No abstract

Background Periprocedural pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) anticoagulation requires balancing between bleeding and thromboembolic risk. Intraprocedural anticoagulation is monitored by activated clotting time (ACT) with target value >300 s, and there are no guidelines specifying an initial unfractionated heparin (UFH) dose. Methods We aimed to assess differences in ACT values and UFH dosage during PVI in patients on different oral anticoagulants. We conducted an international, multi‐center, registry‐based study. Consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing PVI, on uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy, were analyzed. Before transseptal puncture, UFH bolus of 100 IU/kg was administered regardless of the anticoagulation drug. Results Total of 873 patients were included (median age 61 years, IQR 53–66; female 30%). There were 248, 248, 189, 188 patients on warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. Mean initial ACT was 257 ± 50 s, mean overall ACT 295 ± 45 s and total UFH dose 158 ± 60 IU/kg. Patients who were receiving warfarin and dabigatran compared to patients receiving rivaroxaban and apixaban had: (i) significantly higher initial ACT values (262 ± 57 and 270 ± 48 vs. 248 ± 42 and 241 ± 44 s, p < .001), (ii) significantly higher ACT throughout PVI (309 ± 46 and 306 ± 44 vs. 282 ± 37 and 272 ± 42 s, p < .001), and (iii) needed lower UFH dose during PVI (140 ± 39 and 157 ± 71 vs. 171 ± 52 and 172 ± 70 IU/kg). Conclusion There are significant differences in ACT values and UFH dose during PVI in patients receiving different anticoagulants. Patients on warfarin and dabigatran had higher initial and overall ACT values and needed lower UFH dose to achieve adequate anticoagulation during PVI than patients on rivaroxaban and apixaban.

No abstract

Aim The association of standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) markers with benefits of the primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has not been determined in the contemporary era. We analysed traditional and novel ECG variables in a large prospective, controlled primary prophylactic ICD population to assess the predictive value of ECG in terms of ICD benefit. Methods and results Electrocardiograms from 1477 ICD patients and 700 control patients (EU-CERT-ICD; non-randomized, controlled, prospective multicentre study; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02064192), who met ICD implantation criteria but did not receive the device, were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. In ICD patients, the co-primary outcome of first appropriate shock was used. Mean follow-up time was 2.4 ± 1.1 years to death and 2.3 ± 1.2 years to the first appropriate shock. Pathological Q waves were associated with decreased mortality in ICD patients [hazard ratio (HR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35–0.84; P &lt; 0.01] and patients with pathological Q waves had significantly more benefit from ICD (HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21–0.93; P = 0.03). QTc interval increase taken as a continuous variable was associated with both mortality and appropriate shock incidence, but commonly used cut-off values, were not statistically significantly associated with either of the outcomes. Conclusion Pathological Q waves were a strong ECG predictor of ICD benefit in primary prophylactic ICD patients. Excess mortality among Q wave patients seems to be due to arrhythmic death which can be prevented by ICD.

No abstract