Eric Fain

Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation and the Risk of Stroke

BACKGROUND One quarter of strokes are of unknown cause, and subclinical atrial fibrillation may be a common etiologic factor. Pacemakers can detect subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate, which correlate with electrocardiographically documented atrial fibrillation. We evaluated whether subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate detected by implanted devices were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in patients who did not have other evidence of atrial fibrillation. METHODS We enrolled 2580 patients, 65 years of age or older, with hypertension and no history of atrial fibrillation, in whom a pacemaker or defibrillator had recently been implanted. We monitored the patients for 3 months to detect subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias (episodes of atrial rate >190 beats per minute for more than 6 minutes) and followed them for a mean of 2.5 years for the primary outcome of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. Patients with pacemakers were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive continuous atrial overdrive pacing. RESULTS By 3 months, subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by implanted devices had occurred in 261 patients (10.1%). Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias were associated with an increased risk of clinical atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 5.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.78 to 8.17; P<0.001) and of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.85; P=0.007). Of 51 patients who had a primary outcome event, 11 had had subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by 3 months, and none had had clinical atrial fibrillation by 3 months. The population attributable risk of stroke or systemic embolism associated with subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias was 13%. Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias remained predictive of the primary outcome after adjustment for predictors of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.89; P=0.008). Continuous atrial overdrive pacing did not prevent atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias, without clinical atrial fibrillation, occurred frequently in patients with pacemakers and were associated with a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ASSERT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256152.).

Temporal Relationship Between Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation and Embolic Events

Background— Among patients with implantable pacemakers and defibrillators, subclinical atrial fibrillation (SCAF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke; however, there is limited understanding of their temporal relationship. Methods and Results— The Asymptomatic Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke Evaluation in Pacemaker Patients and the Atrial Fibrillation Reduction Atrial Pacing Trial (ASSERT) enrolled 2580 pacemaker and defibrillator patients aged ≥65 years with a history of hypertension but without a history of atrial fibrillation. Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators precisely logged the time and duration of all episodes of SCAF and recorded electrograms that were adjudicated by experts. We examined the temporal relationship between SCAF >6 minutes in duration and stroke or systemic embolism. Of 51 patients who experienced stroke or systemic embolism during follow-up, 26 (51%) had SCAF. In 18 patients (35%), SCAF was detected before stroke or systemic embolism. However, only 4 patients (8%) had SCAF detected within 30 days before stroke or systemic embolism, and only 1 of these 4 patients was experiencing SCAF at the time of the stroke. In the 14 patients with SCAF detected >30 days before stroke or systemic embolism, the most recent episode occurred at a median interval of 339 days (25th to 75th percentile, 211–619) earlier. Eight patients (16%) had SCAF detected only after their stroke, despite continuous monitoring for a median duration of 228 days (25th to 75th percentile, 202–719) before their event. Conclusions— Although SCAF is associated with an increased risk of stroke and embolism, very few patients had SCAF in the month before their event. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00256152.

Effect of Amiodarone and Sotalol on Ventricular Defibrillation Threshold The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) Trial

Background— Many patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) receive adjunctive antiarrhythmic drug therapy, most commonly amiodarone or sotalol. The effects of these drugs on defibrillation energy requirements have not been previously assessed in a randomized controlled trial. Methods and Results— The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) trial was a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of amiodarone plus β-blocker and sotalol versus β-blocker alone for reduction of ICD shocks. Within OPTIC, a prospectively designed substudy evaluated the effects of the 3 treatment arms on defibrillation energy requirements. Defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were measured (binary step-down protocol) at baseline and again after 8 to 12 weeks of therapy in 94 patients, of whom 29 were randomized to receive β-blocker therapy (control group), 35 to amiodarone plus β-blocker, and 30 to sotalol. In the control group, the mean DFT decreased from 8.77±5.15 J at baseline to 7.13±3.43 J (P=0.027); in the amiodarone group, DFT increased from 8.53±4.29 to 9.82±5.84 J (P=0.091). In the sotalol group, DFT decreased from 8.09±4.81 to 7.20±5.30 J (P=0.21). DFT changes in the β-blocker and the amiodarone group were significantly different (P=0.006). In all patients, adequate safety margins for defibrillation were maintained. No clinical variable predicted baseline DFT or changes in DFT on therapy. Conclusion— Although amiodarone increased DFT, the effect size with modern ICD systems is very small. Therefore, DFT reassessment after the institution of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with amiodarone or sotalol is not routinely required.

First experience with a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system

The clinical efficacy and safety of a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system (TVL lead system, Ventritex, inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) was studied in patients with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Implantation of the TVL lead system and a Cadence pulse generator (Ventritex, Inc.) was attempted in 27 patients. A subcutaneous patch lead was added if required to achieve adequate defibrillation energy. Patients were monitored for an average of 6 +/- 4 months (range 1 week to 14 months). Implantation was successful in 26 patients (96%). Twenty-three of those patients (88%) were implanted in a lead-alone configuration; the remaining three (12%) required a subcutaneous patch lead. The mean defibrillation threshold was 401 +/- 120 V (12 +/- 7 J) at implantation, 467 +/- 134 V (15 +/- 8 J) at predischarge testing, and 452 +/- 151 V (14 +/- 9 J) at 4-month follow-up. The mean defibrillation threshold at 4 months was not significantly different from that at implant. No deaths, sensing anomalies, infections, lead fractures, or lead dislodgments occurred. One patient required addition of a subcutaneous patch 4 months after device implantation because of an elevated defibrillation threshold. Eight patients (31%) experienced 545 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes, and all episodes were successfully terminated by the device. In conclusion, the TVL lead system combined with Cadence tiered-therapy defibrillator has a high success rate and low complication rate, and it can be recommended for treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Response to Letter Regarding Article “Temporal Relationship Between Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation and Embolic Events”

We agree with Professor Haft, in response to our article,1 that the prognostic significance of atrial arrhythmias lasting 17 000 electrograms for AF episodes lasting ≥6 …