The feasibility and effectiveness of virtual visits (VVs) for cardiac electrophysiology patients are still unknown. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of VVs as compared to in-person visits, and to describe patient experience with virtual care in clinical electrophysiology. We prospectively enrolled patients scheduled to receive a clinical electrophysiology evaluation, dividing them in two groups: a VV group and an in-person visit group. Outcomes of interest were: (1) improvement in symptoms after the index visit, (2) disappearance of remote monitoring (RM) alerts at follow-up, (3) necessity of urgent hospitalization and (4) patient satisfaction measured by the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18). This study included 162 patients in the VV group and 185 in the in-office visit group. As compared to in-person visits, VVs resulted in a similar reduction in RM alerts (51.5% vs. 43.2%, p-value 0.527) and in symptomatic patient rates (73.6% vs. 56.9%, p-value 0.073) at follow-up, without differences in urgent hospitalization rates (p-value 0.849). Patient satisfaction with VVs was higher than with in-person evaluation (p-value < 0.012). VVs proved to be as feasible and as effective as in-person visits, with high patient satisfaction. A hybrid model of care including VVs and in-person visits may become the new standard of care after the COVID-19 pandemic is over.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent chronic arrhythmia worldwide, and it is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, making it a considerable burden both to patients and the healthcare system. Nowadays, an early attempt to restore sinus rhythm in acute symptomatic AF through electrical or pharmacological cardioversion is the most common approach in the Emergency Department (ED). However, considering the high percentage of spontaneous cardioversion of paroxysmal AF reported by many studies, this approach may not be the ideal choice for all patients. In this manuscript we performed a review of the most relevant studies found in literature with the aim of identifying the main determinants of spontaneous cardioversion, focusing on those easy to detect in the ED. We have found that the most relevant predictors of spontaneous cardioversion are the absence of Heart Failure (HF), a small atrial size, recent-onset AF, rapid Atrial Fibrillatory Rate and the relationship between a previous AF episode and Heart Rate/Blood Pressure. A number of those are utilized, along with other easily determined parameters, in the recently developed “ReSinus” score which predicts the likelihood of AF spontaneous cardioversion. Such identification may help the physician decide whether immediate cardioversion is necessary, or whether to adopt a “watch-and-wait” strategy in the presence of spontaneous cardioversion determinants.

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Infarct size (IS), area at risk (AAR) and microvascular obstruction (MVO) are well known predictors of adverse remodeling (aLVr) following acute myocardial infarction, while the pathogenic role of left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic forces (HDFs) is still unknown. Recent evidence suggests the role of HDFs in negative remodeling after pathogenic events.  Purpose To identify LV HDFs patterns associated with aLVr in reperfused ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) patients. Methods Forty-nine acute STEMI patients underwent CMR at 1 week (baseline) and 4 months (follow-up) after MI.  The following parameters were measured: left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index for body surface area (LVEDVi and LVESVi), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV mass index, AAR and IS. LV HDFs were computed at baseline from cine CMR long axis datasets using a novel method based on LV endocardial boundary tracking. LV HDFs were calculated both in apex-base (A-B) and latero-septal (L-S) directions. The distribution of LV HDFs were evaluated by L-S over A-B HDFs ratio (L-S/A-B HDFs ratio %). All HDFs parameters are computed over the entire heartbeat, in systole and diastole. aLVr was defined as an absolute increase in LVESV of at least 15% (ΔLV-ESV ≥15%). Results Patients with aLVr (n = 18; 37%) had significant greater value of AAR (32 ± 23 vs 22 ± 18; p = 0.03) and slightly larger IS (23 ± 16 vs 15 ± 11; p= 0.07) at baseline. In patients with aLVr at FU, baseline systolic L-S HDF were lower (2.7 ± 0.9 vs 3.6 ± 1; p = 0.027) while diastolic L-S/A-B HDF ratio was significantly higher (28 ± 14 vs 19 ± 6; p = 0.03), reflecting higher grade of diastolic HDFs misalignment. At univariate logistic regression analysis, higher IS [Odd ratio (OR) 1.05; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.01-1.1; p= 0.04] L-S HDFs (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.2-0.9; p= 0.04] and higher diastolic L-S/A-B HDFs ratio (OR 1.1; 95% CI 1.01-1.2; p= 0.05) were associated with aLVr at FU (Table).  At multivariate logistic regression analysis, L-S/A-B HDF ratio remained the only independent predictor of adverse LV remodeling after correction for other baseline determinants. Conclusion Misalignment of diastolic HDFs following STEMI is associated with aLVr observed after 4 months. Predictors of adverse remodeling Univariate Multivariate Parameter OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P IS (%) 1.05 (1.01-1.1) 0.042 - - Systolic L-S HDF 0.41 (0.2-0.9) 0.04 - - Diastolic L-S/A-B HDF Ratio 1.1 (1.01-1.2) 0.05 1.1 (1.01-1.2) 0.04 A-B:apex-base; L-S: latero-septal; HDFs: hemodynamic forces Abstract Figure. Diastolic HDFs distribution and aLVr