- 作者列表："Jones AE","King JB","Kim K","Witt DM
:The role of dedicated anticoagulation management services (AMS) for patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy is unclear. The objective of our study was to describe DOAC management in patients who were and were not managed by an AMS. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with atrial fibrillation at the University of Utah Health (UUH) who received DOAC therapy between January 2013 and June 2016. Patients in the AMS group were managed by a pharmacist-led AMS whereas those in the non-AMS group were managed by other providers. The number and type of provider encounters and interventions related to DOAC therapy and a composite endpoint of thromboembolism, bleeding, and all-cause mortality were recorded. Overall, 90 and 370 patients were managed in the AMS and non-AMS groups, respectively. AMS group patients had greater chronic disease burden as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index. AMS group patients had more frequent DOAC-related encounters than non-AMS group patients but both groups had similar DOAC therapy intervention rates. Over half of patients in the AMS group received potentially duplicative interventions from their regular clinicians. The composite endpoint occurred in 18.9% and 13.5% of AMS and non-AMS group patients, respectively (p = 0.29). Patients managed by AMS providers were more complex and had more frequent encounters regarding their DOAC therapy than those managed by non-AMS providers. However, there was evidence of duplicative DOAC therapy management efforts. No difference between AMS and non-AMS groups in the composite clinical endpoint was detected.
: 对于接受直接口服抗凝药 (DOAC) 治疗的患者，专门的抗凝管理服务 (AMS) 的作用尚不清楚。我们研究的目的是描述由 AMS 管理和未管理的患者的 DOAC 管理。我们在 2013年1月至 2016年6月期间接受 DOAC 治疗的犹他健康大学 (UUH) 房颤患者中进行了一项回顾性队列研究。AMS 组的患者由药剂师领导的 AMS 管理，而非 AMS 组的患者由其他提供者管理。记录与 DOAC 治疗相关的提供者遭遇和干预的数量和类型以及血栓栓塞、出血和全因死亡率的复合终点。总体而言，AMS 组和非 AMS 组分别管理了 90 例和 370 例患者。通过 Charlson 合并症指数测量，AMS 组患者的慢性病负担更大。AMS 组患者比非 AMS 组患者有更频繁的 DOAC 相关遭遇，但两组的 DOAC 治疗干预率相似。AMS 组中超过一半的患者接受了来自其常规临床医生的潜在重复干预。AMS 组和非 AMS 组患者的复合终点发生率分别为 18.9% 和 13.5% (p = 0.29)。与非 AMS 提供者管理的患者相比，AMS 提供者管理的患者更复杂，更频繁地遇到他们的 DOAC 治疗。然而，有证据表明 DOAC 治疗管理工作存在重复。未检测到 AMS 和非 AMS 组在复合临床终点方面的差异。
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.