Masry, Hicham El

AbstractIn patients with non‐sustained tachyarrhythmias, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction is uncommon. The role of catheter ablation (CA) in asymptomatic patients with tachyarrhythmia remains unclear. We report a 20‐year‐old patient without sustained tachyarrhythmia with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 20% who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of anteroseptal accessory pathway. She achieved normalization of left ventricular systolic function noted on echocardiography performed at 4 weeks post‐ablation. Our case highlights significant improvement in LV systolic function after catheter ablation of an “asymptomatic” ventricular pre‐excitation. Current guidelines do not endorse ablating asymptomatic patients, but careful follow‐up with serial echocardiograms might be warranted. Prophylactic ablation of those patients with clear evidence of LV dyssynchrony or wide left bundle branch pattern and persistent pre‐excitation is worth further consideration.

Background: In patients with non-sustained tachyarrhythmias, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction is uncommon. The role of catheter ablation (CA) in asymptomatic patients with tachyarrhythmia remains unclear. Case presentation: We report a 20-year-old patient without sustained tachyarrhythmia with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 20% who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of anteroseptal accessory pathway. She achieved normalization of left ventricular systolic function noted on echocardiography performed at four weeks post-ablation. Conclusions: Our case highlights significant improvement in LV systolic function after catheter ablation of an “asymptomatic” ventricular preexcitation. Current guidelines do not endorse ablating asymptomatic patients, but careful follow up with serial echocardiograms might be warranted. Prophylactic ablation of those patients with clear evidence of LV dyssynchrony or wide left bundle branch pattern and persistent preexcitation is worth further consideration.

AbstractBackgroundPosterior wall isolation (PWI) is an emerging approach in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, yet its efficacy remains controversial. This is the first meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of PWI in AF ablation.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of PWI in reducing atrial arrhythmia recurrence following initial AF ablation at long‐term follow‐ups when compared to conventional methods.MethodsWe conducted a literature search from inception through September 2021 in EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. We included RCTs that compared outcomes in PWI and conventional approaches of AF ablation. Data from each study were combined using the random‐effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird to calculate odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsEight RCT from 2009 to 2020, including 1024 AF patients, were included. PWI did not decrease overall atrial arrhythmias recurrence (RR 0.96, 95% CI:0.88–1.05, I2 = 31.6%, p‐value 0.393). However, the pooled analysis showed a significant decrease in AF recurrence in PWI compared to controlled approaches (RR 0.88, 95% CI:0.81–0.96, I2 = 48.2%, p‐value .004). In the subgroup analysis, PWI significantly decreased AF recurrence in the studies that included only persistent AF (RR = 0.89, 95% CI:0.80–0.98, I2 = 65.2%, p‐value .014). PWI significantly decreased AF recurrence when compared to PVI with roof line (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74–0.95, I2 0.00%, p‐value .008).ConclusionOur study suggests that adding PWI significantly decreased AF recurrence in patients with persistent AF compared to controlled approaches. It highlights the importance of considering PWI during the initial procedure in this patient population.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation is a common clinical manifestation in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Medications used to treat atrial fibrillation, such as antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants, may have significant drug interactions with emerging COVID‐19 treatments. Common unintended nontherapeutic target effects of COVID‐19 treatment include potassium channel blockade, cytochrome P 450 isoenzyme inhibition or activation, and P‐glycoprotein inhibition. Drug‐drug interactions with antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants in these patients may lead to significant bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or severe bleeding. It is important for clinicians to be aware of these interactions, drug metabolism changes, and clinical consequences when choosing antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants for COVID‐19 patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this review is to provide a practical guide for clinicians who are managing COVID‐19 patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation.