Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology On the Beat podcast

Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology October 2020 Issue

0:00
37:09
Retroceder 15 segundos
Avanzar 15 segundos

Paul J. Wang:

Welcome to the monthly podcast, On the Beat for Circulation, Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology. I'm Dr. Paul Wang, editor-in-chief with some of the key highlights from this month's issue.

In our first paper, Bruce Wilkoff and associates evaluated antibacterial envelope cost effectiveness compared to standard of care infection prevention strategies in the US healthcare system. Decision tree model was used to compare costs and outcomes of the antimicrobial envelope used adjunctive to standard of care infection prevention versus standard of care alone over a lifelong time horizon. The analysis was performed from an integrated payer provider network perspective. Infection rates, antimicrobial envelope effectiveness, infection treatment costs and patterns, infection related mortality and utility estimates were obtained from the WRAP-IT study. Life expectancy and long-term costs associated with device replacement, follow-up, and healthcare utilization were sourced from the literature. Costs and quality life adjusted years were discounted at 3%. An upper willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness in alignment with the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association practice guidelines and as supported by the World Health Organization and contemporary literature. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the antibacterial envelope compared with standard-of-care was $112,603 per quality-adjusted life year. The ICER remained lower than the threshold in 74% of iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and was most sensitive to the following model inputs: infection-related mortality, life expectancy, and infection cost. The authors concluded that the absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks in the WRAP-IT patient population, suggesting that the envelope provides value for the US healthcare system by reducing the incidence of CIED infection.

In our next paper, Peter Loh and associates in this study aim to investigate the feasibility and safety of single pulse irreversible electroporation (IRE) pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Ten patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent single pulse IRE pulmonary vein isolation under general anesthesia. Three-dimensional reconstruction and electroanatomical voltage mapping of the left atrium and pulmonary veins were performed using a conventional circular mapping catheter. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed by delivering nonarcing, nonbarotraumatic 6 ms, 200 Joule direct current IRE applications via a custom nondeflectable 14-polar circular IRE ablation catheter with a variable hoop diameter (16–27 millimeters). A deflectable sheath was used to maneuver the ablation catheter. A minimum of 2 IRE applications with slightly different catheter positions were delivered per vein to achieve circular tissue contact, even if pulmonary vein potentials were abolished after the first application. Bidirectional pulmonary vein isolation was confirmed with the circular mapping catheter and a post ablation voltage map. After a 30-minute waiting period, adenosine testing was used to reveal dormant pulmonary vein conduction. All 40 pulmonary veins could be successfully isolated with a mean of 2.4 IRE applications per pulmonary vein. Mean delivery peak voltage and peak current were 2154 volts and 33.9 amperes. No pulmonary vein reconnections occurred during the waiting period and adenosine testing. No periprocedural complications were observed. The authors concluded that in 10 patients in this first in-human study, acute bidirectional electrical pulmonary vein isolation could be achieved safely using single pulse IRE ablation.

In our next paper, Christian Sohns and associates studied the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) New York Heart Association (NYHA) class on presentation and the end points of mortality and heart failure (HF) admissions in the CASTLE-AF study population. Furthermore, predictors for LVEF improvement were examined. The CASTLE-AF patients with coexisting heart failure and AF (n=363) were randomized in a multicenter prospective controlled fashion to ablation (n=179) versus pharmacological therapy (n=184). Left ventricular function in NYHA class were assessed at baseline after randomization and at each follow-up visit. In the ablation arm, a significantly higher number of patients experienced an improvement in their LVEF to greater than 35% at the end of the study (odds ratio, 2.17; Pevere, greater than 20% and less than 35% baseline LVEF had a significantly lower number of composite end points (hazard ratio 0.60; P=0.006), all-cause mortality (hazard radio 0.54; P=0.019), and cardiovascular hospitalizations (hazard ratio 0.66; P=0.017). In the ablation group, NYHA I/II patients at the time of treatment had the strongest improvement in clinical outcomes (primary end point: hazard ratio 0.43; P>

In a research letter, Bradley Peltzer and associates sought to define the incidence and risk factors for arrhythmias among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and to evaluate associated arrhythmias with outcomes, including mortality. The authors studied all patients with COVID-19, who were admitted consecutively to New York Presbyterian Weill Cornell medicine and New York-Presbyterian Lower Manhattan hospital between March 3rd and April 6th, 2020. The primary outcome of the study was a 30 day all cause mortality. Arrhythmias were identified by review electrocardiograms and telemetry data obtained during hospitalization. There were several limitations to this study. This was a retrospective study with data obtained via chart abstraction, which may be subject to error or misinterpretation. Variation telemetry monitoring systems across hospital units may have led to possible underdetection of arrhythmias in some cases. Because this study focuses on hospital outcomes. Out of hospital deaths following discharge of COVID-19 were not examined. In this analysis of rhythmic complications of over a thousand consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19, atrial fibrillation flutter was seen in over 15% and more than 60% of these occurring in patients without any prior history of atrial fibrillation while ventricular tachycardia ventricular fibrillation occurred in less than 3% of patients. Age, male, sex and hypoxia and presentation were independently associated with the occurrence of arrhythmia. The presence of arrhythmia is tracked with markers of disease severity and elevated markers of myocardial injury, inflammation, and fibrinolysis. While there are likely myriad factors that lead to COVID-19 associated arrhythmias, their findings suggests that arrhythmias may predominantly be a marker of COVID-19 severity. Further studies to elucidate the mechanism COVID-19 associated arrhythmias and assess whether treatments targeting SARS-CoV-2 infection and its associated inflammatory response can reduce arrhythmia occurrence or warrant.

In a perspective, Bryce Alexander and Adrian Baranchuk discuss that in the current area of medicine, many patients with terminal illnesses have preexisting cardiac disease that required implantable cardioverter (ICD) placement. The world is currently in the midst of an unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. While data are still being collected and analyzed, there appears to be significantly increased mortality in older and more comorbid patients with current process of deactivation, the requirement for the physical presence of the electrophysiology (EP) team with the patient may disrupt the dying process and may serve as a vector for transmission of infection back into the community or hospital. Most modern ICDs currently have the ability of unidirectional communication through remote monitoring network. These allow for followup of patients through interrogation device independent of a physical program. Currently there is no capacity for bi-directional remote communication of a program or implanted device. The potential perceived barrier to implementation to strategies, concerns related to cybersecurity of implantable electronic devices (CIECD). While cyber security threats from any network connected medical device cannot be eliminated, the benefits of the features provided may outweigh the possible dangers. In the case of remote deactivation of ICDs, there are several important benefits. For patients, benefits will include preservation of the dying process without outside interruption, as well as possible faster deactivation of the ICD eliminating unwanted shocks. For healthcare providers, this approach could eliminate barriers to ICDs deactivated early in terminal patients and help to develop a structured approach to routine deactivation. On a system level, this approach may reduce costs and allow for less utilization of hospital or clinic space. Given the benefits of remote monitoring and the increased demand to transform practice into tele-health, the authors propose a stepwise approach to remote programming capability, starting with remote deactivation. If able to be accomplished, the inactivation of ICD's at Distance for Dignity of Dying project, the 4D project, will allow for a less interrupted dying process in the palliative patient. And it reduced the risk of infection transmission in the setting of ongoing or future pandemic. If this approach were to prove feasible, it could potentially open the door for future applications of remote reprogramming, including, but not limited to: 1) allowing increased input in the case of loss of capture, 2) adjusting sensitivity, 3) reprogramming to the MRI magnetic resonance imaging mode, 4) asynchronous pacing, tachy detection off prior to electric cardiac response, and 5) lower rate cutoff for slow ventricular tachycardia.

That's it for this month. We hope that you'll find the journal to be the go-to place for everyone interested in the field. See you next time. This program is copyright American Heart Association, 2020.

 

Otros episodios de "Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology On the Beat"