Petr Neuzil

Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: A randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT Antiarrhythmic drugs are commonly used for prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) despite inconsistent efficacy and frequent adverse effects. Catheter ablation has been proposed as an alternative treatment for paroxysmal AF. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy of catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy (ADT) in treating symptomatic paroxysmal AF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A prospective, multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 19 hospitals of 167 patients who did not respond to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug and who experienced at least 3 AF episodes within 6 months before randomization. Enrollment occurred between October 25, 2004, and October 11, 2007, with the last follow-up on January 19, 2009. INTERVENTION Catheter ablation (n = 106) or ADT (n = 61), with assessment for effectiveness in a comparable 9-month follow-up period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Time to protocol-defined treatment failure. The proportion of patients who experienced major treatment-related adverse events within 30 days of catheter ablation or ADT was also reported. RESULTS At the end of the 9-month effectiveness evaluation period, 66% of patients in the catheter ablation group remained free from protocol-defined treatment failure compared with 16% of patients treated with ADT. The hazard ratio of catheter ablation to ADT was 0.30 (95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.47; P < .001). Major 30-day treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 of 57 patients (8.8%) treated with ADT and 5 of 103 patients (4.9%) treated with catheter ablation. Mean quality of life scores improved significantly in patients treated by catheter ablation compared with ADT at 3 months; improvement was maintained during the course of the study. CONCLUSION Among patients with paroxysmal AF who had not responded to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug, the use of catheter ablation compared with ADT resulted in a longer time to treatment failure during the 9-month follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00116428.

Safety of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure Results From the Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) Clinical Trial and the Continued Access Registry

Background— The Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) randomized trial compared left atrial appendage closure against warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with CHADS2 ≥1. Although the study met the primary efficacy end point of being noninferior to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism/cardiovascular death, there was a significantly higher risk of complications, predominantly pericardial effusion and procedural stroke related to air embolism. Here, we report the influence of experience on the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Methods and Results— The study cohort for this analysis included patients in the PROTECT AF trial who underwent attempted device left atrial appendage closure (n=542 patients) and those from a subsequent nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing Watchman implantation (Continued Access Protocol [CAP] Registry; n=460 patients). The safety end point included bleeding- and procedure-related events (pericardial effusion, stroke, device embolization). There was a significant decline in the rate of procedure- or device-related safety events within 7 days of the procedure across the 2 studies, with 7.7% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.007), and between the first and second halves of PROTECT AF and CAP, with 10.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.006). The rate of serious pericardial effusion within 7 days of implantation, which had made up >50% of the safety events in PROTECT AF, was lower in the CAP Registry (5.0% versus 2.2%, respectively; P=0.019). There was a similar experience-related improvement in procedure-related stroke (0.9% versus 0%, respectively; P=0.039). Finally, the functional impact of these safety events, as defined by significant disability or death, was statistically superior in the Watchman group compared with the warfarin group in PROTECT AF. This remained true whether significance was defined as a change in the modified Rankin score of ≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 (1.8 versus 4.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.82; 1.5 versus 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.82; and 1.4 versus 3.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.88, respectively). Conclusion— As with all interventional procedures, there is a significant improvement in the safety of Watchman left atrial appendage closure with increased operator experience. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

Safety of Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure

Background— The Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With AF (PROTECT AF) randomized trial compared left atrial appendage closure against warfarin in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with CHADS2 ≥1. Although the study met the primary efficacy end point of being noninferior to warfarin therapy for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism/cardiovascular death, there was a significantly higher risk of complications, predominantly pericardial effusion and procedural stroke related to air embolism. Here, we report the influence of experience on the safety of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. Methods and Results— The study cohort for this analysis included patients in the PROTECT AF trial who underwent attempted device left atrial appendage closure (n=542 patients) and those from a subsequent nonrandomized registry of patients undergoing Watchman implantation (Continued Access Protocol [CAP] Registry; n=460 patients). The safety end point included bleeding- and procedure-related events (pericardial effusion, stroke, device embolization). There was a significant decline in the rate of procedure- or device-related safety events within 7 days of the procedure across the 2 studies, with 7.7% and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.007), and between the first and second halves of PROTECT AF and CAP, with 10.0%, 5.5%, and 3.7% of patients, respectively, experiencing events (P=0.006). The rate of serious pericardial effusion within 7 days of implantation, which had made up >50% of the safety events in PROTECT AF, was lower in the CAP Registry (5.0% versus 2.2%, respectively; P=0.019). There was a similar experience-related improvement in procedure-related stroke (0.9% versus 0%, respectively; P=0.039). Finally, the functional impact of these safety events, as defined by significant disability or death, was statistically superior in the Watchman group compared with the warfarin group in PROTECT AF. This remained true whether significance was defined as a change in the modified Rankin score of ≥1, ≥2, or ≥3 (1.8 versus 4.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.82; 1.5 versus 3.7 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.82; and 1.4 versus 3.3 events per 100 patient-years; relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.88, respectively). Conclusion— As with all interventional procedures, there is a significant improvement in the safety of Watchman left atrial appendage closure with increased operator experience. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation 2.3-Year Follow-up of the PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) Trial

Background— The multicenter PROTECT AF study (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) was conducted to determine whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with a filter device (Watchman) was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results— Patients (n=707) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor (age >75 years, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, or prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) were randomized to either the Watchman device (n=463) or continued warfarin (n=244) in a 2:1 ratio. After device implantation, warfarin was continued for ≈45 days, followed by clopidogrel for 4.5 months and lifelong aspirin. Study discontinuation rates were 15.3% (71/463) and 22.5% (55/244) for the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively. The time in therapeutic range for the warfarin group was 66%. The composite primary efficacy end point included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, and the primary analysis was by intention to treat. After 1588 patient-years of follow-up (mean 2.3±1.1 years), the primary efficacy event rates were 3.0% and 4.3% (percent per 100 patient-years) in the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44%–1.30% per year), which met the criteria for noninferiority (probability of noninferiority >0.999). There were more primary safety events in the Watchman group (5.5% per year; 95% confidence interval, 4.2%–7.1% per year) than in the control group (3.6% per year; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%–5.3% per year; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–2.70). Conclusions— The “local” strategy of left atrial appendage closure is noninferior to “systemic” anticoagulation with warfarin. PROTECT AF has, for the first time, implicated the left atrial appendage in the pathogenesis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial Registration:— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure With the Watchman Device in Patients With a Contraindication for Oral Anticoagulation: The ASAP Study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology)

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients ineligible for warfarin therapy. BACKGROUND The PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial demonstrated that LAA closure with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) was noninferior to warfarin therapy. However, the PROTECT AF trial only included patients who were candidates for warfarin, and even patients randomly assigned to the LAA closure arm received concomitant warfarin for 6 weeks after Watchman implantation. METHODS A multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted of LAA closure with the Watchman device in 150 patients with nonvalvular AF and CHADS₂ (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack) score ≥1, who were considered ineligible for warfarin. The primary efficacy endpoint was the combined events of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. RESULTS The mean CHADS₂ score and CHA₂DS₂-VASc (CHADS₂ score plus 2 points for age ≥75 years and 1 point for vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, or female sex) score were 2.8 ± 1.2 and 4.4 ± 1.7, respectively. History of hemorrhagic/bleeding tendencies (93%) was the most common reason for warfarin ineligibility. Mean duration of follow-up was 14.4 ± 8.6 months. Serious procedure- or device-related safety events occurred in 8.7% of patients (13 of 150 patients). All-cause stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4 patients (2.3% per year): ischemic stroke in 3 patients (1.7% per year) and hemorrhagic stroke in 1 patient (0.6% per year). This ischemic stroke rate was less than that expected (7.3% per year) based on the CHADS₂ scores of the patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS LAA closure with the Watchman device can be safely performed without a warfarin transition, and is a reasonable alternative to consider for patients at high risk for stroke but with contraindications to systemic oral anticoagulation. (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology [ASAP]; NCT00851578).

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure vs Warfarin for Atrial Fibrillation A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE While effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), warfarin is limited by a narrow therapeutic profile, a need for lifelong coagulation monitoring, and multiple drug and diet interactions. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a local strategy of mechanical left atrial appendage (LAA) closure was noninferior to warfarin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS PROTECT AF was a multicenter, randomized (2:1), unblinded, Bayesian-designed study conducted at 59 hospitals of 707 patients with nonvalvular AF and at least 1 additional stroke risk factor (CHADS2 score ≥1). Enrollment occurred between February 2005 and June 2008 and included 4-year follow-up through October 2012. Noninferiority required a posterior probability greater than 97.5% and superiority a probability of 95% or greater; the noninferiority margin was a rate ratio of 2.0 comparing event rates between treatment groups. INTERVENTIONS Left atrial appendage closure with the device (n = 463) or warfarin (n = 244; target international normalized ratio, 2-3). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A composite efficacy end point including stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death, analyzed by intention-to-treat. RESULTS At a mean (SD) follow-up of 3.8 (1.7) years (2621 patient-years), there were 39 events among 463 patients (8.4%) in the device group for a primary event rate of 2.3 events per 100 patient-years, compared with 34 events among 244 patients (13.9%) for a primary event rate of 3.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin (rate ratio, 0.60; 95% credible interval, 0.41-1.05), meeting prespecified criteria for both noninferiority (posterior probability, >99.9%) and superiority (posterior probability, 96.0%). Patients in the device group demonstrated lower rates of both cardiovascular mortality (1.0 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [17/463 patients, 3.7%] vs 2.4 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [22/244 patients, 9.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .005) and all-cause mortality (3.2 events per 100 patient-years for the device group [57/466 patients, 12.3%] vs 4.8 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin [44/244 patients, 18.0%]; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE After 3.8 years of follow-up among patients with nonvalvular AF at elevated risk for stroke, percutaneous LAA closure met criteria for both noninferiority and superiority, compared with warfarin, for preventing the combined outcome of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, as well as superiority for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00129545.

Clinical ResearchAtrial FibrillationLeft Atrial Appendage Closure With the Watchman Device in Patients With a Contraindication for Oral Anticoagulation: The ASAP Study (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology)

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of left atrial appendage (LAA) closure in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients ineligible for warfarin therapy. BACKGROUND The PROTECT AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) trial demonstrated that LAA closure with the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) was noninferior to warfarin therapy. However, the PROTECT AF trial only included patients who were candidates for warfarin, and even patients randomly assigned to the LAA closure arm received concomitant warfarin for 6 weeks after Watchman implantation. METHODS A multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted of LAA closure with the Watchman device in 150 patients with nonvalvular AF and CHADS₂ (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack) score ≥1, who were considered ineligible for warfarin. The primary efficacy endpoint was the combined events of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death. RESULTS The mean CHADS₂ score and CHA₂DS₂-VASc (CHADS₂ score plus 2 points for age ≥75 years and 1 point for vascular disease, age 65 to 74 years, or female sex) score were 2.8 ± 1.2 and 4.4 ± 1.7, respectively. History of hemorrhagic/bleeding tendencies (93%) was the most common reason for warfarin ineligibility. Mean duration of follow-up was 14.4 ± 8.6 months. Serious procedure- or device-related safety events occurred in 8.7% of patients (13 of 150 patients). All-cause stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 4 patients (2.3% per year): ischemic stroke in 3 patients (1.7% per year) and hemorrhagic stroke in 1 patient (0.6% per year). This ischemic stroke rate was less than that expected (7.3% per year) based on the CHADS₂ scores of the patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS LAA closure with the Watchman device can be safely performed without a warfarin transition, and is a reasonable alternative to consider for patients at high risk for stroke but with contraindications to systemic oral anticoagulation. (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology [ASAP]; NCT00851578).

Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Closure for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: 2.3 Year Follow-Up of the PROTECT AF Trial

Background— The multicenter PROTECT AF study (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) was conducted to determine whether percutaneous left atrial appendage closure with a filter device (Watchman) was noninferior to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results— Patients (n=707) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor (age >75 years, hypertension, heart failure, diabetes, or prior stroke/transient ischemic attack) were randomized to either the Watchman device (n=463) or continued warfarin (n=244) in a 2:1 ratio. After device implantation, warfarin was continued for ≈45 days, followed by clopidogrel for 4.5 months and lifelong aspirin. Study discontinuation rates were 15.3% (71/463) and 22.5% (55/244) for the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively. The time in therapeutic range for the warfarin group was 66%. The composite primary efficacy end point included stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular death, and the primary analysis was by intention to treat. After 1588 patient-years of follow-up (mean 2.3±1.1 years), the primary efficacy event rates were 3.0% and 4.3% (percent per 100 patient-years) in the Watchman and warfarin groups, respectively (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.44%–1.30% per year), which met the criteria for noninferiority (probability of noninferiority >0.999). There were more primary safety events in the Watchman group (5.5% per year; 95% confidence interval, 4.2%–7.1% per year) than in the control group (3.6% per year; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%–5.3% per year; relative risk, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.95–2.70). Conclusions— The “local” strategy of left atrial appendage closure is noninferior to “systemic” anticoagulation with warfarin. PROTECT AF has, for the first time, implicated the left atrial appendage in the pathogenesis of stroke in atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial Registration:— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00129545.

Worldwide experience with a totally subcutaneous implantable defibrillator: early results from the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry

Aims The totally subcutaneous implantable-defibrillator (S-ICD) is a new alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD system to minimize intravascular lead complications. There are limited data describing the long-term performance of the S-ICD. This paper presents the first large international patient population collected as part of the EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry. Methods and results The EFFORTLESS S-ICD Registry is a non-randomized, standard of care, multicentre Registry designed to collect long-term, system-related, clinical, and patient reported outcome data from S-ICD implanted patients since June 2009. Follow-up data are systematically collected over 60-month post-implant including Quality of Life. The study population of 472 patients of which 241 (51%) were enrolled prospectively has a mean follow-up duration of 558 days (range 13–1342 days, median 498 days), 72% male, mean age of 49 ± 18 years (range 9–88 years), 42% mean left ventricular ejection fraction. Complication-free rates were 97 and 94%, at 30 and 360 days, respectively. Three hundred and seventeen spontaneous episodes were recorded in 85 patients during the follow-up period. Of these episodes, 169 (53%) received therapy, 93 being for Ventricular Tachycardia/Fibrillation (VT/VF). One patient died of recurrent VF and severe bradycardia. Regarding discrete VT/VF episodes, first shock conversion efficacy was 88% with 100% overall successful clinical conversion after a maximum of five shocks. The 360-day inappropriate shock rate was 7% with the vast majority occurring for oversensing (62/73 episodes), primarily of cardiac signals (94% of oversensed episodes). Conclusion The first large cohort of real-world data from an International patient S-ICD population demonstrates appropriate system performance with clinical event rates and inappropriate shock rates comparable with those reported for conventional ICDs. Clinical trial registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT01085435.

Atrial fibrillation ablation using a robotic catheter remote control system: initial human experience and long-term follow-up results.

OBJECTIVES We present the initial clinical human experience with the use of a robotic remote navigation system (Hansen Medical, Mountain View, California), to perform left and right atrial mapping and radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL). BACKGROUND Catheter ablation is an established curative modality for various arrhythmias. A robotic steerable sheath system (SSS) (Hansen Medical) allows better catheter stability and greater degrees of freedom of catheter movement. METHODS A total of 40 patients (mean age 57 years) with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF (23 had also concomitant documented typical AFL) were studied. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the corresponding atrial chamber anatomy was performed with the CARTO electroanatomic mapping system (Biosense Webster, Diamond Bar, California or the EnSite NavX system (St. Jude Medical, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in combination with the Artisan catheter (Hansen Medical). In patients undergoing AF ablation, 2 transseptal punctures were performed under intracardiac ultrasound (ICE) guidance, with one of the punctures being performed using SSS. Pulmonary vein antrum isolation was performed with a 3.5-mm thermocool catheter manipulated with the use of the SSS and was verified by circular mapping. Patients were followed clinically for recurrence of arrhythmia with an event transmitter and ambulatory holter monitoring. Clinical recurrence of AF/AFL was defined as AF/AFL episodes >1 min in duration. RESULTS Pulmonary vein antrum isolation was performed in 40 patients, including 23 with concomitant typical AFL ablation. All pulmonary veins, including the superior vena cava, were successfully isolated. In 23 of 40 patients, cavotricuspid ablation was also performed with bidirectional block obtained. At 1-year follow-up, 34 patients (86%) and 5 patients were free from atrial arrhythmia off AADs and on AADs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This preliminary human experience suggests that mapping and ablation of AFL and AF using this novel robotic catheter with remote control system is feasible with similar results to conventional approach.