Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) represents the most common sustained arrhythmia necessitating dual focus: acute complication management and sustained longitudinal oversight to modulate disease progression and ensure comprehensive patient care over time. AF is a multifaceted disorder; due to such a great number of potential exacerbating conditions, a multidisciplinary team (MDT) should manage AF patients by cooperating with a cardiologist. Effective management of AF patients necessitates the implementation of a well-coordinated and tailored care pathway aimed at delivering optimized treatment through collaboration among various healthcare professionals. Management of AF should be carefully evaluated and mutually agreed upon in consultation with healthcare providers. It is crucial to recognize that treatment may evolve due to the emergence of new risk factors, symptoms, disease progression, and advancements in treatment modalities. In the context of multidisciplinary AF teams, a coordinated approach involves assembling a diverse team tailored to meet individual patients' unique needs based on local services' availability.

Background: The best ablation treatment for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) patients is still debated. The vein of Marshall (VOM) seems to be a promising target for ablation and could be combined with a linear set of ablation lesions. The aim of our study is to evaluate the incidence of AF recurrences in a PeAF population treated with a comprehensive ablation approach consisting of VOM ethanol infusion (EI), pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), a left atrial (LA) roofline, a mitral line (guided by the newly formed lesion after alcohol infusion into the VOM and validated by pacing), and a cavotricuspid isthmus line., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing the first ablation procedure of catheter ablation (CA) for PeAF were enrolled. All patients underwent VOM-EI, PVI, and ablation lines along the roof of the LA, mitral, and cavotricuspid isthmus. LA voltage mapping before and after VOM-EI was also performed. An implantable loop recorder (ILR) was implanted at the end of the ablation in each patient., Results: Thirty-one consecutive patients (66 ± 8 years and 71% male) affected by PeAF were included in this study. The VOM-EI procedural phase lasted 21.4 ± 10.1 min. PV isolation and lines were validated in all subjects. The ML block was achieved within 10.8 ± 8.7 min. At a mean follow-up of 12 ± 7 months, 27 out of 31 (87%) patients remained free from AT/AF recurrences. Among the patients with recurrences, two (50%) had incomplete ablation lesions and three (75%) had "suboptimal" VOM-EI. In 23/31 patients (74%), antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) were discontinued after 1 month of follow-up. No significant complications were reported during the follow-up., Conclusions: this single-center experience demonstrates that VOM-EI systematically combined with an anatomical ablation set in patients with PeAF resulted in feasible, safe, and effective freedom from AF/AT recurrences in 87% of the population after a 1-year follow-up period according to an ILR.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a new technology for the management of ICD patients. But what is the patients' perspective? Previous studies on the transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) showed that device implantation is related not only to anxiety and depression because of the fear of ICD shocks, but also to many biopsychosocial factors like body image changes, perceived reduction of socialization and limitation in professional and sports activities. Anxiety and distress are more evident in younger women because of aesthetic reasons. The scar size and the position of the S-ICD can help these patients and positively influence their social relationships. Moreover, the position of the S-ICD reduces possible complications from catheters due to stress injury and can improve patients' professional life by avoiding some work activity limitations. An S-ICD can be also a good option for athletes in avoiding subclavian crash and reducing inappropriate shocks. However, some questions remain unsolved because an S-ICD is not suitable for patients with indications for pacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy or anti-tachycardia pacing. In conclusion, the use of an S-ICD can assist physicians in reducing the negative impact of implantation on the well-being of some groups of patients by helping them to avoid depression and anxiety as well as improving their noncompliance with their medical treatment.

Aim: International guidelines on the use of anti-thrombotic therapies in left-sided ablations other than atrial fibrillation (AF) are lacking. The data regarding antiplatelet or anticoagulation strategies after catheter ablation (CA) procedures mainly derive from AF, whereas for the other arrhythmic substrates, the anti-thrombotic approach remains unclear. This survey aims to explore the current practices regarding antithrombotic management before, during, and after left-sided endocardial ablation, not including atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy. Material and Methods: Electrophysiologists were asked to answer a questionnaire containing questions on antiplatelet (APT) and anticoagulation therapy for the following left-sided procedures: accessory pathway (AP), atrial (AT), and ventricular tachycardia (VT) with and without structural heart disease (SHD). Results: We obtained 41 answers from 41 centers in 15 countries. For AP, before ablation, only four respondents (9.7%) used antiplatelets and two (4.9%) used anticoagulants. At discharge, APT therapy was prescribed by 22 respondents (53.7%), and oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) only by one (2.4%). In patients with atrial tachycardia (AT), before ablation, APT prophylaxis was prescribed by only four respondents (9.7%) and OAC by eleven (26.8%). At discharge, APT was recommended by 12 respondents (29.3%) and OAC by 24 (58.5%). For VT without SHD, before CA, only six respondents (14.6%) suggested APT and three (7.3%) suggested OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, APT was recommended by fifteen respondents (36.6%) and OAC by five (12.2%). Regarding VT in SHD, before the procedure, eight respondents (19.5%) prescribed APT and five (12.2%) prescribed OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, the administration of anti-thrombotic therapy depended on the LV ejection fraction for eleven respondents (26.8%), on the procedure time for ten (24.4%), and on the radiofrequency time for four (9.8%), with a cut-off value from 1 to 30 min. Conclusions: Our survey indicates that the management of anti-thrombotic therapy surrounding left-sided endocardial ablation of patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy is highly variable. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the safest approach to these procedures.

It is well established that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the cornerstone of anticoagulant strategy in atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) and should be preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) since they are superior or non-inferior to VKAs in reducing thromboembolic risk and are associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage (IH). In addition, many factors, such as fewer pharmacokinetic interactions and less need for monitoring, contribute to the favor of this therapeutic strategy. Although DOACs represent a more suitable option, several issues should be considered in clinical practice, including drug-drug interactions (DDIs), switching to other antithrombotic therapies, preprocedural and postprocedural periods, and the use in patients with chronic renal and liver failure and in those with cancer. Furthermore, adherence to DOACs appears to remain suboptimal. This narrative review aims to provide a practical guide for DOAC prescription and address challenging scenarios.

Sports are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, cardiovascular benefits from sports activity are well-known, and on the other hand, sports may increase the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in subjects with known or unknown cardiovascular diseases. SCD is rare but has a very strong emotional issue. There are many examples involving famous professional athletes, but this is only scratching the surface of a widespread phenomenon that also involves amateur athletes. The importance of safely performing physical activity appears clear in both professional and amateur athletes. In particular, the former undergo a pre-participation screening for SCD primary prevention with different recommendations in each country. On the other hand, a medical examination is not mandatory for non-professional athletes and, therefore, for people who practice sports as an amateur. Widespread distribution of automatic external defibrillators and people trained for cardiopulmonary resuscitation are necessary to promote secondary prevention of SCD. We briefly report a case series of athletes with aborted SCD during sports activity in order to underline and discuss in this review the previously highlighted issues.