Search

Purpose We developed the intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) technique to minimize radiation exposure and other recent technology during ablation procedure for atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study was to validate the impact of the current strategy using the recent technology for AF ablation on outcomes after procedure. Methods We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the current strategy in consecutive set of patients undergoing first‐time ablation for AF (N = 233) compared with the conventional strategy in earlier consecutive set of patients (N = 223). The current strategy included the technique of ICE to reduce radiation exposure, Ablation Index®‐guided pulmonary veins isolation, and minimum substrate ablation targeting only for induced AF. Outcome measures were radiation exposure, procedure time, in‐hospital adverse outcomes, and event‐free survival from tachyarrhythmias. Results Puncture‐to‐ablation time was slightly, but significantly increased in the current strategy than in the conventional strategy (48.0 minutes vs 44.7 minutes, P = .002), although total procedure time was significantly decreased in the current strategy (143.9 minutes vs 156.9 minutes, P, The current strategy using the recent technology with intracardiac echocardiography, lesion index, and minimum substrate ablation was feasible and reduced procedure time and radiation exposure. However, the arrhythmia‐free survival could not be improved.

There is a paucity of data on the influence of low body weight on clinical outcomes in patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE).The COMMAND VTE registry is a multicenter cohort study enrolling 3027 consecutive patients with acute symptomatic VTE. The current study population consisted of 2778 patients with available body weight value, who were divided into 2 groups; 1705 patients with lower body weight (≤60 kg) and 1073 patients with higher body weight (60 kg).Patients with lower body weight were older (70.8 versus 60.9 years, P 0.001), and more often women (75% versus 38%, P 0.001), and more often had active cancer (27% versus 19%, P 0.001) than those with higher body weight. The cumulative 5-year incidence of recurrent VTE was not significantly different between the 2 groups (10.6% versus 10.7%, P = 0.51). The cumulative 5-year incidences of major bleeding and all-cause death were significantly higher in patients with lower body weight than in those with higher body weight (14.6% versus 9.6%, P 0.001, and 35.8% versus 19.8%, P 0.001, respectively). The excess adjusted risk of patients with lower body weight relative to those with higher body weight remained significant for major bleeding and all-cause death (HR 1.57, 95%CI: 1.16-2.12, P = 0.003, and HR 1.50, 95%CI: 1.24-1.81, P 0.001, respectively).In the current Japanese real-world registry, there were a high proportion of patients with low body weight, who had a higher risk for major bleeding and mortality without significant excess risk for recurrent VTE.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the initial aortic valve replacement (AVR) strategy relative to a conservative strategy on long-term outcomes stratified by age among asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).Methods and Results:Among 1,808 asymptomatic severe AS patients in the CURRENT AS registry, there were 1,166 patients aged ≥75 years (initial AVR: n=124, and conservative: n=1,042), and 642 patients with age

BACKGROUND Electroanatomic voltage mapping (EAVM) of the left atrium (LA) with multielectrodes is usually acquired during sinus rhythm (SR), and the feasibility of EAVM during atrial fibrillation (AF) rhythm is unclear. METHODS We performed EAVM of LA during both SR and AF rhythm in 44 patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF and validated the optimal cutoff value of low-voltage area (LVA) during AF rhythm for detecting LVA defined as bipolar voltages ≤0.5 mV during SR. RESULTS In each session, mean 829 and 552 points were acquired by multielectrodes during SR and AF rhythm, respectively. Mean proportion of LVA was 4.9% among LA surface area of 276.2 cm2 . Differences of LVA proportions between SR and AF rhythm were 5.8% (P

Background The patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) or cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT) have high risk of cardiac events, and lower physical activity has been thought to be associated with higher rate of cardiac events. On the other hand, cardiovascular implantable electronic devices can monitor physical activity through a built-in accelerometer. This study aimed to analyze long-term outcomes by device-based monitoring of physical activity in patients with ICD or CRT. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 89 patients with ICD/CRT, (56 males, 66.5 years old; ICD 45, CRT-D 42, CRT-P 2) who survived longer than 6 months after implantation in our institution. We analyzed physical activity by devices at 6th month and divided to 2 groups; In Low activity group (group L; n=38), their physical activity (moving time above 70 steps/min walk level) is less than 2 hours/day, and in Normal activity group (group N; n=51), physical activity is more than 2 hours/day. We evaluated their background characteristics in each group, physical activity at 12th month, and composite outcomes of hospitalization due to worsening of heart failure (HF) and death of any cause. Results Mean follow-up period was 57.4 months (median 40 months). In group L, they had higher age (71.1 y.o. vs. 63.2 y.o.; p=0.0003), higher rate of low EF (76.3% vs. 54.9%; p=0.035), and lower rate of attendance to outpatient cardiac rehabilitation program (10.5% vs 27.5%; p=0.043) compared with group N. 85.7% of patients in group L stayed in low physical activity at 12th month, and 87.8% of patient in group N stayed in normal physical activity. Composite outcomes of HF hospitalization and death occurred significantly higher in group L (Log-rank p Conclusions Lower level of device-monitored physical activity was associated with higher mortality and higher rate of HF hospitalization in patients with ICD or CRT. Most of the patient in lower physical activity could not improve their activity from 6th month to 12th month. Early and continuous intervention is necessary especially for high risk patients such as high age or low EF. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Background Data are scarce on the role of aortic valve area (AVA) to identify those patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk of adverse events. We sought to explore the prognostic impact of AVA in asymptomatic patients with severe AS in a large observational database. Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study included 1309 conservatively managed asymptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on AVA (group 1: AVA >0.80 cm2, N=645; group 2: 0.8 cm2 ≥AVA >0.6 cm2, N=465; and group 3: AVA ≤0.6 cm2, N=199). The prevalence of very severe AS patients (peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s or mean aortic pressure gradient ≥60 mm Hg) was 2.0%, 5.8%, and 26.1% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cumulative 5‐year incidence of AVR was not different across the 3 groups (39.7%, 43.7%, and 39.9%; P=0.43). The cumulative 5‐year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve–related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with decreasing AVA (24.1%, 29.1%, and 48.1%; P, See Editorial by Tribouilloy et al

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).The prognostic impact of LVEF in severe AS remains controversial.Among 3,815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study population consisted of 3,794 patients after excluding 21 patients without LVEF data. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to LVEF at index echocardiography (50%, 50% to 59%, 60% to 69%, and ≥70%; conservative strategy: n = 388, n = 390, n = 1,025, and n = 800; initial aortic valve replacement strategy: n = 206, n = 170, n = 375, and n = 440). Echocardiographic data were site reported, and there was no echocardiography core laboratory.In the conservative group, the cumulative 5-year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve-related death or heart failure hospitalization) was significantly higher in patients with LVEFs 50% and 50% to 59% than in those with LVEFs 60% to 69% and ≥70% (72.3%, 58.4%, 38.7%, and 35.0%, respectively, p 0.001), whereas in the initial aortic valve replacement group, the negative effect of low LVEF was markedly attenuated (20.2%, 20.3%, 17.7%, and 12.4%, respectively, p = 0.03). After adjusting for confounders, LVEF 50% (hazard ratio: 1.82; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 2.28; p 0.001) and 50% to 59% (hazard ratio: 1.77; 95% confidence interval: 1.42 to 2.20; p 0.001) but not 60% to 69% (hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.94 to 1.39; p = 0.17) were independently associated with poorer outcomes compared with LVEF ≥70% (reference) in the conservative group. In the initial aortic valve replacement group, the adjusted risk for the primary outcome measure was not significantly different across the 4 LVEF groups.This study demonstrates that survival in patients with severe AS is impaired when LVEF is 60%, and these findings have implications for decision making with regard to the timing of surgical intervention.

Background There are limited data regarding the risk stratification based on peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) in patients with severe aortic stenosis ( AS ). Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the study population consisted of 1075 conservatively managed patients with Vmax ≥4.0 m/s and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on Vmax (group 1, 4.0 ≤ Vmax AS ‐related events (aortic valve–related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with increasing Vmax (entire population; 38.0%, 49.4%, and 62.8%, P P =0.008; and asymptomatic patients; 29.4%, 38.9%, and 47.7%, P =0.005). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 2 and group 3 relative to group 1 for AS ‐related events remained significant (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI , 1.07–1.81; P =0.02, and hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI , 1.17–2.00; P =0.002, respectively). The effect size of group 3 relative to group 1 for AS ‐related events in asymptomatic patients (N=479) was similar to that in symptomatic patients (N=596; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI , 1.01–2.52; P =0.047, and hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI , 1.16–2.40, P =0.008, respectively), and there was no significant overall interaction between the symptomatic status and the effect of the Vmax categories on AS ‐related events (interaction, P =0.88). Conclusions In conservatively managed severe AS patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, increasing Vmax was associated with incrementally higher risk for AS ‐related events. However, the cumulative 5‐year incidence of the AS ‐related events remained very high even in asymptomatic patients with less greater Vmax.