Search

Background Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) originating from the left ventricular (LV) papillary muscles (PMs) is challenging. Methods We enrolled 16 consecutive patients who received RFCA for VAs from LV PMs. Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping was used to construct activation and/or pace maps. RFCA was performed first at the earliest activation site or at the best matched site in the pace maps. When an acceleration or reduction in the incidence of VAs was observed during the first few seconds of the application, the ablation energy was delivered continuously for 60–120 s. Additional ablation was then circumferentially delivered at the base of the PMs. Results RFCA was successfully performed in all 16 patients with no cases of recurrence of VAs after a mean follow-up of 20 ± 12 months. VAs originated from the anterior (n = 8) and posterior (n = 8) PMs. Purkinje potentials were identified at the target sites in seven patients. All VAs were temporarily suppressed by one to two long-duration shots of RFCA at the initial targeted site, but recurrence was subsequently noted. In six patients, the QRS morphologies of the VAs changed after the initial RFCA. A subsequent circumferential approach with multiple ablations applied to the base of the PMs completely eliminated all VAs. In all but one patient, successful RFCA was achieved using an open-irrigated ablation catheter. Conclusions Circumferential RFCA at the base of the PMs overcame anatomical limitations, leading to a high success rate of RFCA for VAs from LV PMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Reuse of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can reduce the cost of using these expensive devices. However, whether resterilized CIEDs will increase the risk of reinfection in patients with previous device infection remains unknown. The aim of the present study is to compare the reinfection rates in patients who had initial CIED infection and underwent reimplantation of resterilized CIEDs or new devices. Methods Data from patients with initial CIED infection who received debridement of the infected pocket and underwent reimplantation of new or resterilized CIEDs at MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, between January 2014 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient characteristics, relapse rates of infection, and potential contributing factors to the infection risk were examined. Results Twenty-seven patients with initial CIED infection and reimplanted new CIEDs (n = 11) or resterilized CIEDs (n = 16) were included. During the 2-year follow-up, there were 1 (9.1%) and 2 (12.5%) infection relapses in the new and resterilized CIED groups, respectively. No relapse occurred for either group if the lead was completely removed or cut short. The median duration between debridement and device reimplantation in patients with infection relapse vs patients without relapse was 97 vs 4.5 days for all included patients, and 97 vs 2 days and 50.5 vs 5.5 days for the new and resterilized CIED groups, respectively. Conclusions Subpectoral reimplanting of resterilized CIEDs in patients with previous device infection is safe and efficacious. With delicate debridement and complete extraction of the leads, the CIED pocket infection relapse risk can be greatly decreased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current treatment paradigm for atrial fibrillation (AF) prioritizes rate control over rhythm control; however, rhythm control has shown benefits over other AF strategies. This study compares the outcomes of rivaroxaban with and without concomitant antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), using propensity score matching to correct for statistical effects of baseline discrepancies. This multi-center retrospective study included 1,477 patients with non-permanent AF who took rivaroxaban for at least one month between 2011 and 2016 and had not received catheter ablation. Concomitant AAD use was compared against clinical outcome endpoints for effectiveness, safety, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Associations with concomitant AAD use were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses. Patients were divided into two matched groups: rivaroxaban alone (n = 739) and with concomitant AADs (n = 738). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.308), effectiveness (p = 0.583), and MACE (p = 0.754) were similar between the two groups, and multivariate analysis showed no significant differences. The new thromboembolism and all-cause death rates were higher in rivaroxaban alone (2.7% vs 0.8%, p = 0.005; and 10% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.032, respectively). The heart failure readmission rate was higher in the concomitant-AAD group (8.4% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.003). The concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well-tolerated, with lower rates of thromboembolism and all-cause death, but is associated with more occurrences of congestive heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rivaroxaban reduces the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, who often also receive antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to maintain sinus rhythm. Current guidelines contraindicate concomitant use of rivaroxaban with the popular AAD dronedarone, despite little data demonstrating interactions with AADs. This study investigates the outcomes of concomitant rivaroxaban and AAD drug use in a real-world cohort. Methods: This retrospective study included 1777 non-permanent AF patients taking rivaroxaban for ≥ 1 month between 2011 and 2016 from a multicenter cohort in Taiwan, and compared concomitant AAD use against clinical outcome endpoints for safety, effectiveness, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to evaluate the association between concomitant AAD use and outcomes. Results: Patients were divided into rivaroxaban alone (n = 1205) and with concomitant amiodarone (n = 177), dronedarone (n = 231), or propafenone (n = 164) groups. The proportion of patients using rivaroxaban 10 mg was highest in the concomitant dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 53.6%; with amiodarone, 57.6%; with dronedarone, 77.1%; and with propafenone, 46.3% (p < 0.001). The cumulative incidences of safety (p = 0.892), effectiveness (p = 0.336), and MACE (p = 0.674) were similar between the four groups; however, there were significantly fewer new systemic thromboembolisms in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 2.5%; with amiodarone, 0.6%; with dronedarone, 0%; and with propafenone, 1.2% (p = 0.029). The all-cause death rate was also lowest in the dronedarone group: rivaroxaban alone, 9.0%; with amiodarone, 9.6%; with dronedarone, 3.0%; and with propafenone: 6.1% (p = 0.013). After covariate adjustment, there were no differences in the safety, effectiveness, and MACE endpoints between patients receiving or not receiving AADs. Conclusion: Concomitant use of rivaroxaban with AADs appears to be well tolerated, warranting further investigation into the apparent benefits of a reduced dose of rivaroxaban combined with dronedarone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can measure atrial fibrillation (AF) early; however, the timing for administering antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to suppress AF remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between baseline values and changes after AAD in terms of relative reduction of AF burden (RRAB) and maximum AF duration (RRMD). Methods: This multicenter retrospective study screened all patients with nonpermanent AF who had dual‐chamber pacemakers and only enrolled those receiving a naive AAD between September 2009 and December 2014. AF burden and maximum duration were calculated using CIED at 0 and 3 to 6 months after starting rhythm control. All the enrolled patients were divided into four groups according to baseline AF burden. RRAB and RRMD were monitored using CIEDs. Results: Overall, 145 eligible subjects received a naive AAD for nonpermanent AF. The mean RRAB in the four groups (AF burden <1%, 1%‐4%, 4%‐18%, and ≥18%) were −65.3%, −46.4%, −34.7%, and −27.9% (P = 0.005), respectively. Mean RRMD were −26.8%, −12.4%, 4.2%, and 6.0%, respectively (P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis revealed that the lowest baseline AF burden (<1%) was significantly associated with greater RRAB, which was not observed in the RRMD model. Conclusions: Lower baseline AF burden was associated with greater RRAB by AADs. Our finding suggests that rhythm control should be started in the early stage to achieve better responses to AADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Paraquat poisoning can result in dysfunction of multiple organs, and pulmonary fibrosis with respiratory failure is the major cause of mortality. For terminally ill patients, some life-prolonging treatments can be non-beneficial treatments (NBT). The objective of this study was to determine if intubation is a NBT for patients with respiratory failure due to paraquat poisoning. Methods: The study included 68 patients with respiratory failure due to paraquat poisoning. Patients were hospitalized at MacKay Memorial Hospital, Taitung Branch, Taiwan, between 2005 to April 2016. Composite outcomes of intra-hospital mortality, the rate of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, prescribed medications, length of stay, and medical costs were recorded and compared between the do-not-intubate (DNI) group and endotracheal intubation (EI) group. Results: Intra-hospital mortality rate for the entire population was 100%. There were significantly more patients with DNR orders in the DNI group (P = 0.007). There were no differences in the length of hospital stay. However, patients in DNI group had significantly less vasopressor use and more morphine use, shorter time in the intensive care unit, and fewer medical costs. Conclusion: The procedure of intubation in patients with respiratory failure due to paraquat poisoning can be considered inappropriate life-prolonging treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Correction to: I Scientific Reports i https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07466-z, published online 08 March 2022 The original version of this Article contained an error in Affiliation 2, which was incorrectly given as 'Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Center, MacKay Memorial Hospital, New Taipei, Taiwan'. The correct affiliation is listed below: Department of Medicine, MacKay Medical College, New Taipei, Taiwan. [Extracted from the article]