Opioid, gabapentinoid, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication use and the risks of atrial fibrillation and supraventricular ectopy in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.
- 作者列表："Harding BN","Wiggins KL","Jensen PN","McKnight B","Psaty BM","Heckbert SR","Floyd JS
PURPOSE:Opioids, gabapentinoids, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may have adverse cardiovascular effects. We evaluated whether these medications were associated with incident clinically detected atrial fibrillation (AF) or monitor-detected supraventricular ectopy (SVE), including premature atrial contractions (PACs) and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). METHODS:We used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), a cohort study that enrolled 6814 Americans without clinically detected cardiovascular disease in 2000 to 2002. At the 2016 to 2018 examination, 1557 individuals received ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Longitudinal analyses investigated time-varying medication exposures at the first five exams (through 2011) in relation to incident clinically detected AF through 2015 using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Cross-sectional analyses investigated medication exposures at 2016 to 2018 examination and the risk of monitor-detected SVE using linear regression models. RESULTS:The longitudinal cohort included 6652 participants. During 12.4 years of mean follow-up, 982 participants (14.7%) experienced incident clinically detected AF. Use of opioids, gabapentinoids, and NSAIDs were not associated with incident AF. The cross-sectional analysis included 1435 participants with ECG monitoring. Gabapentinoid use was associated with an 84% greater average frequency of PACs/hour (95% CI, 25%-171%) and a 44% greater average number of runs of SVT/day (95% CI, 3%-100%). No associations were found with use of opioids or NSAIDs in cross-sectional analyses. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, gabapentinoid use was associated with SVE. Given the rapid increase in gabapentinoid use, additional studies are needed to clarify whether these medications cause cardiovascular complications.
目的: 阿片类药物、加巴喷胺和非甾体抗炎药 (NSAIDs) 可能有心血管不良反应。我们评估了这些药物是否与临床检测到的房颤 (AF) 或监测到的室上异位 (SVE) 事件相关，包括房性早搏 (PACs) 和室上性心动过速 (SVT)。 方法: 我们使用了多种族动脉粥样硬化研究 (MESA) 的数据，这是一项队列研究，在 2000 年至 2002 年招募了 6814 名没有临床发现心血管疾病的美国人。在 2016 至 2018 年的检查中，1557 人接受了动态心电图 (ECG) 监测。纵向分析使用 Cox 比例风险回归模型调查了前 5 次检查 (至 2011) 与 2015 年临床检测到的房颤事件相关的时变药物暴露。横断面分析使用线性回归模型调查了 2016 至 2018 年检查时的药物暴露和监测检测 SVE 的风险。 结果: 纵向队列包括 6652 名参与者。在 12.4 年的平均随访期间，982 名参与者 (14.7%) 经历了临床检测到的房颤事件。使用阿片类药物、加巴喷胺和 NSAIDs 与房颤事件无关。横断面分析包括 1435 例接受 ECG 监测的参与者。使用 Gabapentinoid 与 PACs/小时平均频率增加 84% (95% CI，25%-171%) 和 SVT/天平均运行次数增加 44% (95% CI, 3%-100%)。横断面分析中未发现与使用阿片类药物或 NSAIDs 相关。 结论: 在本研究中，加巴喷丁素的使用与 SVE 相关。鉴于 gabapentinoid 的使用迅速增加，需要额外的研究来澄清这些药物是否会导致心血管并发症。
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.