Ventricular arrhythmias and ARNI: is it time to reappraise their management in the light of new evidence?
室性心律失常和 ARNI: 是时候根据新的证据重新评估他们的管理了吗？
- 作者列表："Vecchi, Andrea Lorenzo","Abete, Raffaele","Marazzato, Jacopo","Iacovoni, Attilio","Mortara, Andrea","De Ponti, Roberto","Senni, Michele
The remarkable scientific progress in the treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has more than halved the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in this setting. However, SCD remains one of the major causes of death in this patient population. Beyond the acknowledged role of beta blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), a new class of drugs, the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), proved to reduce the overall cardiovascular mortality and, more specifically, the risk of SCD in HFrEF patients. The mechanism by which ARNI may reduce the mortality connected with harmful ventricular arrhythmias is not utterly clear. A variety of direct and indirect mechanisms have been suggested, but a favorable left ventricular reverse remodeling seems to play a key role in this setting. Furthermore, the well-known protective effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been debated in HFrEF patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) arguing against the role of primary prevention ICD in this setting, particularly when ARNI therapy is considered. The purpose of this review was to provide insights into the SCD mechanisms involved in HFrEF patients together with the current role of electrical therapies and new drug agents in this setting. Graphical abstract
心力衰竭 (HF) 和射血分数降低 (HFrEF) 患者治疗的显著科学进展使这种情况下心脏性猝死 (SCD) 的风险减半。然而，SCD 仍然是该患者人群的主要死亡原因之一。除了公认的肾素-血管紧张素-醛固酮系统 (RAAS) 的 β 受体阻滞剂和抑制剂的作用，一类新的药物，血管紧张素受体 neprilysin 抑制剂 (ARNI),证明可降低 HFrEF 患者的总体心血管死亡率，更具体地说，降低 SCD 风险。ARNI 降低与有害室性心律失常相关的死亡率的机制尚不完全清楚。已经提出了多种直接和间接机制，但有利的左心室反向重构似乎在这种情况下发挥了关键作用。此外，在非缺血性心肌病 (NICM) 的 HFrEF 患者中，众所周知的植入式心律转复除颤器 (ICD) 的保护作用一直存在争议。反对一级预防 ICD 在这种情况下的作用，特别是当考虑 ARNI 治疗时。本综述的目的是提供对 HFrEF 患者所涉及的 SCD 机制的见解，以及电疗法和新药物制剂在这种情况下的当前作用。图形抽象
METHODS:AIMS:Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using ablation index (AI) incorporates stability, contact force (CF), time, and power. The CLOSE protocol combines AI and ≤6 mm interlesion distance. Safety concerns are raised about surround flow ablation catheters (STSF). To compare safety and effectiveness of an atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation strategy using AI vs. CLOSE protocol using STSF.,METHODS AND RESULTS:First cluster was treated using AI and second cluster using CLOSE. Procedural data, safety, and recurrence of any atrial tachycardia (AT) or AF >30 s were collected prospectively. All Classes 1c and III anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) were stopped after the blanking period. In total, all 215 consecutive patients [AI: 121 (paroxysmal: n = 97), CLOSE: n = 94 (paroxysmal: n = 74)] were included. Pulmonary vein isolation was reached in all in similar procedure duration (CLOSE: 107 ± 25 vs. AI: 102 ± 24 min; P = 0.1) and similar radiofrequency time (CLOSE: 36 ± 11 vs. AI: 37 ± 8 min; P = 0.4) but first pass isolation was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [left veins: 90% vs. 80%; P < 0.05 and right veins: 84% vs. 73%; P < 0.05]. Twelve-month off-AAD freedom of AF/AT was higher in CLOSE vs. AI [79% (paroxysmal: 85%) vs. 64% (paroxysmal: 68%); P < 0.05]. Only four patients (2%) without recurrence were on AAD during follow-up. Major complications were similar (CLOSE: 2.1% vs. AI: 2.5%; P = 0.87).,CONCLUSION:The CLOSE protocol is more effective than a PVI approach solely using AI, especially in paroxysmal AF. In this off-AAD study, 79% of patients were free from AF/AT during 12-month follow-up. The STSF catheter appears to be safe using conventional CLOSE targets.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the role of driver mechanism and the effect of electrogram dispersion-guided driver mapping and ablation in atrial fibrillation (AF) at different stages of progression.,METHODS:A total of 256 consecutive patients with AF who had undergone pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus driver ablation or conventional ablation were divided into three groups: paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF; group A, n = 51); persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF; group B, n = 38); and long standing-persistent atrial fibrillation (LS-PsAF; group C, n = 39). PVI was performed with the guidance of the ablation index. The electrogram dispersion was analyzed for driver mapping.,RESULTS:The most prominent driver regions were at roof (28.0%), posterior wall (17.6%), and bottom (21.3%). From patients with PAF to those with PsAF and LS-PsAF: the complexity of extra-pulmonary vein (PV) drivers including distribution, mean number, and area of dispersion region increased (P < .001). Patients who underwent driver ablation vs conventional ablation had higher procedural AF termination rate (76.6% vs 28.1%; P < .001). With AF progression, the termination rate gradually decreased from group A to group C, and the role of PVI in AF termination was also gradually weakened from group A to group C (39.6%, 7.4%, and 4.3%; P < .001) in patients with driver ablation. At the end of the follow-up, the rate of sinus rhythm maintenance was higher in patients with driver ablation than those with conventional ablation (89.1% vs 70.3%; P < .001).,CONCLUSION:The formation of extra-PV drivers provides an important mechanism for AF maintenance with their complexity increasing with AF progression. Electrogram dispersion-guided driver ablation appears to be an efficient adjunctive approach to PVI for AF treatment.
METHODS:PURPOSE:Whether or not pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus left atrial posterior wall isolation (PWI) using contact force (CF) sensing improves the ablation outcome for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is unclear. This study compared the outcome of PVI plus PWI and additional non-PV trigger ablation for persistent AF with/without CF sensing. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study analyzed 148 propensity score-matched persistent AF patients (median duration of persistent AF, 8 months (interquartile range, 3-24 months); left atrial diameter, 43 ± 7 mm) undergoing PVI plus PWI and ablation of non-PV triggers provoked by high-dose isoproterenol, including 74 with CF-sensing catheters (CF group) and 74 with conventional catheters (non-CF group). PVI plus PWI with no additional ablation but cavotricuspid isthmus ablation was performed without non-PV triggers in 48 CF patients (65%) and 54 non-CF patients (73%) (P = 0.38). In all other patients, we performed additional ablation of provoked non-PV triggers. RESULTS:The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence of antiarrhythmic drugs at 12 months after the single procedure was higher in the CF group than in the non-CF group (85 vs. 70%, log-rank P = 0.030). A multivariable analysis revealed that using CF sensing and non-inducibility of AF from a non-PV trigger after PVI and PWI were significantly associated with a reduced rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with non-CF sensing, PVI plus PWI and additional non-PV trigger ablation using CF-sensing catheters for persistent AF can reduce the rate of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence.