HC vs CA in the LSPAF subgroup from the CONVERGE trial. Methods: The CONVERGE trial was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled 153 patients at 27 sites. A post hoc analysis was performed on LSPAF patients. The primary effectiveness was freedom from atrial arrhythmias off new or increased dose of previously failed or intolerant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) through 12 months. The primary safety endpoint was major adverse event incidence through 30 days with HC. Key secondary effectiveness measures included (1) percent of patients achieving ≥90% AF burden reduction vs baseline and (2) AF freedom. Results: Sixty-five patients (42.5% of total enrollment) had LSPAF; 38 in HC and 27 in CA. Primary effectiveness was 65.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.7%–80.9%) with HC vs 37.0% (95% CI 5.1%–52.4%) with CA (P = .022). Through 18 months, these rates were 60.5% (95% CI 50.0%–76.1%) with HC vs 25.9% (95% CI 9.4%–42.5%) with CA (P = .006). Secondary effectiveness rates were higher than CA with HC at 12 and 18 months. Freedom from atrial arrhythmias off AADs was 52.6% (95% CI 36.8%–68.5%) and 47.4% (95% CI 31.5%–63.2%) with HC at 12 and 18 months vs 25.9% (95% CI 9.4%–42.5%) and 22.2% (95% CI 6.5%–37.9%) with CA, respectively (12 months: P = .031; 18 months: P = .038). Three (7.9%) major adverse events occurred within 30 days of HC. Conclusion: Post hoc analysis demonstrated effectiveness and acceptable safety of HC compared with CA in LSPAF.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation is increasingly performed worldwide with improving safety. Outpatient CIED implantation has similar complication rates compared to those implants which are hospitalized. Here, we analyze patient preferences on discharge timing after CIED implantation. Objective: To identify and understand the factors contributing to patient preferences towards same-day or next-day discharge after CIED implantation. Methods: One hundred and two patients undergoing new CIED implants were included in the study at two separate hospitals in CT (CT group) and FL (FL group) from 2018-2019. A 7-question survey was administered to the patients after the procedure. Survey responses and demographic data were statistically analyzed. Results: Seventy-four percent of CT group and 58% of the FL group responded with a 10 score (0-10) that they were ready to be discharged home the same day (p=0.09). Both groups reported a low number of patients feeling safer by having a remote monitor provided at the time of discharge (44% CT group, 28% FL group; p=0.123). The mean distance of patients living from the hospital in CT group (21.6 miles) was significantly lower than that for the FL group (35.5 miles); p=0.01. Hypertension (86% vs 52%; p=0.0002) and Diabetes mellitus (44% vs 21%; p=0.013) were more prevalent in the FL group compared to the CT group. Conclusion: Despite the influence of local practices, the majority of patients preferred same-day discharge after CIED implantation. Improved patient education regarding the ability of remote monitors to provide real-time response to acute events is needed.