Jeff S. Healey

BACKGROUND: One quarter of strokes are of unknown cause, and subclinical atrial fibrillation may be a common etiologic factor. Pacemakers can detect subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate, which correlate with electrocardiographically documented atrial fibrillation. We evaluated whether subclinical episodes of rapid atrial rate detected by implanted devices were associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in patients who did not have other evidence of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We enrolled 2580 patients, 65 years of age or older, with hypertension and no history of atrial fibrillation, in whom a pacemaker or defibrillator had recently been implanted. We monitored the patients for 3 months to detect subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias (episodes of atrial rate >190 beats per minute for more than 6 minutes) and followed them for a mean of 2.5 years for the primary outcome of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. Patients with pacemakers were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive continuous atrial overdrive pacing. RESULTS: By 3 months, subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by implanted devices had occurred in 261 patients (10.1%). Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias were associated with an increased risk of clinical atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio, 5.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.78 to 8.17; P<0.001) and of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.85; P=0.007). Of 51 patients who had a primary outcome event, 11 had had subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias detected by 3 months, and none had had clinical atrial fibrillation by 3 months. The population attributable risk of stroke or systemic embolism associated with subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias was 13%. Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias remained predictive of the primary outcome after adjustment for predictors of stroke (hazard ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.28 to 4.89; P=0.008). Continuous atrial overdrive pacing did not prevent atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical atrial tachyarrhythmias, without clinical atrial fibrillation, occurred frequently in patients with pacemakers and were associated with a significantly increased risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ASSERT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00256152.).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefits patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and a wide QRS complex. Most of these patients are candidates for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We evaluated whether adding CRT to an ICD and optimal medical therapy might reduce mortality and morbidity among such patients. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more to receive either an ICD alone or an ICD plus CRT. The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: We followed 1798 patients for a mean of 40 months. The primary outcome occurred in 297 of 894 patients (33.2%) in the ICD-CRT group and 364 of 904 patients (40.3%) in the ICD group (hazard ratio in the ICD-CRT group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.87; P<0.001). In the ICD-CRT group, 186 patients died, as compared with 236 in the ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.91; P = 0.003), and 174 patients were hospitalized for heart failure, as compared with 236 in the ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). However, at 30 days after device implantation, adverse events had occurred in 124 patients in the ICD-CRT group, as compared with 58 in the ICD group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NYHA class II or III heart failure, a wide QRS complex, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, the addition of CRT to an ICD reduced rates of death and hospitalization for heart failure. This improvement was accompanied by more adverse events. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Medtronic of Canada; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran 150 and 110 mg twice a day and warfarin are effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare their risks of bleeding in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulant Therapy (RE-LY) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The RE-LY trial randomized 18 113 patients to receive dabigatran 110 or 150 mg twice a day or warfarin dose adjusted to an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 for a median follow-up of 2.0 years. Compared with warfarin, dabigatran 110 mg twice a day was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (2.87% versus 3.57%; P=0.002), whereas dabigatran 150 mg twice a day was associated with a similar risk of major bleeding (3.31% versus 3.57%; P=0.32). There was a significant treatment-by-age interaction, such that dabigatran 110 mg twice a day compared with warfarin was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding in patients aged <75 years (1.89% versus 3.04%; P<0.001) and a similar risk in those aged ≥75 years (4.43% versus 4.37%; P=0.89; P for interaction <0.001), whereas dabigatran 150 mg twice a day compared with warfarin was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding in those aged <75 years (2.12% versus 3.04%; P<0.001) and a trend toward higher risk of major bleeding in those aged ≥75 years (5.10% versus 4.37%; P=0.07; P for interaction <0.001). The interaction with age was evident for extracranial bleeding, but not for intracranial bleeding, with the risk of the latter being consistently reduced with dabigatran compared with warfarin irrespective of age. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, both doses of dabigatran compared with warfarin have lower risks of both intracranial and extracranial bleeding in patients aged <75 years. In those aged ≥75 years, intracranial bleeding risk is lower but extracranial bleeding risk is similar or higher with both doses of dabigatran compared with warfarin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00262600.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is effective in atrial fibrillation but requires vigilance to maintain the international normalized ratio in the therapeutic range. This report examines how differences in time in therapeutic range (TTR) between centers and between countries affect the outcomes of OAC therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a posthoc analysis, the TTRs of patients on OAC in a randomized trial of OAC versus clopidogrel plus aspirin (Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial With Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events [ACTIVE W]) were used to calculate the mean TTR for each of 526 centers and 15 countries. Proportional-hazards analysis, with and without adjustment for baseline variables, was performed, with patients stratified by TTR quartile and country. A wide variation in TTRs was found between centers, with mean TTRs for centers in the 4 quartiles of 44%, 60%, 69%, and 78%. For patients at centers below the median TTR (65%), no treatment benefit was demonstrated as measured by relative risk for vascular events of clopidogrel plus aspirin versus OAC (relative risk, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.24; P=0.61). However, for patients at centers with a TTR above the study median, OAC had a marked benefit, reducing vascular events by >2-fold (relative risk, 2.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.85; P<0.0001). Mean TTR also varied between countries from 46% to 78%; relative risk (clopidogrel plus aspirin versus OAC) varied from 0.6 to 3.6 (a 5-fold difference). A population-average model predicted that a TTR of 58% would be needed to be confident that patients would benefit from being on OAC. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variation exists in international normalized ratio control, as measured by TTR, between clinical centers and between countries, which has a major impact on the treatment benefit of OAC therapy. For centers and countries, a target threshold TTR exists (estimated between 58% and 65%) below which there appears to be little benefit of OAC over antiplatelet therapy.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective approach to management of this problem is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock. RESULTS: Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).