Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology October 2020 Issue

Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology On the Beat

Paul J. 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.

In our first paper, Bruce Wilkoff and associates evaluated antibacterial envelope cost effectiveness compared to standard of care infection prevention strategies in the US healthcare system. Decision tree model was used to compare costs and outcomes of the antimicrobial envelope used adjunctive to standard of care infection prevention versus standard of care alone over a lifelong time horizon. The analysis was performed from an integrated payer provider network perspective. Infection rates, antimicrobial envelope effectiveness, infection treatment costs and patterns, infection related mortality and utility estimates were obtained from the WRAP-IT study. Life expectancy and long-term costs associated with device replacement, follow-up, and healthcare utilization were sourced from the literature. Costs and quality life adjusted years were discounted at 3%. An upper willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality adjusted life year was used to determine cost-effectiveness in alignment with the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association practice guidelines and as supported by the World Health Organization and contemporary literature. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the antibacterial envelope compared with standard-of-care was $112,603 per quality-adjusted life year. The ICER remained lower than the threshold in 74% of iterations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis and was most sensitive to the following model inputs: infection-related mortality, life expectancy, and infection cost. The authors concluded that the absorbable antibacterial envelope was associated with a cost-effectiveness ratio below contemporary benchmarks in the WRAP-IT patient population, suggesting that the envelope provides value for the US healthcare system by reducing the incidence of CIED infection.

In our next paper, Peter Loh and associates in this study aim to investigate the feasibility and safety of single pulse irreversible electroporation (IRE) pulmonary vein (PV) isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Ten patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent single pulse IRE pulmonary vein isolation under general anesthesia. Three-dimensional reconstruction and electroanatomical voltage mapping of the left atrium and pulmonary veins were performed using a conventional circular mapping catheter. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed by delivering nonarcing, nonbarotraumatic 6 ms, 200 Joule direct current IRE applications via a custom nondeflectable 14-polar circular IRE ablation catheter with a variable hoop diameter (16–27 millimeters). A deflectable sheath was used to maneuver the ablation catheter. A minimum of 2 IRE applications with slightly different catheter positions were delivered per vein to achieve circular tissue contact, even if pulmonary vein potentials were abolished after the first application. Bidirectional pulmonary vein isolation was confirmed with the circular mapping catheter and a post ablation voltage map. After a 30-minute waiting period, adenosine testing was used to reveal dormant pulmonary vein conduction. All 40 pulmonary veins could be successfully isolated with a mean of 2.4 IRE applications per pulmonary vein. Mean delivery peak voltage and peak current were 2154 volts and 33.9 amperes. No pulmonary vein reconnections occurred during the waiting period and adenosine testing. No periprocedural complications were observed. The authors concluded that in 10 patients in this first in-human study, acute bidirectional electrical pulmonary vein isolation could be achieved safely using single pulse IRE ablation.

In our next paper, Christian Sohns and associates studied the relationship between left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) New York Heart Association (NYHA) class on presentation and the end points of mortality and heart failure (HF) admissions in the CASTLE-AF study population. Furthermore, predictors for LVEF improvement were examined. The CASTLE-AF patients with coexisting heart failure and AF (n=363) were randomized in a multicenter prospective controlled fashion to ablation (n=179) versus pharmacological therapy (n=184). Left ventricular function in NYHA class were assessed at baseline after randomization and at each follow-up visit. In the ablation arm, a significantly higher number of patients experienced an improvement in their LVEF to greater than 35% at the end of the study (odds ratio, 2.17; P