No abstract

Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation has become more complex due to the introduction of new anticoagulant agents, the number and kinds of patients requiring therapy, and the interactions of those patients in the matrix of care. The management of anticoagulation has become a "team sport" involving multiple specialties in multiple sites of care. The American College of Cardiology, through the College's Anticoagulation Initiative, convened a roundtable of experts from multiple specialties to discuss topics important to the management of patients requiring anticoagulation and to make expert recommendations on issues such as the initiation and interruption of anticoagulation, quality of anticoagulation care, management of major and minor bleeding, and treatment of special populations. The attendees continued to work toward consensus on these topics, and present the key findings of this roundtable in a state-of- the-art review focusing on the practical aspects of anticoagulation care for the patient with atrial fibrillation.

The development of a COI indicates that within 10 min of fixation, pacing threshold will return to an acceptable range even if the initial measurement is high. Conversely, without a COI, lead fixation is not adequate and the lead should be repositioned.

Multiple clinical trials support the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure (HF). Unfortunately, several complicating issues have arisen from the universal use of ICDs in HF patients. An estimated 20% to 35% of HF patients who receive an ICD for primary prevention will experience an appropriate shock within 1 to 3 years of implant, and one-third of patients will experience an inappropriate shock. An ICD shock is associated with a 2- to 5-fold increase in mortality, with the most common cause being progressive HF. The median time from initial ICD shock to death ranges from 168 to 294 days depending on HF etiology and the appropriateness of the ICD therapy. Despite this prognosis, current guidelines do not provide a clear stepwise approach to managing these high-risk patients. An ICD shock increases HF event risk and should trigger a thorough evaluation to determine the etiology of the shock and guide subsequent therapeutic interventions. Several combinations of pharmacologic and device-based interventions such as adding amiodarone to baseline beta-blocker therapy, adjusting ICD sensitivity, and employing antitachycardia pacing may reduce future appropriate and inappropriate shocks. Aggressive HF surveillance and management is required after an ICD shock, as the risk of sudden cardiac death is transformed to an increased HF event risk.