Search

This study identified factors associated with risk for cardiac perforation in the setting of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in contemporary clinical practice.Cardiac perforation is an uncommon but potentially fatal complication of AF ablation. An improved understanding of factors associated with cardiac perforation could facilitate improvements in procedural safety.Logistic regression models were used to assess predictors of cardiac perforation among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent AF ablation from July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2017. Cardiac perforation was defined as a diagnosis of hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or pericardiocentesis, within 30 days of AF ablation.Of 102,398 patients who underwent AF ablation, 0.61% (n = 623) experienced cardiac perforation as a procedural complication. Rates of cardiac perforation decreased over time. In adjusted analyses of the overall population, female sex (odds ratio [OR]: 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14 to 1.58; p = 0.0004), obesity (OR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.68; p = 0.0050), and absence of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) (OR: 4.85; 95% CI: 4.11 to 5.71; p 0.0001) were associated with increased risk for cardiac perforation, whereas previous cardiac surgery (OR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.26; p 0.0001) was associated with a lower risk for perforation. Patient risk factors for cardiac perforation were identical in the subset of patients in whom ICE was used (n = 76,134). A risk score was generated with the following point assignments: female sex (1 point); obesity (1 point); nonuse of ICE (5 points); and previous cardiac surgery (-6 points).Cardiac perforation is a rare complication of AF ablation; incidence has decreased over time. One of the strongest predictors of cardiac perforation in the contemporary era is a modifiable factor, use of intraprocedural ICE.

Catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as an effective therapy for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF); however it is unclear whether proceeding expeditiously to CA improves clinical outcomes in a real-world population. This study compares outcomes of CA for new AF within 6 months of diagnosis (very early) 6 to 12 months after diagnosis (early) and 12 to 24 months after diagnosis (later).A large nationally-representative sample of patients ages 18 to 64 who underwent CA from January 2011 to June 2019 was studied using the IBM MarketScan Database. The primary outcome was a composite of healthcare utilization over the following 24 months. Propensity score-matching was used to match patients in each cohort. Risk difference in outcomes were compared between matched patients.Two thousand six hundred thirty one patients were identified postmatching, with 1649 in the very early cohort and 982 in the early cohort. The very early referral group was less likely to experience the primary composite outcome postablation (Absolute risk difference [ARD]: -3.9%; 95% Confidence interval [CI]: -5.8%, -2.0%), with the difference driven by fewer cardioversions (ARD: -2.9%, 95% CI: -5.3%, -0.5%) and outpatient visits (ARD: -6.6%, 95% CI: -10.5%, -2.7%). There was no difference in outcomes between early and later referral groups, with only very early referral showing decreased healthcare utilization.Patients who underwent ablation within 6 months of diagnosis had lower healthcare utilization in the ensuing 24 months, driven by fewer outpatient visits and cardioversions, supporting expeditious referral for ablation for symptomatic AF.

In 2020, the European Commission up-classified metal cobalt as Class 1B Carcinogen (presumed to have carcinogenic potential) based primarily on data from rodent inhalation carcinogenicity studies. This up-classification requires an assessment under the Medical Device Regulations of cobalt cancer risk from medical devices. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate site-specific cancer risks with cobalt exposure from either total joint replacement (TJR) or occupational exposure (OC). Results were stratified by exposure type (OC or TJR), exposure level (metal-on-metal (MoM) or non-MoM), follow-up duration (latency period:5, 5-10 or10 years), and cancer incidence or mortality (detection bias assessment). From 30 studies (653,104 subjects, average 14.5 years follow-up), the association between TJR/OC and cancer risk was null for 22 of 27 cancer sites, negative for 3 sites, and positive for prostate cancer and myeloma. Significant heterogeneity and large estimate ranges were observed for many cancer sites. No significant increase in estimates was observed by exposure level or follow-up duration. The current evidence, including weak associations, heterogeneity across studies and no increased association with exposure level or follow-up duration, is insufficient to conclude that there exists an increased risk for people exposed to cobalt in TJR/OC of developing site-specific cancers.

In 2020, the European Commission up-classified pure cobalt metal to a Category 1B hazard, based primarily on data from rodent inhalation carcinogenicity studies of metallic cobalt. The European Commission review did not evaluate cobalt-containing alloys in medical devices, which have very different properties vs. pure cobalt metal and did not include a systematic epidemiologic review. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published, peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies evaluating the association between overall cancer risk and exposure to orthopedic implants containing cobalt alloys or cobalt particulates in occupational settings. Study-specific estimates were pooled using random-effects models. Analyses included 20 papers on orthopedic implants and 10 occupational cohort papers (~1 million individuals). The meta-analysis summary estimates (95% confidence intervals) for overall cancer risk were 1.00 (0.96–1.04) overall and 0.97 (0.94–1.00) among high-quality studies. Results were also similar in analyses stratified by type of exposure/data sources (occupational cohort, implant registry or database), comparators (general or implant population), cancer incidence or mortality, follow-up duration (latency period), and study precision. In conclusion, meta-analysis found no association between exposure to orthopedic implants containing cobalt alloys or cobalt particulates in occupational settings and overall cancer risk, including an analysis of studies directly comparing metal-on-metal vs. non-metal-on-metal implants.

Background Catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as an effective treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). However practice patterns and patient factors associated with referral for CA within the first 12 months after diagnosis are poorly characterized. This study examined overall procedural trends and factors predictive of catheter ablation for newly-diagnosed atrial fibrillation in a young, commercially-insured population. Methods A large nationally-representative sample of patients age 20 to 64 from years 2010 to 2016 was studied using the IBM MarketScan® Commercial Database. Patients were included with a new diagnosis of AF in the inpatient or outpatient setting with continuous enrollment for at least 1 year pre and post index visit. Patients were excluded if they had prior history of AF or had filled an anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) in the pre-index period. Results Early CA increased from 5.0% in 2010 to 10.5% in 2016. Patients were less likely to undergo CA if they were located in the Northeast (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.73–0.88) or North Central (OR: 0.91, CI: 0.83–0.99) regions (compared with the West), had higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores, or had Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score of 3 or greater (OR: 0.61; CI: 0.51–0.72). Conclusions CA within 12 months for new-diagnosed AF increased significantly from 2010 to 2016, with most patients still trialed on an AAD prior to CA. Patients are less likely to be referred for early CA if they are located in the Northeast and North Central regions, have more comorbidities, or higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores.

In 2017, the European Union (EU) Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) recommended the classification of metallic cobalt (Co) as Category 1B with respect to its carcinogenic and reproductive hazard potential and Category 2 for mutagenicity but did not evaluate the relevance of these classifications for patients exposed to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) used in medical devices. CoCA are inherently different materials from Co metal from a toxicological perspective and thus require a separate assessment. CoCA are biocompatible materials with a unique combination of properties including strength, durability, and a long history of safe use that make them uniquely suited for use in a wide-range of medical devices. Assessments were performed on relevant preclinical and clinical carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity data for Co and CoCA to meet the requirements under the EU Medical Device Regulation triggered by the ECHA re-classification (adopted in October 2019 under the 14th Adaptation to Technical Progress to CLP) and to address their relevance to patient safety. The objective of this review is to present an integrated overview of these assessments, a benefit-risk assessment and an examination of potential alternative materials. The data support the conclusion that the exposure to CoCA in medical devices via clinically relevant routes does not represent a hazard for carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity. Additionally, the risk for the adverse effects that are known to occur with elevated Co concentrations (e.g., cardiomyopathy) are very low for CoCA implant devices (infrequent reports often reflecting a unique catastrophic failure event out of millions of patients) and negligible for CoCA non-implant devices (not measurable/no case reports). In conclusion, the favorable benefit-risk profile also in relation to possible alternatives presented herein strongly support continued use of CoCA in medical devices.

Cobalt (Co) is an essential element with human exposure occurring from the diet, supplement ingestion, occupational sources, and medical devices. The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) recently voted to classify Co metal as a Reproductive Hazard Category 1B; presumed human reproductive toxicant due to adverse testicular effects in male rodents. A weight of evidence evaluation of the preclinical reproductive and developmental toxicity studies and available clinical data was performed to critically evaluate the relevance of this proposed classification for Co in medical devices. Reproductive responses to Co are limited to the male testes and sperm function following high systemic exposure in rodents, only at Co concentrations/doses that result in overt toxicity (i.e., above the maximum tolerable dose (MTD)). The potential mechanisms of Co reproductive/developmental toxicity, including its indirect mode of action in the testes and relevance to humans, are discussed. The available preclinical and clincial evidence suggests that it would be more appropriate to classify Co as a Reproductive Hazard Category 2 compound: suspected human reproductive toxicant and, in the case of Co-containing medical devices, it should not be considered a reproductive hazard.

Cobalt (Co) alloys have been used for over seven decades in a wide range of medical devices, including, but not limited to, hip and knee implants, surgical tools, and vascular stents, due to their favorable biocompatibility, durability, and mechanical properties. A recent regulatory hazard classification review by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) resulted in the classification of metallic Co as a Class 1B Carcinogen (presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans), primarily based on inhalation rodent carcinogenicity studies with pure metallic Co. The ECHA review did not specifically consider the carcinogenicity hazard potential of forms or routes of Co that are relevant for medical devices. The purpose of this review is to present a comprehensive assessment of the available in vivo preclinical data on the carcinogenic hazard potential of exposure to Co-containing alloys (CoCA) in medical devices by relevant routes. In vivo data were reviewed from 33 preclinical studies that examined the impact of Co exposure on local and systemic tumor incidence in rats, mice, guinea pigs, and hamsters. Across these studies, there was no significant increase of local or systemic tumors in studies relevant for medical devices. Taken together, the relevant in vivo data led to the conclusion that CoCA in medical devices are not a carcinogenic hazard in available in vivo models. While specific patient and implant factors cannot be fully replicated using in vivo models, the available in vivo preclinical data support that CoCA in medical devices are unlikely a carcinogenic hazard to patients.