Holmes, David R.

Background There are limited data on the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( VA ‐ ECMO ) or cardiopulmonary bypass ( CPB ) to provide hemodynamic support periprocedurally during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. This study sought to evaluate patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant use of CPB / VA ‐ ECMO . Methods and Results We systematically reviewed the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for studies evaluating adult patients requiring CPB / VA ‐ ECMO periprocedurally during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Studies reporting short‐term and long‐term mortality were included. Given the significant methodological and statistical differences between published studies, meta‐analysis of the association of CPB / VA ‐ ECMO with mortality was not performed. Of the 537 studies identified, 9 studies representing 5191 patients met our inclusion criteria. Median ages were between 75 and 87 years with 33% to 75% male patients. Where reported, the Edwards SAPIEN ™ transcatheter heart valve was the most frequently used. A total of 203 (3.9%) patients received periprocedural hemodynamic support with CPB / VA ‐ ECMO . Common indications for CPB / VA ‐ ECMO included left ventricular or aortic annular rupture, rapid hemodynamic deterioration, aortic regurgitation, cardiac arrest, and left main coronary artery obstruction. The use of CPB / VA ‐ ECMO was predominantly an emergent strategy and was used for durations of 1 to 2 hours. Short‐term mortality (in‐hospital and 30‐day) was 29.8%, and 1‐year mortality was 52.4%. Major complications such as bleeding, vascular injury, tamponade, stroke, and renal failure were noted in 10% to 50% of patients. Conclusions CPB / VA ‐ ECMO was used in 4% in the early experience of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, most commonly for periprocedural complications. There are limited data on preprocedural planned use of VA ‐ ECMO , and the characteristics of this population remain poorly defined.

Background Current thermal ablation methods for atrial fibrillation, including radiofrequency and cryoablation, have a suboptimal success rate. To avoid pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis, ablation is performed outside of the PV, despite the importance of triggers inside the vein. We previously reported on the acute effects of a novel direct current electroporation approach with a balloon catheter to create lesions inside the PVs in addition to the antrum. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the effects created by this nonthermal ablation method were associated with irreversible lesions and whether PV stenosis or other adverse effects occurred after a survival period. Methods and Results Initial and survival studies were performed in 5 canines. At the initial study, the balloon catheter was inflated to contact the antrum and interior of the PV. Direct current energy was delivered between 2 electrodes on the catheter in ECG‐gated 100 μs pulses. A total of 10 PVs were treated demonstrating significant acute local electrogram diminution (mean amplitude decrease of 61.2±19.8%). After the survival period (mean 27 days), computed tomography imaging showed no PV stenosis. On histologic evaluation, transmural, although not circumferential, lesions were seen in each treated vein. No PV stenosis or esophageal injury was present. Conclusions Irreversible, transmural lesions can be created inside the PV without evidence of stenosis after a 27‐day survival period using this balloon‐based direct current ablation approach. These early data show promise for an ablation approach that could directly treat PV triggers in addition to traditional PV antrum ablation.

Background: In patients with atrial fibrillation, left atrial appendage closure with the Watchman device prevents thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage; however, thrombus may form on the left atrial face of the device, and then potentially embolize. Herein, we studied the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome of device-related thrombus (DRT) using a large series of clinical trial cohorts of patients undergoing Watchman implantation. Methods: We studied the device arms of 4 prospective Food and Drug Administration trials: PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) (n=463); PREVAIL (Evaluation of the Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy) (n=269); CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT AF registry) (n=566); and CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL registry) (n=578). Surveillance transesophageal echocardiographs were performed at 45 days and 12 months in all patients, and also at 6 months in the randomized control trials. We assessed both the incidence of DRT during these transesophageal echocardiographs (and other unscheduled transesophageal echocardiographs), and clinical outcomes of postprocedure stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and adjusted for CHA 2 DS 2 -VASC and HAS-BLED scores. Results: Of 1739 patients who received an implant (7159 patient-years follow-up; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc=4.0), DRT was seen in 65 patients (3.74%). The rates of SSE with and without DRT were 7.46 and 1.78 per 100 patient-years (adjusted rate ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.18–5.79; P <0.001), and ischemic SSE rates were 6.28 and 1.65 per 100 patient-years (adjusted rate ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.90–5.45, P <0.001). On multivariable modeling analysis, the predictors of DRT were as follows: history of transient ischemic attack or stroke (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.26–4.25; P =0.007), permanent atrial fibrillation (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.19–4.20; P =0.012); vascular disease (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.08–3.91; P =0.028); left atrial appendage diameter (OR, 1.06 per mm increase; 95% CI, 1.01–1.12; P =0.019); left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.96 per 1% increase; 95% CI, 0.94–0.99; P =0.009). DRT and SSE both occurred in 17 of 65 patients (26.2%). Of the 19 SSE events in these patients with DRT, 9 of 19 (47.4%) and 12 of 19 (63.2%) occurred within 1 and 6 months of DRT detection. Conversely, after left atrial appendage closure, most SSEs (123/142, 86.62%) occurred in patients without DRT. Conclusions: After left atrial appendage closure with Watchman, DRT (≈3.7%) is not frequent but, when present, is associated with a higher rate of stroke and systemic embolism.

Background and Purpose— Once a patient with atrial fibrillation experiences an embolic event, the risk of a recurrent event increases 2.6-fold. New treatments have emerged as viable treatment alternatives to warfarin for stroke risk reduction in secondary prevention populations. This analysis sought to assess the cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) compared with warfarin and the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants dabigatran 150 mg, apixaban and rivaroxaban in the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. Methods— A Markov model was constructed using data from the secondary prevention subgroup analyses of the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant and LAAC pivotal trials. Costs were from 2016 US Medicare reimbursement rates and the literature. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a US Medicare perspective over a lifetime (20 years) horizon. The model was populated with a cohort of 10 000 patients aged 70 years with a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 7 (annual stroke risk=9.60%) and HAS-BLED score of 3 (annual bleeding risk=3.74%). Results— LAAC achieved cost-effectiveness relative to dabigatran at year 5 and warfarin and apixaban at year 6. At 10 years, LAAC had more quality-adjusted life years (4.986 versus 4.769, 4.869, 4.888, and 4.810) and lower costs ($42 616 versus $53 770, $58 774, $55 656, and $58 655) than warfarin, dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, respectively, making LAAC the dominant (more effective and less costly) stroke risk reduction strategy. LAAC remained the dominant strategy over the lifetime analysis. Conclusions— Upfront procedure costs initially make LAAC higher cost than warfarin and the non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, but within 10 years, LAAC delivers more quality-adjusted life years and has lower total costs, making LAAC the most cost-effective treatment strategy for secondary prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation.