NCT02137187 (May 2018, date last accessed).

Aims  In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF), strict and regular rate control with atrioventricular junction ablation and biventricular pacemaker (Ablation + CRT) has been shown to be superior to pharmacological rate control in reducing HF hospitalizations. However, whether it also improves survival is unknown. Methods and results  In this international, open-label, blinded outcome trial, we randomly assigned patients with severely symptomatic permanent AF >6 months, narrow QRS (≤110 ms) and at least one HF hospitalization in the previous year to Ablation + CRT or to pharmacological rate control. We hypothesized that Ablation + CRT is superior in reducing the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. A total of 133 patients were randomized. The mean age was 73 ± 10 years, and 62 (47%) were females. The trial was stopped for efficacy at interim analysis after a median of 29 months of follow-up per patient. The primary endpoint occurred in 7 patients (11%) in the Ablation + CRT arm and in 20 patients (29%) in the Drug arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.65; P = 0.004]. The estimated death rates at 2 years were 5% and 21%, respectively; at 4 years, 14% and 41%. The benefit of Ablation + CRT of all-cause mortality was similar in patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% and in those with >35%. The secondary endpoint combining all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the Ablation + CRT arm [18 (29%) vs. 36 (51%); HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22–0.73; P = 0.002]. Conclusions  Ablation + CRT was superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing mortality in patients with permanent AF and narrow QRS who were hospitalized for HF, irrespective of their baseline EF. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02137187.

COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on the organization of care in Italy, and a survey to evaluate provision of for arrhythmia during COVID-19 outbreak (March-April 2020) was launched. A total of 104 physicians from 84 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. The vast majority of participating centres (95.2%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective pacemaker implantations during the outbreak period compared to the corresponding two months of year 2019 (50.0% of centres reported a reduction of > 50%). Similarly, 92.9% of participating centres reported a significant reduction in the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations for primary prevention, and 72.6% a significant reduction of ICD implantations for secondary prevention (> 50% in 65.5 and 44.0% of the centres, respectively). The majority of participating centres (77.4%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective ablations (> 50% in 65.5% of the centres). Also the interventional procedures performed in an emergency setting, as well as acute management of atrial fibrillation had a marked reduction, thus leading to the conclusion that the impact of COVID-19 was disrupting the entire organization of health care, with a massive impact on the activities and procedures related to arrhythmia management in Italy.

Background: Optimal timing for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia is an important unresolved issue. There are no randomized trials evaluating the benefit of ablation after the first implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock. Methods: We conducted a 2-phase, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients with ischemic or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and primary or secondary prevention indication for ICD were enrolled in an initial observational phase until first appropriate shock (phase A). After reconsenting, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 in phase B to immediate ablation (within 2 months from shock delivery) or continuation of standard therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Amiodarone intake was not allowed except for documented atrial tachyarrhythmias. On July 23, 2021, phase B of the trial was interrupted as a result of the first interim analysis on the basis of the Bayesian adaptive design. Results: Of the 517 patients enrolled in phase A, 154 (30%) had ventricular tachycardia, 56 (11%) received an appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (interquartile range, 1.4-4.4), and 47 of 56 (84%) agreed to participate in phase B. After 24.2 (8.5-24.4) months, the primary end point occurred in 1 of 23 (4%) patients in the ablation group and 10 of 24 (42%) patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01-0.85]; P=0.034). The results met the prespecified termination criterion of >99% Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of treatment over standard therapy. No deaths were observed in the ablation group versus 8 deaths (33%) in the control group (P=0.004); there was 1 worsening heart failure hospitalization in the ablation group (4%) versus 4 in the control group (17%; P=0.159). ICD shocks were less frequent in the ablation group (9%) than in the control group (42%; P=0.039). Conclusions: Ventricular tachycardia ablation after first appropriate shock was associated with a reduced risk of the combined death or worsening heart failure hospitalization end point, lower mortality, and fewer ICD shocks. These findings provide support for considering ventricular tachycardia ablation after the first ICD shock.

Fingolimod is a sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulator approved to treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). Initiation of treatment with fingolimod has been found to produce transient bradycardia and/or slowing of atrioventricular impulse conduction in a small proportion of patients. This effect is thought to be due to the interaction of fingolimod with S1P receptors on the surface membrane of atrial myocytes causing a vagomimetic effect, similar to the action of acetylcholine on muscarinic receptors. As a precaution, patients are under electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring for 6 h after receiving their first dose. Fingolimod is contraindicated in patients with overt or concealed cardiac diseases. However, the Fingolimod Initiation and caRdiac Safety Trial (FIRST), which was designed specifically to investigate the cardiac profile of fingolimod, did not show an increased risk of clinically relevant cardiac events with fingolimod. This review examines the electrophysiology and pathophysiology of cardiac impulse formation in the context of fingolimod. It concludes that these vagomimetic effects should be considered benign and should not prevent the effective use of fingolimod in the treatment of patients with MS.