IMPORTANCE Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. OBJECTIVE To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. INTERVENTIONS The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. RESULTS Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial.

No abstract

The recent introduction of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has raised attention about the potential of this technology for clinical use in daily clinical practice. We review the methods and results of the four studies conducted in humans for approval of this innovative technology for daily practice. Two studies using a temporary S-ICD system (acute human studies) were conducted to search for an appropriate lead configuration and energy requirements. For this purpose, 4 S-ICD configurations were tested in 78 patients at the time of transvenous (TV)-ICD implantation. The optimal configuration was tested in 49 more patients to comparatively assess the subcutaneous defibrillation threshold (S-DFT) versus the standard TV-ICD. Long-term implants were evaluated in 55 patients using an implanted system (chronic human study). The acute humans studies led to an optimal S-ICD configuration comprising a parasternal electrode and left anterolateral thoracic pulse generator. Both configurations successfully terminated 98% of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF), but significantly higher energy levels were required with S-ICD than with TV-ICD systems (36.6 ± 19.8 J vs. 11.1 ± 8.5 J). In the chronic study, all 137 VF episodes induced at time of implant were detected with a 98% conversion rate. Two pocket infections and four lead revisions were required during 10 ± 1 months of follow-up. During this period, survival was 98%, and 12 spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias were detected and treated by the device. These data show that the S-ICD systems here consistently detected and converted VF induced at time of implant as well as sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurring during follow-up (248).

This article discusses relevant aspects in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Up-to-date information about principles for administration of statins, antithrombotics, and antiarrhythmics is presented. The authors addressed in detail specific features of reversing heart rhythm disorders in patients with coronavirus infection and the interaction of antiarrhythmic and antiviral drugs. Recommendations are provided for outpatient and inpatient antithrombotic therapy for patients with COVID-19. Issues of antithrombotic and antiviral drug interaction are discussed.