Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology On the Beat October 2017 - a podcast by Paul J. Wang, MD

Dr. Paul Wang:                  Welcome to the monthly podcast "On The Beat" for Circulation, Arrhythmia, and Electrophysiology. I'm Dr. Paul Wang, editor-in-chief, with some of the key highlights from this month's issue. We'll also hear from Dr. Suraj Kapa reporting on new research from the latest journal articles in the field.

                                                In our first manuscript this month, Cho and Associates investigate the need for readmission for Dofetilide reloading. The FDA labeling for Dofetilide loading states that Dofetilide must be initiated or reinitiated in hospital with continuous electrocardiographic monitoring.

                                                In this article, the authors retrospectively examine the hospital records for 138 patients admitted for Dofetilide reloading for atrial arrhythmias. Of these 138 patients, 102 were reloaded at a previously-tolerated dose, 30 with a dose higher than a previously tolerated dose, and 2 at a lower dose, with the prior dosage unknown in 4 patients.

                                                In 44 patients, or 31.9%, dose adjustment or discontinuation of Dofetilide was performed, although, torsades de pointes occurred in two patients admitted to increased Dofetilide dosage, no torsades de pointes was observed in patients loaded with the same dose of Dofetilide.

                                                This is 0 versus 6.7% or P = 0.05. In 30 out of 102 patients, 29.4% reloaded at a previously tolerated dose. Dofetilide dose adjustment was required. In 11 out of 30 patients or 36.7% admitted for an increase in dose, a dose adjustment or discontinuation was required.

                                                The authors therefore concluded that dosage adjustments or discontinuation were frequent, and that their observations support the need for hospitalization for Dofetilide reloading.

In the next manuscript Tilman Maurer and Associates report a novel superolateral approach to creating a mitral isthmus ablation line.

                                                Because the creation of an endocardial mitral isthmus line with the end point of bidirectional block maybe challenging, the authors examine 114 patients with perimitral annular flutter without a prior mitral isthmus ablation line.

                                                The authors compared the initial group of 57 patients, group A, who underwent catheter ablation using a novel superolateral mitral isthmus ablation line connecting the left sided pulmonary veins with the mitral annulus along the base of the left atrial appendage visualized by selective angiography to another group of patients, 57 patients in groups B undergoing ablation using a conventional mitral isthmus ablation line connecting the left inferior pulmonary vein to the mitral annulus.

                                                The authors found that bidirectional block was achieved in 56 out 57 patients in group A, or 98.2%, and 50 patients in group B, or 87.7%, P=0.06. Ablation from within the coronary sinus was required significantly less for creation of a superolateral mitral isthmus ablation line compared to a conventional mitral isthmus ablation line, 7.0% versus 71.9%, P is less than 0.01.

                                                The need for epicardial ablation from within the coronary sinus in the total length of the mitral isthmus line, 29.3 versus 40.8 millimeters were predictors for unsuccessful bidirectional mitral isthmus blockade. Pericardial tamponade was observed in group A, but not in group B, 5.2% versus 0%, P=0.24.

                                                The authors, therefore, concluded that superolateral mitral isthmus ablation line has a higher acute success rate compared with conventional mitral isthmus ablation line with a low likelihood of needing ablation from within the coronary sinus.

                                                In our next paper, Cronin and Associates examine the relationship between right ventricular pacing frequency, and the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias leading to ICD shock.

                                                Using the altitude database, the authors examined 389 appropriate shocks, and 425,625 transmissions received from 8,435 patients over a mean follow-up of 15.0 months.

                                                Transmissions with 80 to 98% right ventricular pacing were associated with a hazard ratio of 1.56 for an appropriate shock in the subsequent week compared to less than 1% right ventricular pacing, P=0.04 using a time dependent Cox proportional hazard model, however, the authors found that greater than or equal to 98% right ventricular pacing trended towards a lower risk of appropriate shock. Hazard ratio 0.61.

                                                Lifetime cumulative percentage right ventricular pacing was similarly associated with an increased risk of appropriate shocks at 80 to 98% right ventricular pacing, but not greater than or equal to 98% right ventricular pacing.

                                                The authors, therefore, concluded that an increased frequency of right ventricular pacing is associated with an increased risk of appropriate ICD shocks until the right ventricular pacing is greater than or equal to 98%.

                                                In the next manuscript, Wesley O'Neal and Associates examined 12,241 patients from The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, ARIC study, the association of individual QT components, that is R-wave onset to R-wave peak, R-peak to R-wave end, ST-segment, T-wave onset to T-wave peak, and T-peak to T-wave end with the occurrence of sudden cardiac death.

                                                The authors identified a total of 346 cases of sudden cardiac death identified over a median follo

Further episodes of Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology On the Beat

Further podcasts by Paul J. Wang, MD

Website of Paul J. Wang, MD