Browsing by Author "Marijon, Eloi (12143483700)"

Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who are in need of stroke prevention are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue treatment shortly after its initiation. Despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), such undertreatment has improved somewhat but is still evident. This is due to continued risks of bleeding events or ischemic strokes while on DOAC, poor treatment compliance, or aversion to anticoagulant therapy. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favored for the prevention of thromboembolic events in AF patients who cannot have long-term oral anticoagulation. This article is an executive summary of a practical guide recently published by an international expert consensus group, which introduces the LAAC devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. This practical guide, aligned with published guideline/guidance, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of LAAC. © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Aims: The 4S-AF scheme [Stroke risk, Symptom severity, Severity of atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, Substrate severity] has recently been described as a novel approach to in-depth characterization of AF. We aim to determine if the 4S-AF scheme would be useful for AF characterization and provides prognostic information in real-world AF patients. Methods and results: The Spanish and French cohorts of the EORP-AF Long-Term General Registry were included. The baseline 4S-AF scheme was calculated and related to the primary management strategy (rhythm or rate control). Follow-up was performed at 1-year with all-cause mortality and the composite of ischaemic stroke/transient ischaemic attack/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all-cause death, as primary endpoints. A total of 1479 patients [36.9% females, median age 72 interquartile range (IQR 64-80) years] were included. The median 4S-AF scheme score was 5 (IQR 4-7). The 4S-AF scheme, as continuous and as categorical, was associated with the management strategy decided for the patient (both P < 0.001). The predictive performances of the 4S-AF scheme for the actual management strategy were appropriate in its continuous [c-index 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.80] and categorical (c-index 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.78) forms. Cox regression analyses showed that 'red category' classified patients in the 4S-AF scheme had a higher risk of all-cause death (aHR 1.75, 95% CI 1.02-2.99) and composite outcomes (aHR 1.60, 95% CI 1.05-2.44). Conclusion: Characterization of AF by using the 4S-AF scheme may aid in identifying AF patients that would be managed by rhythm or rate control and could also help in identifying high-risk AF patients for worse clinical outcomes in a 'real-world' setting. © 2021 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

To study the proportion of leadless pacemaker (LL-PM) implants and the factors influencing the choice of LL-PM vs. transvenous pacemaker (TV-PM) across tertiary centres in Europe with routine availability of the LL-PM. A European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey using electronically distributed questionnaire sent to participating centres. Participating tertiary cardiac pacing centres prospectively included consecutive patients implanted between November 2018 and January 2019. Questions covered standards of care and policies used for patient management, focusing particularly on the reasons for choosing LL-PM vs. TV-PM. Overall, 21 centres from four countries (France, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy) participated, with eventual data from 798 patients (n = 472, 59% male). With 69 implants, LL-PM represented only 9% of all implants and 36% of the single-chamber pacing group; double-chamber transvenous pacemakers were implanted in 528 patients and biventricular (cardiac resynchronization pacemaker) in 79. The two major reasons reported in favour of LL-PM implantation were an anticipated high risk of infection or low rate of ventricular pacing. Compared to TV-PM, LL-PM patients were more often male (74% vs. 54%, P = 0.009), with greater proportion of valvular heart disease (45% vs. 35%, P = 0.01) and atrial fibrillation (AF; 65% vs. 23%, P < 0.0001), with significantly more comorbidities (≥ one comorbidity, 66% vs. 52%, P = 0.02). This contemporary multicentre European survey shows that LL-PM constitutes a small proportion of all PM implants. Patients implanted with LL-PM were more likely to have AF and a high anticipated risk of infection. © 2020 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.

The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) prospective snapshot survey is to assess procedural settings, safety measures, and short-term outcomes associated with implantation of leadless pacemakers (LLPM), across a broad range of tertiary European electrophysiology centres. An internet-based electronic questionnaire (30 questions) concerning implantation settings, peri-procedural routines, complications, and in-hospital patient outcomes was circulated to centres routinely implanting both LLPMs and transvenous pacemakers (TV-PM). The centres were requested to prospectively include consecutive patients implanted with either LLPMs or TV-PMs during the 10-week enrolment period. Overall, 21 centres from four countries enrolled 825 consecutive patients between November 2018 and January 2019, including 69 (9%) implanted with LLPMs. Leadless pacemakers were implanted mainly under local anaesthesia (69%), by an electrophysiologist (60%), in the electrophysiology laboratory (71%); 95% of patients received prophylactic antibiotics prior to implantation. Most patients on chronic oral anticoagulation were operated on-drug (35%), or during short-term (to 48 h) drug withdrawal (54%). Implantation was successful in 98% of patients and the only in-hospital procedure-related complication was groyne haematoma in one patient. This EHRA snapshot survey provides important insights into LLPM implantation routines and patient outcomes. These findings suggest that despite the unfavourable clinical profile of pacemaker recipients, LLPM implantation is associated with relatively low risk of complications and good short-term outcomes. © The Author(s) 2020.

A significant proportion of patients who suffer from atrial fibrillation (AF) and are in need of thromboembolic protection are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue this treatment shortly after its initiation. This undertreatment has not improved sufficiently despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants which are associated with less major bleeding than vitamin K antagonists. Multiple reasons account for this, including bleeding events or ischaemic strokes whilst on anticoagulation, a serious risk of bleeding events, poor treatment compliance despite best educational attempts, or aversion to drug therapy. An alternative interventional therapy, which is not associated with long-term bleeding and is as effective as vitamin K anticoagulation, was introduced over 20 years ago. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years, left atrial appendage closure, predominantly achieved using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favoured for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients who cannot achieve effective anticoagulation. This management strategy is well known to the interventional cardiologist/electrophysiologist but is not more widely appreciated within cardiology or internal medicine. This article introduces the devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. Almost all physicians who care for adult patients will have many with AF. This practical guide, written within guideline/guidance boundaries, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of this new therapy, which is becoming increasingly popular. © The Author(s) 2024.

[No abstract available]

It is unclear to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the use of remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The present physician-based European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey aimed to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on RM of CIEDs among EHRA members and how it changed the current practice. The survey comprised 27 questions focusing on RM use before and during the pandemic. Questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 on the frequency of in-office visits, data filtering, reasons for initiating in-person visits, underutilization of RM during COVID-19, and RM reimbursement. A total of 160 participants from 28 countries completed the survey. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the use of RM in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable loop recorders (ILRs) during the COVID-19 pandemic (PM 24.2 vs. 39.9%, P = 0.002; ILRs 61.5 vs. 73.5%, P = 0.028), while there was a trend towards higher utilization of RM for cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices during the pandemic (44.5 vs. 55%, P = 0.063). The use of RM with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) did not significantly change during the pandemic (ICD 65.2 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.408; CRT-D 65.2 vs. 68.8%, P = 0.513). The frequency of in-office visits was significantly lower during the pandemic (P < 0.001). Nearly two-thirds of participants (57 out of 87 respondents), established new RM connections for CIEDs implanted before the pandemic with 33.3% (n = 29) delivering RM transmitters to the patient's home address, and the remaining 32.1% (n = 28) activating RM connections during an in-office visit. The results of this survey suggest that the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to a significant increase in the use of RM of CIEDs. © 2021 Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.