Search

Introduction: Proactive esophageal cooling reduces injury during radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the left atrium (LA) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). New catheters are capable of higher wattage settings up to 90 W (very high-power short duration, vHPSD) for 4 s. Varying power and duration, however, does not eliminate the risk of thermal injury. Furthermore, alternative energy sources such as pulsed field ablation (PFA) also exhibit thermal effects, with clinical data showing esophageal temperatures up to 40.3°C. The ensoETM esophageal cooling device (Attune Medical, now a part of Haemonetics, Boston, MA, U.S.A.) is commercially available and FDA-cleared to reduce thermal injury to the esophagus during RF ablation for AF and is recommended in the 2024 expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of AF., Areas Covered: This review summarizes growing evidence of esophageal cooling during high power RF ablation for AF treatment, including data relating to procedural efficacy, safety, and efficiency, and techniques to enhance operator success while providing directions for further research., Expert Opinion: Proactive esophageal cooling reduces injury to the esophagus during high power RF ablation, and utilizing this approach may result in increased success in first-pass isolation, procedural efficiency, and long-term efficacy.

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation involves some risk to collateral structures, including the esophagus. Proactive esophageal cooling using a dedicated device has been granted marketing authorization by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reduce the risk of ablation-related esophageal injury due to RF cardiac ablation procedures, and more recent data also suggest that esophageal cooling may contribute to improved long-term efficacy of treatment. A mechanistic underpinning explaining these findings exists through the quantification of lesion placement contiguity defined as the Continuity Index (CI). Kautzner et al. quantified the CI by the order of lesion placement, such that whenever a lesion is placed non-adjacent to the prior lesion, the CI is incremented by the number of segments the catheter tip has moved over. To facilitate real-time calculation of the CI and encourage further adoption of this instrument, we propose a modification in which the placement of non-adjacent lesions increments the CI by only one unit, avoiding the need to count potentially nebulous markers of atrial segmentation. The objective of this protocol is to describe the methods of calculating the CI both prospectively during real-time PVI cases and retrospectively using recorded case data. A comparison of the results obtained between cases that utilized proactive esophageal cooling and cases that used luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring is then provided.

Background: Proactive esophageal cooling is FDA cleared to reduce the likelihood of esophageal injury during radiofrequency ablation for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Long-term follow-up data have also shown improved freedom from arrhythmia with proactive esophageal cooling compared to luminal esophageal temperature (LET) monitoring during pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). One hypothesized mechanism is improved lesion contiguity (as measured by the Continuity Index) with the use of cooling. We aimed to compare the Continuity Index of PVI cases using proactive esophageal cooling to those using LET monitoring., Methods: Continuity Index was calculated for PVI cases at two different hospitals within the same health system using a slightly modified Continuity Index to facilitate both real-time calculation during observation of PVI cases and retrospective determination from recorded cases. The results were then compared between proactively cooled cases and those using LET monitoring., Results: Continuity Indices for a total of 101 cases were obtained; 77 cases using proactive esophageal cooling and 24 cases using traditional LET monitoring. With proactive esophageal cooling, the average Continuity Index was 2.7 (1.3 on the left pulmonary vein, and 1.5 on the right pulmonary vein). With LET monitoring, the average Continuity Index was 27.3 (14.3 on the left, and 12.9 on the right), for a difference of 24.6 (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Proactive esophageal cooling during PVI is associated with significantly improved lesion contiguity when compared to LET monitoring. This finding may offer a mechanism for the greater freedom from arrhythmia seen with proactive cooling in long-term follow-up., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: Catherine Lazarus, Jacob Sherman, Natalie Putzel, William Zagrodzky have interned with Attune Medical; Tiffany Sharkoski has employment with Attune Medical; Erik Kulstad has equity and employment in Attune Medical and Mark Metzl has consulted for Abbott, Biosense Webster, Attune Medical, Medtronic, Sanofi Aventis and Phillips. Alex Ro, Jose Nazari and Westby Fisher have no disclosures.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cytotoxicity may involve inhibition of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha. Fenofibrate activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha and inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro. Whether fenofibrate can be used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in humans remains unknown. Here, we randomly assigned inpatients and outpatients with COVID-19 within 14 d of symptom onset to 145 mg of oral fenofibrate nanocrystal formulation versus placebo for 10 d, in a double-blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was a severity score whereby participants were ranked across hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, mechanical ventilation duration, oxygenation, hospitalization and symptom severity and duration. In total, 701 participants were randomized to fenofibrate (n = 351) or placebo (n = 350). The mean age of participants was 49 ± 16 years, 330 (47%) were female, mean body mass index was 28 ± 6 kg/m 2 and 102 (15%) had diabetes. Death occurred in 41 participants. Compared with placebo, fenofibrate had no effect on the primary endpoint. The median (interquartile range) rank in the placebo arm was 347 (172, 453) versus 345 (175, 453) in the fenofibrate arm (P = 0.819). There was no difference in secondary and exploratory endpoints, including all-cause death, across arms. There were 61 (17%) adverse events in the placebo arm compared with 46 (13%) in the fenofibrate arm, with slightly higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects in the fenofibrate group. Overall, among patients with COVID-19, fenofibrate has no significant effect on various clinically relevant outcomes ( NCT04517396 )., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background Abnormal cellular lipid metabolism appears to underlie SARS-CoV-2 cytotoxicity and may involve inhibition of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha (PPARα). Fenofibrate, a PPAR-α activator, modulates cellular lipid metabolism. Fenofibric acid has also been shown to affect the dimerization of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Fenofibrate and fenofibric acid have been shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell culture systems in vitro . Methods We randomly assigned 701 participants with COVID-19 within 14 days of symptom onset to 145 mg of fenofibrate (nanocrystal formulation with dose adjustment for renal function or dose-equivalent preparations of micronized fenofibrate or fenofibric acid) vs. placebo for 10 days, in a double-blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was a ranked severity score in which participants were ranked across hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, oxygenation parameters, subsequent hospitalizations and symptom severity and duration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04517396. Findings: Mean age of participants was 49 ± 16 years, 330 (47%) were female, mean BMI was 28 ± 6 kg/m 2 , and 102 (15%) had diabetes mellitus. A total of 41 deaths occurred. Compared with placebo, fenofibrate administration had no effect on the primary endpoint. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) rank in the placebo arm was 347 (172, 453) vs. 345 (175, 453) in the fenofibrate arm (P = 0.819). There was no difference in various secondary and exploratory endpoints, including all-cause death, across randomization arms. These results were highly consistent across pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusion Among patients with COVID-19, fenofibrate has no significant effect on various clinically relevant outcomes.

Background: Severe endoscopically detected esophageal thermal lesions (EDELs) have been associated with higher risk of progression to atrio-esophageal fistula (AEF) following radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to evaluate safety and feasibility of active esophageal cooling using the Attune Medical Esophageal Heat Transfer Device (EnsoETM) to limit frequency or severity of EDELs., Objective: We sought To evaluate safety and feasibility of active esophageal cooling using the Attune Medical Esophageal Heat Transfer Device (EnsoETM) to limit frequency or severity of EDELs METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing first-time RFCA were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to esophageal cooling (device group) or standard temperature monitoring (control group). Ablation on the posterior wall was performed with a maximum power of 30W for up to 20s. All patients underwent EGD within 48 h. Endoscopy findings were classified as 1, erythema-mild injury; 2, superficial ulceration-moderate injury; 3, deep ulceration-significant injury; and 4, fistula/perforation. Severe EDELs were defined as grade 3 or 4 lesions., Results: Forty-four patients completed the study (22 device group, 22 control group). Adjunctive posterior wall isolation was performed more frequently in the device group (11/22, 50% vs. 4/22, 18%). EDELs were detected in 5/22 (23%) control group patients, with mild or moderate injury in 2/5 patients (40%) and severe thermal injury in 3/5 patients (60%). In the device group, EDELs were detected in 8/22 (36%) patients, with mild or moderate injury in 7/8 (87%) patients and severe thermal injury in 1/8 (12%) patients. There was no acute perforation or AEF during follow-up., Conclusions: Active esophageal cooling may reduce the occurrence of severe EDELs. A larger randomized study is warranted to further evaluate the benefit of this strategy., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: COVID-19 continues to inflict significant morbidity and mortality, particularly on patients with preexisting health conditions. The clinical course, outcomes, and significance of immunosuppression regimen in heart transplant recipients with COVID-19 remains unclear., Methods: We included the first 99 heart transplant recipients at participating centers with COVID-19 and followed patients until resolution. We collected baseline information, symptoms, laboratory studies, vital signs, and outcomes for included patients. The association of immunosuppression regimens at baseline with severe disease were compared using logistic regression, adjusting for age and time since transplant., Results: The median age was 60 years, 25% were female, and 44% were white. The median time post-transplant to infection was 5.6 years. Overall, 15% died, 64% required hospital admission, and 7% remained asymptomatic. During the course of illness, only 57% of patients had a fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms were common. Tachypnea, oxygen requirement, elevated creatinine and inflammatory markers were predictive of severe course. Age ≥ 60 was associated with higher risk of death and the use of the combination of calcineurin inhibitor, antimetabolite, and prednisone was associated with more severe disease compared to the combination of calcineurin inhibitor and antimetabolite alone (adjusted OR = 7.3, 95% CI 1.8-36.2). Among hospitalized patients, 30% were treated for secondary infection, acute kidney injury was common and 17% required new renal replacement therapy., Conclusions: We present the largest study to date of heart transplant patients with COVID-19 showing common atypical presentations and a high case fatality rate of 24% among hospitalized patients and 16% among symptomatic patients., (Copyright © 2021 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Biological considerations suggest that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors might influence the severity of COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate whether continuing versus discontinuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) affects outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19., Methods: The REPLACE COVID trial was a prospective, randomised, open-label trial done at 20 large referral hospitals in seven countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and were receiving a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor before admission. Individuals with contraindications to continuation or discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to continuation or discontinuation of their renin-angiotensin system inhibitor using permuted block randomisation, with allocation concealed using a secure web-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was a global rank score in which participants were ranked across four hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, time on renal replacement or vasopressor therapy, and multiorgan dysfunction during the hospitalisation. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The REPLACE COVID trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338009., Findings: Between March 31 and Aug 20, 2020, 152 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either continue or discontinue renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy (continuation group n=75; discontinuation group n=77). Mean age of participants was 62 years (SD 12), 68 (45%) were female, mean body-mass index was 33 kg/m 2 (SD 8), and 79 (52%) had diabetes. Compared with discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, continuation had no effect on the global rank score (median rank 73 [IQR 40-110] for continuation vs 81 [38-117] for discontinuation; β-coefficient 8 [95% CI -13 to 29]). There were 16 (21%) of 75 participants in the continuation arm versus 14 (18%) of 77 in the discontinuation arm who required intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation, and 11 (15%) of 75 participants in the continuation group versus ten (13%) of 77 in the discontinuation group died. 29 (39%) participants in the continuation group and 28 (36%) participants in the discontinuation group had at least one adverse event (χ 2 test of adverse events between treatment groups p=0·77). There was no difference in blood pressure, serum potassium, or creatinine during follow-up across the two groups., Interpretation: Consistent with international society recommendations, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors can be safely continued in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19., Funding: REPLACE COVID Investigators, REPLACE COVID Trial Social Fundraising Campaign, and FastGrants., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is associated with high incidence of multiorgan dysfunction and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which facilitates SARS-CoV-2 host cell entry, may be impacted by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), two commonly used antihypertensive classes. In a multicenter, international randomized controlled trial that began enrollment on March 31, 2020, participants are randomized to continuation vs withdrawal of their long-term outpatient ACEI or ARB upon hospitalization with COVID-19. The primary outcome is a hierarchical global rank score incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of renal replacement or vasopressor therapy, and multiorgan dysfunction severity. Approval for the study has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution, and all participants will provide informed consent. A data safety monitoring board has been assembled to provide independent oversight of the project., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Ablation of the left atrium using either radiofrequency (RF) or cryothermal energy is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) and is the most frequent type of cardiac ablation procedure performed. Although generally safe, collateral injury to surrounding structures, particularly the esophagus, remains a concern. Cooling or warming the esophagus to counteract the heat from RF ablation, or the cold from cryoablation, is a method that is used to reduce thermal esophageal injury, and there are increasing data to support this approach. This protocol describes the use of a commercially available esophageal temperature management device to cool or warm the esophagus to reduce esophageal injury during left atrial ablation. The temperature management device is powered by standard water-blanket heat exchangers, and is shaped like a standard orogastric tube placed for gastric suctioning and decompression. Water circulates through the device in a closed-loop circuit, transferring heat across the silicone walls of the device, through the esophageal wall. Placement of the device is analogous to the placement of a typical orogastric tube, and temperature is adjusted via the external heat-exchanger console.

The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib improves hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) in an experimental model. However, the efficacy and adverse effect profile in patients with HPS are unknown. We aimed to determine the effect of sorafenib on the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (AaPO 2 ) at 3 months in patients with HPS. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial of sorafenib in patients with HPS at 7 centers. A total of 28 patients with HPS were randomized to sorafenib 400 mg by mouth daily or a matching placebo in a 1:1 ratio. We found no statistically significant difference in the median change in AaPO 2 from baseline to 12 weeks between the patients allocated to sorafenib (4.5 mm Hg; IQR, -3.8 to 7.0 mm Hg) and those allocated to placebo (-2.4 mm Hg; IQR, -4.8 to 8.2 mm Hg; P = 0.70). There was also no difference between the groups in terms of degree of intrapulmonary shunting by contrast echocardiography. Sorafenib significantly reduced circulating levels of angiogenic markers, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (P < 0.01) and TIE2-expressing M2 monocytes (P = 0.03), but it reduced the mental component scores of the Short Form 36 (P = 0.04), indicating a worse quality of life. In conclusion, sorafenib did not change the AaPO 2 or other disease markers at 3 months in patients with HPS. Alternative antiangiogenic therapies or treatments targeting other pathways should be investigated., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Intrapulmonary vascular dilatations (IPVD) frequently are detected in patients with liver disease by the delayed appearance of microbubbles at contrast-enhanced echocardiography. IPVD with an elevated alveolar-arterial (A-a) gradient define hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS); however, the importance of IPVD in the absence of abnormal gas exchange is unknown. We aimed to determine the clinical impact of IPVD in patients with liver disease., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study within the Pulmonary Vascular Complications of Liver Disease 2 Study, a multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients being evaluated for liver transplant. We excluded patients with obstructive or restrictive lung disease, HPS, or intracardiac shunting. We compared patients with and those without IPVD., Results: Forty-six patients with IPVD and 81 patients without IPVD were included. Patients with IPVD were more likely to have autoimmune hepatitis and less likely to have cryptogenic cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients with IPVD had higher Child-Pugh scores (6 [interquartile range (IQR), 5-7] vs 5 [IQR, 4-7]; P = .04), possibly higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (14.5 [IQR, 11.6-15.8] vs 12.2 [IQR, 9.4-15.5]; P = .06), higher PaO 2 levels (97.9 [IQR, 92.0-103.0] vs 89.0 [IQR, 82.0-96.9] mm Hg; P < .001), and lower A-a gradients (9.9 [IQR, 6.2-13.5] vs 14.9 [IQR, 9.0-21.8] mm Hg; P < .001). Symptoms and quality of life were similar between the groups., Conclusions: Autoimmune hepatitis and increased liver disease severity were associated with the presence of IPVD, which was characterized by higher PaO 2 levels. Future studies to better characterize IPVD pathogenesis and the relationship of IPVD to HPS are warranted., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This trial compared the efficacy of acamprosate, started at the beginning of detoxification, to acamprosate started at the completion of detoxification, in the treatment of alcohol dependence., Methods: This biphasic clinical trial consisted of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Detoxification Phase (DP), followed by a 10-week open-label Rehabilitation Phase (RP). Forty alcohol dependent patients were randomly assigned to receive either 1998 mg of acamprosate daily, or matching placebo, during the DP (5-14 days). After completing detoxification, all patients received open label acamprosate (1998 mg daily) in the RP. Outcome measures during the DP included: treatment retention, alcohol withdrawal, alcohol consumption, and oxazepam used. Outcome measures during the RP included: treatment retention and alcohol consumption., Results: There were no significant outcome differences between acamprosate and placebo-treated patients during the DP. Patients given acamprosate, compared to placebo, during the DP drank more alcohol in the RP., Conclusions: Starting acamprosate at the beginning of detoxification did not improve DP outcomes. Starting acamprosate after detoxification was completed was associated with better drinking outcomes during subsequent alcohol rehabilitation treatment.