Gregory F. Michaud

Facilitating transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation with ibutilide pretreatment

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation cannot always be converted to sinus rhythm by transthoracic electrical cardioversion. We examined the effect of ibutilide, a class III antiarrhythmic agent, on the energy requirement for atrial defibrillation and assessed the value of this agent in facilitating cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation that is resistant to conventional transthoracic cardioversion. METHODS One hundred patients who had had atrial fibrillation for a mean (+/-SD) of 117+/-201 days were randomly assigned to undergo transthoracic cardioversion with or without pretreatment with 1 mg of ibutilide. We designed a step-up protocol in which shocks at 50, 100, 200, 300, and 360 J were used for transthoracic cardioversion. If transthoracic cardioversion was unsuccessful in a patient who had not received ibutilide pretreatment, ibutilide was administered and transthoracic cardioversion attempted again. RESULTS Conversion to sinus rhythm occurred in 36 of 50 patients who had not received ibutilide (72 percent) and in all 50 patients who had received ibutilide (100 percent, P<0.001). In all 14 patients in whom transthoracic cardioversion alone failed, sinus rhythm was restored when cardioversion was attempted again after the administration of ibutilide. Pretreatment with ibutilide was associated with a reduction in the mean energy required for defibrillation (166+/-80 J, as compared with 228+/-93 J without pretreatment; P<0.001). Sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia occurred in 2 of the 64 patients who received ibutilide (3 percent), both of whom had an ejection fraction of 0.20 or less. The rates of freedom from atrial fibrillation after six months of follow-up were similar in the two randomized groups. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of transthoracic cardioversion for converting atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm was enhanced by pretreatment with ibutilide. However, use of this drug should be avoided in patients with very low ejection fractions.

Diagnostic value of tachycardia features and pacing maneuvers during paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this prospective study was to quantitate the diagnostic value of several tachycardia features and pacing maneuvers in patients with paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT) in the electrophysiology laboratory. BACKGROUND No study has prospectively compared the value of multiple diagnostic tools in a large group of patients with PSVT. METHODS One hundred ninety-six consecutive patients who had 200 inducible sustained PSVTs during an electrophysiology procedure were included. The diagnostic values of four baseline electrophysiologic parameters, nine tachycardia features and five diagnostic pacing maneuvers were quantified. RESULTS The only tachycardia characteristic that was diagnostic of atrioventricular (AV) nodal reentry was a septal ventriculoatrial (VA) time of <70 ms, and no pacing maneuver was diagnostic for AV nodal reentry. An increase in the VA interval with the development of a bundle branch block was the only tachycardia characteristic that was diagnostic for orthodromic tachycardia, but it occurred in only 7% of all tachycardias. An atrial-atrial-ventricular response upon cessation of ventricular overdrive pacing was diagnostic of atrial tachycardia, and this maneuver could be applied to 78% of all tachycardias. Burst ventricular pacing excluded atrial tachycardia when the tachycardia terminated without depolarization of the atrium, but the result could be obtained only in 27% of patients. CONCLUSIONS This prospective study quantitates the diagnostic value of multiple observations and pacing maneuvers that are commonly used during PSVT in the electrophysiology laboratory. The findings demonstrate that diagnostic techniques rarely provide a diagnosis when used individually. Therefore, careful observations and multiple pacing maneuvers are often required for an accurate diagnosis during PSVT. The results of this study provide a useful reference with which new diagnostic techniques can be compared.

Differentiation of atypical atrioventricular node re-entrant tachycardia from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia using a septal accessory pathway by the response to ventricular pacing

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine whether the response to ventricular pacing during tachycardia is useful for differentiating atypical atrioventricular node re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) from orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) using a septal accessory pathway. BACKGROUND Although it is usually possible to differentiate atypical AVNRT from ORT using a septal accessory pathway, a definitive diagnosis is occasionally elusive. METHODS In 30 patients with atypical AVNRT and 44 patients with ORT using a septal accessory pathway, the right ventricle was paced at a cycle length 10 to 40 ms shorter than the tachycardia cycle length (TCL). The ventriculo-atrial (VA) interval and TCL were measured just before pacing. The interval between the last pacing stimulus and the last entrained atrial depolarization (stimulus-atrial [S-A] interval) and the post-pacing interval (PPI) at the right ventricular apex were measured on cessation of ventricular pacing. RESULTS All 30 patients with atypical AVNRT and none of the 44 patients with ORT using a septal accessory pathway had an S-A-VA interval >85 ms and PPI-TCL >115 ms. CONCLUSIONS The S-A-VA interval and PPI-TCL are useful in distinguishing atypical AVNRT from ORT using a septal accessory pathway.

2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

During the past three decades, catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) have evolved from investigational procedures to their current role as effective treatment options for patients with AF. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard, minimally invasive, or hybrid techniques, is available in most major hospitals throughout the world. Catheter ablation of AF is even more widely available, and is now the most commonly performed catheter ablation procedure. In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS).1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC). This Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was rewritten in 2012 to reflect the many advances in AF ablation that had occurred in the interim.2 The rate of advancement in the tools, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation continue to increase as enormous research efforts are focused on the mechanisms, outcomes, and treatment of AF. For this reason, the HRS initiated an effort to rewrite and update this Consensus Statement. Reflecting both the worldwide importance of AF, as well as the worldwide performance of AF ablation, this document is the result of a joint partnership between the HRS, EHRA, ECAS, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin American Society of Cardiac Stimulation and Electrophysiology (Sociedad Latinoamericana de Estimulacion Cardiaca y Electrofisiologia [SOLAECE]). The purpose of this 2017 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a writing group, convened by these five international societies. The writing group is charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of AF ablation procedures. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation and the reporting of outcomes, including definitions relevant to this topic. The writing group is composed of 60 experts representing 11 organizations: HRS, EHRA, ECAS, APHRS, SOLAECE, STS, ACC, American Heart Association (AHA), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), Japanese Heart Rhythm Society (JHRS), and Brazilian Society of Cardiac Arrhythmias (Sociedade Brasileira de Arritmias Cardiacas [SOBRAC]). All the members of the writing group, as well as peer reviewers of the document, have provided disclosure statements for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. All author and peer reviewer disclosure information is provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. In writing a consensus document, it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all the writing group members. Surveys of the entire writing group were used to identify areas of consensus concerning performance of AF ablation procedures and to develop recommendations concerning the indications for catheter and surgical AF ablation. These recommendations were systematically balloted by the 60 writing group members and were approved by a minimum of 80% of these members. The recommendations were also subject to a 1-month public comment period. Each partnering and collaborating organization then officially reviewed, commented on, edited, and endorsed the final document and recommendations. The grading system for indication of class of evidence level was adapted based on that used by the ACC and the AHA.3,4 It is important to state, however, that this document is not a guideline. The indications for catheter and surgical ablation of AF, as well as recommendations for procedure performance, are presented with a Class and Level of Evidence (LOE) to be consistent with what the reader is familiar with seeing in guideline statements. A Class I recommendation means that the benefits of the AF ablation procedure markedly exceed the risks, and that AF ablation should be performed; a Class IIa recommendation means that the benefits of an AF ablation procedure exceed the risks, and that it is reasonable to perform AF ablation; a Class IIb recommendation means that the benefit of AF ablation is greater or equal to the risks, and that AF ablation may be considered; and a Class III recommendation means that AF ablation is of no proven benefit and is not recommended. The writing group reviewed and ranked evidence supporting current recommendations with the weight of evidence ranked as Level A if the data were derived from high-quality evidence from more than one randomized clinical trial, meta-analyses of high-quality randomized clinical trials, or one or more randomized clinical trials corroborated by high-quality registry studies. The writing group ranked available evidence as Level B-R when there was moderate-quality evidence from one or more randomized clinical trials, or meta-analyses of moderate-quality randomized clinical trials. Level B-NR was used to denote moderate-quality evidence from one or more well-designed, well-executed nonrandomized studies, observational studies, or registry studies. This designation was also used to denote moderate-quality evidence from meta-analyses of such studies. Evidence was ranked as Level C-LD when the primary source of the recommendation was randomized or nonrandomized observational or registry studies with limitations of design or execution, meta-analyses of such studies, or physiological or mechanistic studies of human subjects. Level C-EO was defined as expert opinion based on the clinical experience of the writing group. Despite a large number of authors, the participation of several societies and professional organizations, and the attempts of the group to reflect the current knowledge in the field adequately, this document is not intended as a guideline. Rather, the group would like to refer to the current guidelines on AF management for the purpose of guiding overall AF management strategies.5,6 This consensus document is specifically focused on catheter and surgical ablation of AF, and summarizes the opinion of the writing group members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are caring for patients who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF, and those involved in research in the field of AF ablation. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter or surgical ablation of AF. Rather, the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and the patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. The main objective of this document is to improve patient care by providing a foundation of knowledge for those involved with catheter ablation of AF. A second major objective is to provide recommendations for designing clinical trials and reporting outcomes of clinical trials of AF ablation. It is recognized that this field continues to evolve rapidly. As this document was being prepared, further clinical trials of catheter and surgical ablation of AF were under way.

Ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death

Management strategies for ventricular arrhythmias are guided by the risk of sudden death and severity of symptoms. Patients with a substantial risk of sudden death usually need an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Although ICDs effectively end most episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and decrease mortality in specific populations of patients, they have inherent risks and limitations. Generally, antiarrhythmic drugs do not provide sufficient protection from sudden death, but do have a role in reducing arrhythmias that cause symptoms. Catheter ablation is likewise important for reducing the frequency of spontaneous arrhythmias and is curative for some patients, usually those with idiopathic arrhythmias and no heart disease. Arrhythmia surgery is now infrequent, offered by only a few specialised centres for refractory arrhythmias. Advances in understanding of genetic arrhythmia syndromes and in technology for mapping and ablation of ventricular arrhythmias, and enhanced algorithms in implantable devices for rhythm management, have contributed to improved outcomes.

Incidence and predictors of major complications from contemporary catheter ablation to treat cardiac arrhythmias

BACKGROUND Updated understanding of the risks of catheter ablation is important because techniques have evolved for procedures treating non-life-threatening as well as potentially lethal arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE This prospective study sought to assess the incidence and predictors of major complications from contemporary catheter ablation procedures at a high-volume center. METHODS Over a 2-year period, 1,676 consecutive ablation procedures were prospectively evaluated for major complications throughout 30 days postprocedure. Predictors of major complications were determined in a multivariate analysis adjusted for demographics, clinical variables, ablation type, and procedural factors. RESULTS Rates of major complications differed between procedure types, ranging from 0.8% for supraventricular tachycardia, 3.4% for idiopathic ventricular tachycardia (VT), 5.2% for atrial fibrillation (AF), and 6.0% for VT associated with structural heart disease (SHD). Ablation type (ablation for AF [odds ratio (OR) 5.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.81 to 16.83], for VT with SHD [OR 8.61, 95% CI 2.37 to 31.31], or for idiopathic VT [OR 5.93, 95% CI 1.40 to 25.05] all referenced to supraventricular tachycardia ablation), and serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dl (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.76) were associated with increased adjusted risk of major complications, whereas age, gender, body mass index, international normalized ratio level, hypertension, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and prior cerebrovascular accident were not associated with increased risk. CONCLUSION In a large cohort of contemporary catheter ablation, major complication rates ranged between 0.8% and 6.0% depending on the ablation procedure performed. Aside from ablation type, renal insufficiency was the only independent predictor of a major complication.

A randomized trial comparing heparin initiation 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this randomized study was to evaluate the prevalence of pocket hematomas in patients treated with heparin 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. BACKGROUND The risks of pocket hematoma and need for evacuation after device implantation have not been defined in patients who require anticoagulation. METHODS Forty-nine consecutive patients with an indication for anticoagulation with heparin after implantable defibrillator or pacemaker implantation were randomized to receive intravenous heparin either 6 h (n = 26) or 24 h (n = 23) postoperatively. Both groups also received warfarin on a daily basis starting the evening of surgery. Twenty-eight patients who received postoperative warfarin alone and 115 patients who did not receive anticoagulation were followed up in a study registry. RESULTS A pocket hematoma developed in 6 of 26 patients (22%) who were treated with intravenous heparin 6 h postoperatively, as compared with 4 of 23 patients (17%) who were treated with intravenous heparin 24 h postoperatively (p = 0.7). In total, a pocket hematoma developed in 10 of 49 patients (20%) treated with heparin, 1 of 28 patients (4%) treated with warfarin alone and 2 of 115 (2%) patients who received no anticoagulation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Intravenous heparin initiation 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation is associated with a 20% prevalence of pocket hematoma formation. Warfarin therapy or no anticoagulation is associated with only a 2% to 4% risk of pocket hematoma formation.

Mapping and ablation of ventricular tachycardia guided by virtual electrograms using a noncontact, computerized mapping system

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to describe a computerized mapping system that utilizes a noncontact, 64 electrode balloon catheter to compute virtual electrograms simultaneously at 3,360 left ventricular (LV) sites and to assess the clinical utility of this system for mapping and ablating ventricular tachycardia (VT). BACKGROUND Mapping VT in the electrophysiology laboratory conventionally is achieved by sequentially positioning an electrode catheter at multiple endocardial sites. METHODS Fifteen patients with VT underwent 18 electrophysiology procedures using the noncontact, computerized mapping system. A 9F 64 electrode balloon catheter and a conventional 7F electrode catheter for mapping and ablation were positioned in the LV using a retrograde aortic approach. Using a boundary element inverse solution, 3,360 virtual endocardial electrograms were computed and used to derive isopotential maps. An incorporated locator system was used in conjunction with or instead of fluoroscopy to position the conventional electrode catheter. RESULTS A total of 21 VTs, 12 of which were hemodynamically-tolerated and 9 of which were not, were mapped. Isolated diastolic potentials, presystolic areas, zones of slow conduction and exit sites during VT were identified using virtual electrograms and isopotential maps. Among 19 targeted VTs, radiofrequency ablation guided by the computerized mapping system and the locator signal was successful in 15. CONCLUSIONS The computerized mapping system described in this study computes accurate isopotential maps that are a useful guide for ablation of hemodynamically stable or unstable VT.

Radiofrequency catheter ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia guided by activation mapping.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of activation mapping for radiofrequency modification of the sinus node and the long-term success rate of the procedure in a series of patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. BACKGROUND The results of radiofrequency ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia have been reported in only a small number of patients. METHODS The subjects of this study were 29 consecutive drug-refractory patients who underwent catheter ablation of inappropriate sinus tachycardia. Target sites were selected by activation mapping during sinus tachycardia. RESULTS The ablation procedure was successful acutely in reducing the baseline sinus rate to <90/min and the sinus rate during isoproterenol infusion by >20% in 22 of 29 patients (76%). In 13 of 22 patients (59%) with a successful acute outcome, successive applications of radiofrequency energy at the site of earliest endocardial activation resulted in a cranial-caudal migration of earliest endocardial activation from the high lateral right atrium, along with a step-wise reduction in heart rate. In the other nine patients (41%) with a successful acute outcome, the reduction in sinus rate occurred abruptly, unaccompanied by migration of the site of earliest activation. Symptoms due to inappropriate sinus tachycardia recurred at a mean of 4.4+/-; 3 months after the ablation procedure in 6 of 22 patients (27%). After additional procedures in three patients, symptoms of inappropriate sinus tachycardia ultimately were successfully eliminated over the long-term in 19 of 29 patients (66%). CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, radiofrequency ablation is at best only modestly effective for managing patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia. The two different responses of heart rate to radiofrequency ablation may reflect differences in the number and/or multicentricity of subsidiary sites of impulse generation within the sinus node and/or atrium in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Safety and Effectiveness of a Contact Force-Sensing Irrigated Catheter for Ablation of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the TactiCath Contact Force Ablation Catheter Study for Atrial Fibrillation (TOCCASTAR) Study.

Background— Contact force (CF) is a major determinant of lesion size and transmurality and has the potential to improve efficacy of atrial fibrillation ablation. This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel irrigated radiofrequency ablation catheter that measures real-time CF in the treatment of patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results— A total of 300 patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial and randomized to radiofrequency ablation with either a novel CF-sensing catheter or a non-CF catheter (control). The primary effectiveness end point consisted of acute electrical isolation of all pulmonary veins and freedom from recurrent symptomatic atrial arrhythmia off all antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months. The primary safety end point included device-related serious adverse events. End points were powered to show noninferiority. All pulmonary veins were isolated in both groups. Effectiveness was achieved in 67.8% and 69.4% of subjects in the CF and control arms, respectively (absolute difference, −1.6%; lower limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, −10.7%; P=0.0073 for noninferiority). When the CF arm was stratified into optimal CF (≥90% ablations with ≥10 g) and nonoptimal CF groups, effectiveness was achieved in 75.9% versus 58.1%, respectively (P=0.018). The primary safety end point occurred in 1.97% and 1.40% of CF patients and control subjects, respectively (absolute difference, 0.57%; upper limit of 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 3.61%; P=0.0004 for noninferiority). Conclusions— The CF ablation catheter met the primary safety and effectiveness end points. Additionally, optimal CF was associated with improved effectiveness. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01278953.