Han, Jie

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about the ablation outcomes of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) that originate from the periprosthetic aortic valve (PPAV) regions of patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR).Methods and ResultsOur study had 11 patients who underwent catheter ablation for PVCs arising from the PPAV regions (bioprosthetic aortic valve, n = 5; mechanical aortic valve, n = 6). The PVC characteristics, procedure characteristics, and efficacy of ablation were compared with the control group (n = 33). At baseline, the PPAV group had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction (mean [SD], 41% [12%] vs. 51% [8%]; p = .002). The rate of acute ablation success was 90.9% in the PPAV group. Ablation sites were identified above the left coronary cusp (LCC) and right coronary cusp commissure (LRCC) in one PVC, below the prosthetic valve in eight PVCs (four below LCC and four below LRCC), and within the distal coronary sinus in two PVCs. The mean procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation in the PPAV group were all significantly greater than those in the control group (all p < .05). However, the number of radiofrequency ablation energy deliveries was not different. The PPAV group had a long‐term success rate compared with the control group (72.7% vs. 87.9%, p = .48) and an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction from 43% to 49% after successful PVC ablation at follow‐up (p < .001). Echocardiography showed no significant change in valve regurgitation after ablation. No new atrioventricular block occurred.ConclusionPVCs arising from PPAV regions can be successfully ablated in patients with prior AVR, without damaging the prosthetic aortic valve and atrioventricular conduction.

AbstractIntroductionThe best management strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with heart failure (HF) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown.Methods and ResultsThis cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota, with resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Patients with incident AF occurring between 2000 and 2014 with a prior or concurrent HF were included. Patients with LVEF ≥ 50% were designated as HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and those with LVEF < 50% were designated as HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Rhythm control in the first year after AF diagnosis was defined as prescriptions for an antiarrhythmic drug, catheter ablation, or maze procedure. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Of 859 patients (age, 77.2 ± 12.1 years; 49.2%, female), 447 had HFpEF‐AF, and 412 had HFrEF‐AF. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (10‐year mortality, 83% vs 79%; p = .54) or secondary endpoints between the HFpEF‐AF and HFrEF‐AF, respectively. Compared with the rate control strategy, rhythm control in HFpEF‐AF patients (n = 40, 15.9%) offered no survival benefits (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42–1.16; p = .16), whereas rhythm control in HFrEF‐AF patients (n = 52, 22.5%) decrease cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17–0.86; p = .02).ConclusionsPatients with HFpEF‐AF and HFrEF‐AF had similar poor prognoses. Rhythm control strategy was seldom adopted in community care in patients with HF and AF. A rhythm control strategy may provide survival benefit for patients with HFrEF‐AF and the benefit of rhythm control in patients with HFpEF‐AF warrants further study.

AbstractBackgroundInappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) remains a clinical challenge because patients often are highly symptomatic and not responsive to medical therapy.ObjectiveTo study the safety and efficacy of stellate ganglion (SG) block and cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) in patients with IST.MethodsTwelve consecutive patients who had drug‐refractory IST (10 women) were studied. According to a prospectively initiated protocol, five patients underwent an electrophysiologic study before and after SG block (electrophysiology study group). The subsequent seven patients had ambulatory Holter monitoring before and after SG block (ambulatory group). All patients underwent SG block on the right side first, and then on the left side. Selected patients who had heart rate reduction ≥15 beats per minute (bpm) were recommended to consider CSD.ResultsThe mean (SD) baseline heart rate (HR) was 106 (21) bpm. The HR significantly decreased to 93 (20) bpm (P = .02) at 10 minutes after right SG block and remained significantly slower at 97(19) bpm at 60 minutes. Left SG block reduced HR from 99 (21) to 87(16) bpm (P = .02) at 60 minutes. SG block had no significant effect on blood pressure or HR response to isoproterenol or exercise (all P > .05). Five patients underwent right (n = 4) or bilateral (n = 1) CSD. The clinical outcomes were heterogeneous: one patient had complete and two had partial symptomatic relief, and two did not have improvement.ConclusionSG blockade modestly reduces resting HR but has no significant effect on HR during exercise. Permanent CSD may have a modest role in alleviating symptoms in selected patients with IST.