Karl Heinz Kuck

During the past decade, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved rapidly from an investigational procedure to its current status as a commonly performed ablation procedure in many major hospitals throughout the world. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard or minimally invasive techniques, is also performed in many major hospitals throughout the world. In 2007, an initial Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical AF Ablation was developed as a joint effort of the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society.1 The 2007 document was also developed in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the American College of Cardiology. Since the publication of the 2007 document, there has been much learned about AF ablation, and the indications for these procedures have changed. Therefore the purpose of this 2012 Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF and to report the findings of a Task Force, convened by the Heart Rhythm Society, the European Heart Rhythm Association, and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society and charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of this procedure. Included within this document are recommendations pertinent to the design of clinical trials in the field of AF ablation, including definitions relevant to this topic. This statement summarizes the opinion of the Task Force members based on an extensive literature review as well as their own experience. It is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are undergoing, or are being considered for, catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter ablation of AF. Rather the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient …

Publicado também em: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/53933

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been shown to improve survival in patients with various heart conditions who are at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Whether benefit occurs in patients early after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: We conducted the Defibrillator in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial, a randomized, open-label comparison of ICD therapy (in 332 patients) and no ICD therapy (in 342 patients) 6 to 40 days after a myocardial infarction. We enrolled patients who had reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction, 0.35 or less) and impaired cardiac autonomic function (manifested as depressed heart-rate variability or an elevated average 24-hour heart rate on Holter monitoring). The primary outcome was mortality from any cause. Death from arrhythmia was a predefined secondary outcome. RESULTS: During a mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 30+/-13 months, there was no difference in overall mortality between the two treatment groups: of the 120 patients who died, 62 were in the ICD group and 58 in the control group (hazard ratio for death in the ICD group, 1.08; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.55; P=0.66). There were 12 deaths due to arrhythmia in the ICD group, as compared with 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.22 to 0.83; P=0.009). In contrast, there were 50 deaths from nonarrhythmic causes in the ICD group and 29 in the control group (hazard ratio in the ICD group, 1.75; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.11 to 2.76; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic ICD therapy does not reduce overall mortality in high-risk patients who have recently had a myocardial infarction. Although ICD therapy was associated with a reduction in the rate of death due to arrhythmia, that was offset by an increase in the rate of death from nonarrhythmic causes.