Scott, Luis

ABSTRACT Background Sodium‐glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2‐Is) are primarily used to manage type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), but their impact on reducing stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains underexplored. We aimed to investigate the impact of SGLT2‐Is for stroke risk mitigation in patients with AF. Methods Using the TriNetX database, we performed a retrospective cohort study on patients ≥ 18 years with AF and on anticoagulation. These patients were then classified into two cohorts based on their use of SGLT2‐Is. To balance the baseline demographics, comorbidities, and medication use, propensity score matching (PSM) was used. The primary outcome was ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes, and the secondary outcomes were all‐cause mortality, all‐cause hospitalizations, need for AF cardioversion or antiarrhythmic drug initiation, and cardiac arrest. Adjusted odds ratio (aORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for both the primary and secondary outcomes. Results A total of 152,778 patients with 76,389 patients were included in each cohort (SGLT2‐Is users, and non‐users) after PSM. The mean age of both SGLT2‐Is users and non‐users was 72.8 years. For the SGLT2‐Is users, the mean follow‐up period was 317 days, whereas the mean follow‐up period for the non‐users was 306 days. For the primary outcome, we found that SGLT2‐Is users had a lower risk of ischemic stroke (aOR: 0.889; 95% CI: 0.857–0.923) and hemorrhagic stroke (aOR: 0.682; 95% CI: 0.620–0.749) compared to non‐users. Regarding the secondary outcomes, SGLT2‐Is users also had lower risk for all‐cause mortality (aOR: 0.615; 95% CI: 0.595–0.636), all‐cause hospitalizations (aOR: 0.599; 95% CI: 0.587–0.611), need of AF cardioversion (aOR: 0.846; 95% CI: 0.813–0.881), antiarrhythmic drug initiation (aOR: 0.790; 95% CI: 0.766–0.815), and cardiac arrest (aOR: 0.643; 95% CI: 0.601–0.688). Conclusions SGLT2‐I use in patients with AF is associated with lower risks of stroke and other cardiovascular and non‐cardiovascular outcomes. Future prospective research is needed to validate these findings.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe factors contributing to sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) >30 days after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are not well‐established.ObjectivesThis study aimed to predict the factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD implantation and develop a predictive score to identify patients with an increased risk of late sustained VAs after the procedure.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on a training cohort of 623 patients and a validation cohort of 157 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2020. Late sustained VAs were defined as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring >30 days after the LVAD procedure. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 780 patients were included in our study. Late sustained VAs occurred in 30% (n = 232) of the patients. The significant factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD were the history of VAs prior to LVAD (34.1% vs. 23.0%, p < 0.01), implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) (87.9% vs. 77.6%, p < 0.01) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in situ (43.5% vs. 33.6%, p = 0.008), VT ablation prior to LVAD (5.2% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.010), use of amiodarone (49.1% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.007), use of mexiletine (15.5% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.01), and higher left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD) on echocardiography prior to LVAD implantation (71.4 vs. 68.7 mm, p = 0.002). During follow‐up, the patients who developed late sustained VAs after LVAD had lower survival than those who did not (HR = 1.96, 95% CI:156–2.4, p < 0.001). The average time from LVAD to orthotopic heart transplant was longer among late sustained VAs patients (23 vs. 14 months, p < 0.01). The “VIN” risk score was created to identify four risk groups: low (scores 0), intermediate (score 1), high (score 2), and very high (score 3). The rates of late VA's in the training cohort at 1 year were 9.5%, 14%, 18%, and 25% which was almost similar to the risk of late VA's at validation cohort 10%, 12%, 20%, and 63%, respectively.ConclusionsLate sustained VAs occurred in 30% of the patients who received LVAD and were associated with lower survival. The VIN risk score was developed and validated to stratify patients into low, intermediate, high, and very high risk of late sustained VAs.

Background: Recognition of the causes of early mortality after atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is essential for the improvement of patient safety. Objective: This study sought to determine the causes of early mortality (≤90-days) after AF ablation and to further understand the circumstances surrounding death after the procedure. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of AF ablation from January 1, 2013, to December 1, 2021 at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville). Causes of death were identified through a comprehensive chart review of the electronic health record from within the Mayo Clinic system and outside records when available. Results: A total of 6,723 patients were included in the study. The 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were 0.09% and 0.22%, respectively. Among all 90-day deaths, majority of the deaths (73.3%) did not have a direct relationship with the procedure. Sudden death was the most common cause of early death (20%), followed by peri-procedural stroke (13%), respiratory failure (13%), atrioesophageal fistula (13%), infection (7%), heart failure (7%), and traumatic brain injury (7%). The 90-day mortality rate directly due to AF ablation procedural complications was 0.06%. Most of the early deaths (93.3%) occurred after discharge from index hospitalization, among which 64.3% were readmitted before their death, 14% died at home, and 7% were discharged on comfort care and died in hospice. The main reason for readmission leading to death was respiratory failure (33%). Conclusion: Atrial fibrillation ablation procedure has a 90-day mortality of 0.22% and the most common cause of early mortality was sudden death. The majority (73.3%) of early mortality was not directly associated with a procedural complication, and the mortality rate due to complications associated with the AF ablation procedure was 0.06%.

AbstractMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable imaging modality for the assessment of both cardiac and non‐cardiac structures. With a growing population of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), 50%–75% of these patients will need an MRI. MRI‐conditional CIEDs have demonstrated safety of MRI scanning with such devices, yet non‐conditional devices such as hybrid CIEDs which have generator and lead brand mismatch may pose a safety risk. In this retrospective study, we examined the outcomes of patients with hybrid CIEDs undergoing MRI compared to those patients with non‐hybrid CIEDs. A total of 349 patients were included, of which 24 patients (7%) had hybrid CIEDs. The primary endpoint was the safety of MRI for patients with hybrid CIEDs as compared to those with non‐hybrid devices, measured by the rate of adverse events, including death, lead or generator failure needing immediate replacement, loss of capture, new onset arrhythmia, or power‐on reset. Secondary endpoints consisted of pre‐ and post‐MRI changes of decreased P‐wave or R‐wave sensing by ≥50%, changes in pacing lead impedance by ≥50 ohms, increase in pacing thresholds by ≥ 0.5 V at 0.4 ms, and decreasing battery voltage of ≥ 0.04 V. The primary endpoint of any adverse reaction was present in 1 (4.2%) patient with a hybrid device, and consistent of atrial tachyarrhythmia, and in 10 (3.1%) patients with a non‐hybrid device, and consisted of self‐limited atrial and non‐sustained ventricular arrhythmias; this was not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in the secondary endpoints. This study demonstrates that MRI in patients with hybrid CIEDs does not result in increased patient risk or significant device changes when compared to those patients who underwent MRI with non‐hybrid CIEDs.