Prevention of venous thrombosis after electrophysiology procedures: a survey of national practice

In-Hospital Pulmonary Arterial Embolism after Catheter Ablation of Over 45,000 Cardiac Arrhythmias: Individualized Case Analysis of Multicentric Data

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND

 Data on incidence of in-hospital pulmonary embolisms (PE) after catheter ablation (CA) are scarce. To gain further insights, we sought to provide new findings through case-based analyses of administrative data.

METHODS

 Incidences of PE after CA of supraventricular tachycardias (SVT), atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFlu), and ventricular tachycardias (VT) in three German tertiary centers between 2005 and 2020 were determined and coded by the G-DRG (German Diagnosis Related Groups System) and OPS (German Operation and Procedure Classification) systems. An administrative search was performed with a consecutive case-based analysis.

RESULTS

 Overall, 47,344 ablations were analyzed (10,037 SVT; 28,048 AF; 6,252 AFlu; 3,007 VT). PE occurred in 14 (0.03%) predominantly female (n = 9; 64.3%) patients with a mean age of 55.3 ± 16.9 years, body mass index 26.2 ± 5.1 kg/m2, and left ventricular ejection fraction of 56 ± 13.6%. PE incidences were 0.05% (n = 5) for SVT, 0.02% (n = 5) for AF, and 0.13% (n = 4) for VT ablations. No patient suffered PE after AFlu ablation. Five patients (35.7%) with PE after CA had no prior indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). Preprocedural international normalized ratio in PE patients was 1.2 ± 0.5. Most patients with PE following CA presented with symptoms the day after the procedure (n = 9) after intraprocedural heparin application of 12,943.2 ± 5,415.5 IU. PE treatment included anticoagulation with either phenprocoumon (n = 5) or non-vitamin K-dependent OAC (n = 9). Two patients with PE died after VT/AF ablation, respectively. The remaining patients were discharged without sequels.

CONCLUSION

 Over a 15-year period, incidence of PE after ablation is low, particularly low in patients with ablation for AF/AFlu. This is most likely due to stricter anticoagulation management in these patients compared with those receiving SVT/VT ablation procedures and could argue for continuation of OAC prior to ablation. Optimizing periprocedural anticoagulation management should be subject of further prospective trials.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in right heart-sided electrophysiological procedures: results of an European Heart Rhythm Association survey

Limited data are available regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE), specifically deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), following right-sided ablations and electrophysiological (EP) studies. Compared to left-sided procedures, no guidelines on antithrombotic management strategies for the prevention of DVT and PE are available. The main purpose of the present European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey is to report the current management of right-sided EP procedures, focusing on anticoagulation and prevention of VTE. An online survey was conducted using the EHRA infrastructure. A total of 244 participants answered a 19-items questionnaire on the periprocedural management of EP studies and right-sided catheter ablations. The right femoral vein is the most common access for EP studies and right-sided procedures. An ultrasound-guided approach is employed by more than 2/3 of respondents. Intravenous heparin is not commonly given by the majority of participants. About 1/3 of participants (34%) routinely prescribe VTE prophylaxis during (mostly aspirin and low molecular weight heparin) and 1/4 of respondents (25%) commonly prescribe VTE prophylaxis after discharge (mostly aspirin). Of note, respectively 13% and 9% of participants observed at least one DVT and one PE related to right-sided ablation or EP study within the last year in their center. The present survey shows that only a minority of operators routinely gives intraprocedural intravenous heparin and prescribes VTE prophylaxis after right-sided EP procedures. Compared to left-sided procedures like atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, there are no consistent systematic antithrombotic management strategies.

Antiplatelet and Anti-Coagulation Therapy for Left-Sided Catheter Ablations: What Is beyond Atrial Fibrillation?

Aim: International guidelines on the use of anti-thrombotic therapies in left-sided ablations other than atrial fibrillation (AF) are lacking. The data regarding antiplatelet or anticoagulation strategies after catheter ablation (CA) procedures mainly derive from AF, whereas for the other arrhythmic substrates, the anti-thrombotic approach remains unclear. This survey aims to explore the current practices regarding antithrombotic management before, during, and after left-sided endocardial ablation, not including atrial fibrillation (AF), in patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy. Material and Methods: Electrophysiologists were asked to answer a questionnaire containing questions on antiplatelet (APT) and anticoagulation therapy for the following left-sided procedures: accessory pathway (AP), atrial (AT), and ventricular tachycardia (VT) with and without structural heart disease (SHD). Results: We obtained 41 answers from 41 centers in 15 countries. For AP, before ablation, only four respondents (9.7%) used antiplatelets and two (4.9%) used anticoagulants. At discharge, APT therapy was prescribed by 22 respondents (53.7%), and oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC) only by one (2.4%). In patients with atrial tachycardia (AT), before ablation, APT prophylaxis was prescribed by only four respondents (9.7%) and OAC by eleven (26.8%). At discharge, APT was recommended by 12 respondents (29.3%) and OAC by 24 (58.5%). For VT without SHD, before CA, only six respondents (14.6%) suggested APT and three (7.3%) suggested OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, APT was recommended by fifteen respondents (36.6%) and OAC by five (12.2%). Regarding VT in SHD, before the procedure, eight respondents (19.5%) prescribed APT and five (12.2%) prescribed OAC prophylaxis. At discharge, the administration of anti-thrombotic therapy depended on the LV ejection fraction for eleven respondents (26.8%), on the procedure time for ten (24.4%), and on the radiofrequency time for four (9.8%), with a cut-off value from 1 to 30 min. Conclusions: Our survey indicates that the management of anti-thrombotic therapy surrounding left-sided endocardial ablation of patients without other indications for anti-thrombotic therapy is highly variable. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the safest approach to these procedures.

A Case Report: Multifocal Necrotizing Encephalitis and Myocarditis after BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination against COVID-19

The current report presents the case of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease (PD) who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 vaccination. The patient was first vaccinated in May 2021 with the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vector vaccine, followed by two doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in July and December 2021. The family of the deceased requested an autopsy due to ambiguous clinical signs before death. PD was confirmed by post-mortem examinations. Furthermore, signs of aspiration pneumonia and systemic arteriosclerosis were evident. However, histopathological analyses of the brain uncovered previously unsuspected findings, including acute vasculitis (predominantly lymphocytic) as well as multifocal necrotizing encephalitis of unknown etiology with pronounced inflammation including glial and lymphocytic reaction. In the heart, signs of chronic cardiomyopathy as well as mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis and vasculitis were present. Although there was no history of COVID-19 for this patient, immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) was performed. Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels. Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.

Second consensus document on diagnosis and management of acute deep vein thrombosis: updated document elaborated by the ESC Working Group on aorta and peripheral vascular diseases and the ESC Working Group on pulmonary circulation and right ventricular function

This consensus document is proposed to clinicians to provide the whole spectrum of deep vein thrombosis management as an update to the 2017 consensus document. New data guiding clinicians in indicating extended anticoagulation, management of patients with cancer, and prevention and management of post-thrombotic syndrome are presented. More data on benefit and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists oral anticoagulants are highlighted, along with the arrival of new antidotes for severe bleeding management.