Incidence and clinical impact of tachyarrhythmic events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A review

1. Download : Download high-res image (206KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Angiographic profile and outcomes in persistent non-valvular atrial fibrillation: A study from tertiary care center in North India

BackgroundThe relationship of atrial fibrillation (AF) with coronary artery disease (CAD) is well established, yet it is often missed. There is evidence of myocardial ischemia on stress imaging in AF patients in the absence of obstructive CAD. In this prospective cohort, we studied the angiographic profiles of non-valvular AF patients.MethodsThe study was a nonrandomized, prospective, single-center observational study of consecutive patients of persistent non-valvular AF. Patients symptomatic for AF despite optimal medical therapy for 3 months were recruited and all underwent coronary angiograms (CAG). Patients with prior history of CAD were excluded.ResultsA total of 70 patients were followed for a mean duration of 12 ± 1.4 months. The mean age of the study group was 66.07 (±11.49) years. Hypertension was the commonest comorbidity seen in 74% patients. Obstructive CAD was present in 32 (46%) patients, non-obstructive (<50% stenosis) CAD in 17 (24%) patients and normal coronaries in 21 (30%) patients. Overall 49 (70%) patients had evidence of CAD. Amongst patients without obstructive CAD, slow flow was seen in 16 (42%) patients. Lower baseline ejection fraction, lower haemoglobin & albumin levels and higher creatinine levels was associated with increased mortality. In patients without obstructive CAD, hospitalizations for fast ventricular rate were significantly increased in those having slow flow on CAG (p = 0.005).ConclusionsMajority (70%) of our patients had evidence of atherosclerotic CAD on CAG. A large proportion of patients without obstructive CAD had slow flow on CAG.     

Is amiodarone still a reasonable therapeutic option for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation?

Amiodarone is the most potent antiarrhythmic drug available and is commonly prescribed to treat and prevent not only life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias but also atrial fibrillation (AF). The latest European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines state that amiodarone is recommended for long-term rhythm control in all AF patients but that other antiarrhythmic drugs should be considered first whenever possible, due to its extracardiac toxicity. In patients without significant or with only minimal structural heart disease, amiodarone is not listed as a possibility in their therapeutic scheme. Still, amiodarone is widely and liberally used, and is the most prescribed antiarrhythmic drug for patients with AF despite its high toxicity profile. Non-cardiovascular death was more frequent with amiodarone treatment than with a rate control strategy in AFFIRM, while meta-analyses suggest an association between amiodarone use in patients without structural heart disease and increased non-cardiovascular mortality. Severe or even fatal outcomes due to amiodarone may occur years after treatment initiation and are often not acknowledged by the prescribing physician, who may no longer be following the patient. The lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria and symptom definitions may lead to underestimation of the incidence of severe side effects and of its toxicity. Unlike the underestimated risk of toxicity with amiodarone, severe complications associated with catheter ablation are usually directly ascribed to the treatment even by non-medical personnel, possibly resulting in overestimation of risks. This brief review will address the issue of amiodarone overuse and the frequent underestimation of its toxicity, while suggesting scenarios in which its use is entirely reasonable, and compare it with catheter ablation.