While AF most often occurs in the setting of atrial disease, current assessment and treatment of patients with AF does not focus on the extent of the atrial myopathy that serves as the substrate for this arrhythmia. Atrial myopathy, in particular atrial fibrosis, may initiate a vicious cycle in which atrial myopathy leads to AF, which in turn leads to a worsening myopathy. Various techniques, including ECG, plasma biomarkers, electroanatomical voltage mapping, echocardiography, and cardiac MRI, can help to identify and quantify aspects of the atrial myopathy. Current therapies, such as catheter ablation, do not directly address the underlying atrial myopathy. There is emerging research showing that by targeting this myopathy we can help decrease the occurrence and burden of AF.

No abstract

BackgroundCatheter ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) is a commonly performed electrophysiology (EP) procedure. Few data exist comparing conventional (CONV) versus novel ablation strategies from both clinical and direct cost perspectives. We sought to investigate the disposable costs and clinical outcomes associated with three different ablation methodologies used in the ablation of AVNRT.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of AVNRT ablations performed at Augusta University Medical Center from 2006 to 2014. A total of 183 patients were identified. Three different ablation techniques were compared: CONV manual radiofrequency (RF) (n=60), remote magnetic navigation (RMN)-guided RF (n=67), and cryoablation (CRYO) (n=56).ResultsBaseline demographics did not differ between the three groups except for a higher prevalence of cardiomyopathy in the RMN group (p<0.01). The clinical end point of interest was recurrent AVNRT following the index ablation procedure. A significantly higher number of recurrent AVNRT cases occurred in the CRYO group as compared to CONV and RMN (p=0.003; OR =7.75) groups. Cost-benefit analysis showed both CONV and RMN to be dominant compared to CRYO. Cost-minimization analysis demonstrated the least expensive ablation method to be CONV (mean disposable catheter cost = CONV US$2340; CRYO US$3515; RMN US$5190). Despite comparable clinical outcomes, the incremental cost of RMN over CONV averaged US$3094 per procedure.ConclusionAVNRT ablation using either CONV or RMN techniques is equally effective and associated with lower AVNRT recurrence rates than CRYO. CONV ablation carries significant disposable cost savings as compared to RMN, despite similar efficacy.

solution for a frequent complication after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A case of atrio-ventricular leadless pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement,