El Masry, Hicham

AbstractIntroductionVentricular tachycardia storm or electrical storm (ES) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The factors contributing to ES and outcomes are less studied. The study aimed to determine the factors associated with ES and the probability of survival in patients undergoing LVAD in three tertiary centers over a span of 15 years.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2020. ES was defined as ≥3 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over a period of 24 h with no identifiable reversible cause. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 883 patients who underwent LVAD implantation were included in our study. ES occurred in 7% (n = 61) of patients with a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–297 days) following surgery. We found 57% of patients (n = 35) developed ES within 30 days, while 43% (n = 26) patients developed ES at a median of 545 (IQR 152–1032) days after surgery. Following ES, 26% of patients died within 1 year. Patients with ES had a significant association with a history of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks before the procedure. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.39–2.64, p < .001).ConclusionFollowing LVAD implantation, the rate of ES was 7% with majority of ES occurring within 30 days of LVAD. Risk factors for ES included pre‐implant history of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shock. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES.

Although substantial progress has been made to prevent sudden cardiac death in repaired tetralogy of Fallot patients, ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death continue to be major causes of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Greater survival in contemporary cohorts has been attributed to enhanced surgical techniques, more effective management of heart failure, and increased efforts in risk stratification and management of ventricular arrhythmias. More recently, our understanding of predictive risk factors has evolved into personalized risk prediction tools that rely on comprehensive demographic, imaging, functional, and electrophysiological data. However, the universal applicability of these different scoring systems is limited due to differences between study cohorts, types of anatomic repair, imaging modalities, and disease complexity. Noninvasive risk stratification is critical to identify those who may derive benefit from catheter ablation or cardioverter defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. Ultimately, assessment and risk stratification by a multidisciplinary team is crucial to analyze the various complex factors for every individual patient and discuss further options with patients and their families.

AbstractBackgroundReal‐world clinical data on the adverse events related to the use of cryoballoon catheter for pulmonary vein isolation remains limited.ObjectiveTo report and describe the adverse events related to the use of Artic Front cryoballoon catheters (Arctic Front, Arctic Front Advance, and Arctic Front Advance Pro) reported in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturers and User Defined Experience (MAUDE) database.MethodsWe reviewed all the adverse events reported to the FDA MAUDE database over a 10.7‐year study period from January 01, 2011 to September 31, 2021. All events were independently reviewed by two physicians.ResultsDuring the study period, a total of 320 procedural‐related adverse events reported in the MAUDE database were identified. The most common adverse event was transient or persistent phrenic nerve palsy (PNP), accounting for 48% of all events. This was followed by cardiac perforation (15%), pulmonary vein stenosis (8%), transient ischemic attack or stroke (6%), vascular injury (4%), transient or persistent ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (3%), hemoptysis (2%), pericarditis (2%), and esophageal ulcer or fistula (1%). There were six reported intra‐procedural death events as a result of cardiac perforation.ConclusionThe two most common procedural adverse events associated with cryoballoon ablation were PNP and cardiac perforation. All cases of procedural mortality were due to cardiac perforation.

Atrial fibrillation is a diverse clinical entity, with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) being particularly challenging to manage. Through this paper, we discuss notable developments in our understanding of ablative strategies for managing PeAF, with a special focus on posterior wall isolation (PWI).

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.

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.