Piotr Kulakowski

Consensus document on antithrombotic therapy in the setting of electrophysiological procedures

Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents are proposed to help physicians to select the best possible diagnostic or therapeutic strategies for an individual patient with a specific disease. Recommendations issued from these documents are based on an extensive review of the literature and on discussions among experts when hard data are incomplete or missing. It has been shown that patient outcomes improve when guidelines recommendations are applied in clinical practice. Publication and promotion of these guidelines is one of the most important tasks of scientific societies. The recently created European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) wants to meet this commitment in its specific field of competence and one assignment of the scientific committee of EHRA is to propose and promote Guidelines in the management of heart rhythm disturbances not already covered by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).nnElectrophysiological studies (EPSs), whether or not associated with therapeutic procedures (ablation using different sources of energy or reduction of tachycardia), show the percutaneous introduction of one or multiple catheters to record the electrical activity of the heart or to pace its different cavities. The introduction and manipulation of these catheters in arteries, veins, or cardiac cavities have multiple pathophysiological consequences and one of the most evident is to activate the coagulation cascade with the risk to induce new clots or to mobilize pre-existing ones. Furthermore, withdrawal of catheters induces haemorrhage usually limited by the compression of the site of venous or arterial puncture.nnThere is also a close relationship between EPS and thrombus formation (thrombogenesis) and thus, rhythmologists need to balance the risks between thrombo-embolism and bleeding. There are no guidelines on the use of antithrombotic therapies in the setting (before, during, and after) of EPS. Generally, different laboratories have their own approaches to this clinical problem.nnThe aim of the present document is …

Celivarone in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Adjunctive therapy for the reduction of ventricular arrhythmia-triggered implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interventions

BACKGROUNDnImplantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) remain the treatment of choice for the prevention of life-threatening arrhythmias. However, many patients with ICDs require additional antiarrhythmic therapy to reduce the morbidity associated with recurrent arrhythmia-triggered ICD interventions.nnnOBJECTIVEnOur study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of celivarone in reducing these interventions.nnnMETHODSnA total of 153 eligible ICD recipients were randomized to receive either placebo or celivarone 100 or 300 mg once daily for 6 months. The primary end point was the prevention of arrhythmia-triggered ICD therapies.nnnRESULTSnFewer ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation episodes were observed in the 300-mg celivarone group than in the placebo group, with a relative risk reduction of 46%, which was not statistically significant. The analysis of all-cause shocks showed a trend toward a decreased number of events in the celivarone 300-mg group. A post hoc analysis of the primary end point in a subgroup of patients in the celivarone 300-mg group, who had received ICD therapy within 1 month of randomization, showed a significant benefit (P = .032). Celivarone was not associated with an increased risk of torsades de pointes, thyroid dysfunction, or pulmonary events. More heart failure events were reported in the celivarone groups than in the placebo group, but the difference was not statistically significant.nnnCONCLUSIONnCelivarone tends to reduce ventricular tachycardia-/ventricular fibrillation-triggered ICD therapies. This effect was not statistically significant. There was a trend toward greater efficacy in the 300-mg group, especially in patients undergoing ICD therapy within 30 days prior to randomization. Overall, celivarone was well tolerated.