Search

Introduction: Catheter ablation is a common treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) with nuanced risks and benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) could guide the decision to undergo ablation based on patient values and goals of care. Understanding whether and how SDM about ablation is conducted in clinical practice would allow us to determine how to optimize patient decision making and decision quality. The objective of this study was to investigate decision quality and SDM practices surrounding AF ablation. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study guided by Sepucha & Scholl’s (2014) SDM framework which specifies decision antecedents, processes, and outcomes. We recruited a convenience sample of AF ablation patients (n=15) and clinicians (n=5; 3 MDs, 1 PA, 1 NP) from a hospital in Queens, New York. Patients completed the AF Symptom Survey (AFSS), Controls-Preferences scale (CPS), and Decisional Conflict scale (DCS), which were summarized using descriptive statistics (median, interquartile range [IQR], and frequency). Patients and clinicians completed semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed using directed content analysis. Participants received $25 as compensation. The Weill Cornell Medicine IRB approved this study. Results: Patients’ median age was 71.0 years (IQR 69.0-78.5), 27% were female, 67% were White, and 73% spoke English. The median AFSS score was 0 (IQR 0-1.0) out of 35 indicating low symptom burden post-ablation. The median DCS score was 7.0 (IQR 0-16.4) out of 100 indicating low levels of conflict. On the CPS 4 patients (27%) preferred to have some control in decision-making; the remainder preferred to share control or relinquish it to clinicians. Qualitative findings underscore low levels of decisional conflict but limited patient agency (Table) . Conclusion: Findings suggest opportunities to improve decision quality surrounding AF ablation by bolstering patient agency, possibly through educational materials and decision aids.

The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is a global pandemic of a novel infectious disease with far-ranging public health implications. With regard to cardiac electrophysiology (EP) services, we discuss the “real-world” challenges and solutions that have been essential for efficient and successful (1) ramping down of standard clinical practice patterns and (2) pivoting of workflow processes to meet the demands of this pandemic. The aims of these recommendations are to outline: (1) essential practical steps to approaching procedures, as well as outpatient and inpatient care of EP patients, with relevant examples, (2) successful strategies to minimize exposure risk to patients and clinical staff while also balancing resource utilization, (3) challenges related to redeployment and restructuring of clinical and support staff, and (4) considerations regarding continued collaboration with clinical and administrative colleagues to implement these changes. While process changes will vary across practices and hospital systems, we believe that these experiences from 4 different EP sections in a large New York City hospital network currently based in the global epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic will prove useful for other EP practices adapting their own practices in preparation for local surges.

Background: It is unclear whether physiologic pacing by either cardiac biventricular pacing (BiVP) or His bundle pacing (HisBP) may prevent adverse structural and functional consequences known to occur among some patients who receive right ventricular pacing (RVP). Aim: Our analysis sought to review existing literature to determine if BiVP and/or HisBP might prevent adverse remodeling and be associated with structural, functional, and clinical advantages compared with RVP among patients without severe left ventricular dysfunction (>35%) who required permanent pacing because of heart block. Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (through PubMed) and Embase to identify randomized trials and observational studies comparing the effects of BiVP or HisBP versus RVP on measurements of left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure functional classification, quality of life, 6-minute walk, hospitalizations, and mortality. Data from studies that met the appropriate population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest were abstracted for meta-analysis. Studies that reported pooled outcomes among patients with LVEF both above and below 35% could not be included in the meta-analysis because of strict relationships with industry procedures that preclude retrieval of industry-retained unpublished data on the subset of patients with preserved left ventricular function. Results: Evidence from 8 studies, including a total of 679 patients meeting the prespecified criteria for inclusion, was identified. Results were compared for BiVP versus RVP, HisBP versus RVP, and BiVP+HisBP versus RVP. Among patients who received physiologic pacing with either BiVP or HisBP, the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were significantly lower (mean duration of follow-up: 1.64 years; –2.77 mL [95% CI –4.37 to –1.1 mL]; P =0.001; and –7.09 mL [95% CI –11.27 to –2.91; P =0.0009) and LVEF remained preserved or increased (mean duration of follow-up: 1.57 years; 5.328% [95% CI: 2.86%–7.8%; P 35% but ≤52% were more likely to receive benefit from physiologic pacing. Patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who underwent atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implant demonstrated clear improvement in LVEF with BiVP or HisBP versus RVP. Conclusion: Among patients with LVEF >35%, the LVEF remained preserved or increased with either BiVP or HisBP compared with RVP. However, patient-centered clinical outcome improvement appears to be limited primarily to patients who have chronic atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response rates and have undergone atrioventricular node ablation.

Objectives: To determine, using systematic review of the biomedical literature, whether pacing reduces risk of recurrent syncope and relevant clinical outcomes among adult patients with reflex-mediated syncope. Methods: MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through October 7, 2015) were searched for randomized trials and observational studies examining pacing and syncope, and the bibliographies of known systematic reviews were also examined. Studies were rejected for poor-quality study methods and for the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest. Results: Of 3188 citations reviewed, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review, including a total of 676 patients. These included 9 randomized trials and 1 observational study. Of the 10 studies, 4 addressed patients with carotid sinus hypersensitivity, and the remaining 6 addressed vasovagal syncope. Among the 6 open-label (unblinded) studies, we found that pacing was associated with a 70% reduction in recurrent syncope (relative risk [RR]: 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15–0.60). When the 2 analyzable studies with double-blinded methodology were considered separately, there was no clear benefit (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.25–2.1), but confidence intervals were wide. The strongest evidence was from the randomized, double-blinded ISSUE-3 (Third International Study on Syncope of Uncertain Etiology) trial, which demonstrated a benefit of pacing among patients with recurrent syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder. Conclusions: There are limited data with substantive evidence of outcome ascertainment bias, and only 2 studies with a double-blinded study design have been conducted. The evidence does not support the use of pacing for reflex-mediated syncope beyond patients with recurrent vasovagal syncope and asystole documented by implantable loop recorder.

Background— The Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead was recalled in 2007 because of an elevated risk of lead fracture. Several studies have demonstrated an accelerating risk of lead failure over time. We sought to identify predictors and characterize trends of Fidelis lead failure. Methods and Results— We evaluated 604 Fidelis leads with ≥90 days of follow-up implanted at our institution. Fidelis lead survival was analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Analysis of log-log plots of cumulative hazard plots was performed to assess changes in lead failure rate over time. During follow-up of 3.3±1.7 years, 51 (8.4%) Fidelis lead failures were identified. The 3-year and 5-year Fidelis lead survival rates were 93.5% and 85.3%, respectively. Female sex was the only significant predictor of lead failure (heart rate, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1–3.9; P P Conclusions— After 3 years, failure rates of Fidelis leads stabilize but at a significantly elevated rate. Female sex is associated with a doubling of the risk of Fidelis lead failure. These findings have implications for Fidelis lead management decisions that are based on the prediction of lead failure risk.

Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, FACC, FAHA, FESC, Co-Chair; Lars E. Ryden, MD, PhD, FACC, FESC, FAHA, Co-Chair; David S. Cannom, MD, FACC; Harry J. Crijns, MD, FACC, FESC; Anne B. Curtis, MD, FACC, FAHA; Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, FACC, FHRS† Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; G. Neal Kay, MD, FACC

Abstract —Previous studies in normotensive subjects have shown a slight decline in resting left ventricular pump function and midwall contractility with aging. We examined the relations of age to these variables and to peripheral resistance and vascular stiffness in 272 asymptomatic, unmedicated adults (25 to 80 years old) who had uncomplicated essential hypertension. Cardiac and carotid ultrasound and carotid pressure waveforms were obtained to measure left ventricular dimensions, endocardial and midwall left ventricular shortening, stroke index and cardiac index, end-systolic stress, and pulse pressure/stroke index and β, pressure-dependent and independent measures of vascular stiffness, respectively. Endocardial and midwall stress-corrected left ventricular shortening assessed ventricular performance. Cardiac index and TPRI did not change with age in either gender, with age-related increases in systolic pressure offset by increasingly concentric ventricular geometry in women and enhanced ventricular systolic function in men. In contrast to the lack of age-related change in traditional hemodynamic indexes, pulse pressure/stroke volume and β strongly increased with age ( P

Background —Clinical studies have shown that biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a rectilinear biphasic waveform with a standard damped sine wave monophasic waveform for the transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results —In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, patients undergoing transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation were randomized to receive either damped sine wave monophasic or rectilinear biphasic shocks. Patients randomized to the monophasic protocol (n=77) received sequential shocks of 100, 200, 300, and 360 J. Patients randomized to the biphasic protocol (n=88) received sequential shocks of 70, 120, 150, and 170 J. First-shock efficacy with the 70-J biphasic waveform (60 of 88 patients, 68%) was significantly greater than that with the 100-J monophasic waveform (16 of 77 patients, 21%, P P P =0.005). The following 3 variables were independently associated with successful cardioversion: use of a biphasic waveform (relative risk, 4.2; 95% confidence intervals, 1.3 to 13.9; P =0.02), transthoracic impedance (relative risk, 0.64 per 10-Ω increase in impedance; 95% confidence intervals, 0.46 to 0.90; P =0.005), and duration of atrial fibrillation (relative risk, 0.97 per 30 days of atrial fibrillation; 95% confidence intervals, 0.96 to 0.99; P =0.02). Conclusions —For transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, rectilinear biphasic shocks have greater efficacy (and require less energy) than damped sine wave monophasic shocks.

Background —Tilt testing is used to establish the diagnosis of neurally mediated syncope. However, applicability of the tilt test is limited by test sensitivity and length of time required to perform the test. We hypothesized that adenosine could facilitate the induction of neurally mediated syncope through its sympathomimetic effects and therefore could be used as an alternative to routine tilt testing. Methods and Results —In protocol 1, the yield of adenosine tilt testing (12 mg while upright, followed by 60° tilt for 5 minutes) and a 15-minute isoproterenol tilt test were compared in 84 patients with a negative 30-minute drug-free tilt test. In protocol 2, 100 patients underwent an initial adenosine tilt test followed by our routine tilt test (30-minute drug-free tilt followed by a 15-minute isoproterenol tilt). Six additional control patients underwent microneurography of the peroneal nerve to compare the sympathomimetic effects during bolus administration of adenosine and continuous infusion of isoproterenol. In protocol 1, the yields of adenosine (8 of 84, 10%) and isoproterenol (7 of 84, 8%) tilt testing were comparable ( P =NS). In protocol 2, the yields of adenosine (19 of 100, 19%) and routine (22 of 100, 22%) tilt testing were also comparable ( P =NS). Although the yield of adenosine tilt testing was comparable in both protocols, patients with a negative adenosine tilt test but a positive routine tilt test usually required isoproterenol to elicit the positive response. Microneurography confirmed discordant sympathetic activation after adenosine and isoproterenol administration. Conclusions —Adenosine is effective for the induction of neurally mediated syncope, with a diagnostic yield comparable to routine tilt testing. However, the discordant results obtained with adenosine and the isoproterenol phase of routine tilt testing suggest that adenosine and isoproterenol tilt testing may have complementary roles in eliciting a positive response. Therefore, a tilt protocol that uses an initial adenosine tilt followed, if necessary, by an isoproterenol tilt would be expected to increase the overall yield and reduce the duration of tilt testing.

For new or updated text, view the 2011 Focused Update and the 2011 Focused Update on Dabigatran. Text supporting unchanged recommendations has not been updated. It is important that the medical profession play a significant role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced and tested in the detection, management, or prevention of disease states. Rigorous and expert analysis of the available data documenting absolute and relative benefits and risks of those procedures and therapies can produce helpful guidelines that improve the effectiveness of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect the overall cost of care by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly engaged in the production of such guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, whose charge is to develop, update, or revise practice guidelines for important cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs this effort. The Task Force is pleased to have this guideline developed in conjunction with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Writing committees are charged with the task of performing an assessment of the evidence and acting as an independent group of authors to develop or update written recommendations for clinical practice. Experts in the subject under consideration have been selected from all 3 organizations to examine subject-specific data and write guidelines. The process includes additional representatives from other medical practitioner and specialty groups when appropriate. Writing committees are specifically charged to perform a formal literature review, weigh the strength of evidence for or against a particular treatment or procedure, and include estimates of expected health outcomes where data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that might influence the choice of particular …