Predictors of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Catheter Ablation: Data from the German Ablation Registry

Catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) has emerged as a widespread first or second line treatment option. However, up to 45% of patients (pts) show recurrence of AF within 12 month after CA. We present prospective multicenter registry data comparing characteristics of pts with and without recurrence of AF within the first year after CA. This study comprises all pts with complete follow-up one year after CA (1-y-FU; n = 3679). During 1y-FU in 1687 (45.9%) pts recurrence of AF occurred. The multivariate analysis revealed female sex and AF type prior to the procedure as predictors for AF recurrence. Furthermore, comorbidities such as valvular heart disease and renal failure as well as an early AF relapse were also predictors of AF recurrence during 1-y-FU. However, despite an AF recurrence rate of 45.9%, the majority of these pts (72.4%) reported a significant alleviation of clinical symptoms. In conclusion in pts with initially successful CA for AF female sex, AF type, in-hospital AF relapse and comorbidities such as renal failure and valvular heart disease are independent predictors for AF recurrence during 1-y-FU. However, the majority of pts deemed their interventions as successful with significant reduction of symptoms irrespective of AF.

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator as a bridge to reimplantation in patients with ICD or CRT-D-related infections

Background

The approach to treat device infection in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) is a challenging procedure. Optimal treatment is complete extraction of the infected device. To protect these patients from sudden cardiac arrest while waiting for reimplantation and to avoid recurrent infection, a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) seems to be a valuable solution.

Therefore, we investigated the management and outcome of patients with ICD or CRT-D infections using the WCD as a bridge to re-implantation after lead extraction procedures.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study on consecutive patients who underwent ICD or CRT-D removal due to device-related local or systemic infections. All patients were prescribed a WCD at our center between 01/2012 and 10/2015. All patients returned to our outpatient clinic for regular ICD or CRT-D monitoring initially 1 and 3 months after reimplantation followed by 6-months intervals.

Results

Twenty-one patients (mean age 65.0 ± 8.0 years, male 76.2%) were included in the study. Complete lead extraction was achieved in all patients. While waiting for reimplantation one patient experienced a symptomatic episode of sustained ventricular tachycardia. This episode was converted successfully into sinus rhythm by a single 150 J shock.

Mean follow-up time 392 ± 206 days, showing survival rate of 100% and freedom from reinfection in all patients.

Conclusion

The WCD seems to be a valuable bridging option for patients with ICD or CRT-D infections, showing no recurrent device infection.

Electrical cardioversion of patients with implanted pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator: results of a survey of german centers and systematic review of the literature

AIMS

A relevant number of patients presenting for electrical cardioversion carry a pacemaker (PM) or ICD. Case reports suggest a potential hazard of external cardioversion/defibrillation. The incidence of shock related device complications is unknown. No guidelines or recommendations by international medical societies for a cardioversion protocol of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) patients exist. We conducted a nationwide survey to gather real-world clinical data on the current clinical approach towards these patients during electrical cardioversion and to estimate the incidence of shock-related complications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety hospitals with > 380 ECV in 2014 were identified from mandatory hospital quality reports and 60 were randomly selected. All centers were provided with a standardized questionnaire on the general proceedings and complications during electrical cardioversion of pacemaker, ICD and CRT patients (CIED patients). Thirty-two centers (53%) participated in the survey. In total, 16,554 ECV were reported (534 ± 314 per center). Biphasic cardioversion with a first shock energy of ≥ 150 J via adhesive patches in antero-posterior orientation was preferred by most centers (78%). Eleven percent (n = 1809) of pts were reported to carry a PM/ICD. The ECV protocol was heterogeneous among centers. Complications associated with electrical cardioversion were reported in 11/1809 patients (0.6%), all were transitory elevations of pacing thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide snapshot survey of cardioversion procedures in Germany, approximately 11% of patients presenting for elective electrical cardioversion were pacemaker or ICD carriers. Cardioversion protocols in these patients are heterogeneous throughout centers and mostly not in accordance with recommendation of the German Cardiac Society. Complications associated with external electrical cardioversion are rare. Controlled trials and large registries are necessary to provide evidence for future recommendations.