Ines Kralj-Hans

This proof-of-concept study sought to evaluate changes in heart rate (HR) obtained from a consumer wearable device and compare against implantable loop recorder (ILR)-detected recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia (AT) after AF ablation. REMOTE-AF (NCT05037136) was a prospectively designed sub-study of the CASA-AF randomized controlled trial (NCT04280042). Participants without a permanent pacemaker had an ILR implanted at their index ablation procedure for longstanding persistent AF. Heart rate and step count were continuously monitored using photoplethysmography (PPG) from a commercially available wrist-worn wearable. Photoplethysmography-recorded HR data were pre-processed with noise filtration and episodes at 1-min interval over 30 min of HR elevations (Z-score = 2) were compared with corresponding ILR data. Thirty-five patients were enrolled, with mean age 70.3 ± 6.8 years and median follow-up 10 months (interquartile range 8–12 months). Implantable loop recorder analysis revealed 17 out of 35 patients (49%) had recurrence of AF/AT. Compared with ILR recurrence, wearable-derived elevations in HR ≥ 110 beats per minute had a sensitivity of 95.3%, specificity 54.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) 15.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99.2%, and overall accuracy 57.4%. With PPG-recorded HR elevation spikes (non-exercise related), the sensitivity was 87.5%, specificity 62.2%, PPV 39.2%, NPV 92.3%, and overall accuracy 64.0% in the entire patient cohort. In the AF/AT recurrence only group, sensitivity was 87.6%, specificity 68.3%, PPV 53.6%, NPV 93.0%, and overall accuracy 75.0%. Consumer wearable devices have the potential to contribute to arrhythmia detection after AF ablation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037136 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05037136 Aims, methods, and findings for REMOTE-AF looking at the detection of AF/AT recurrence using novel composite data from wearables compared with gold standard ILR. AF, atrial fibrillation; AT, atrial tachycardia; HR, heart rate; ILR, implantable loop recorder; LSPAF, long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.

Background: Left atrial (LA) function following catheter or surgical ablation of de-novo long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and its impact on AF recurrence was studied in patients participating in the CASA-AF trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation). Methods: All patients underwent echocardiography preablation, 3 and 12 months post-ablation. LA structure and function were assessed by 2-dimensional volume and speckle tracking strain measurements of LA reservoir, conduit, and contractile strain. Left ventricular diastolic function was measured using transmitral Doppler filling velocities and myocardial tissue Doppler velocities to derive the e’, E/e’, and E/A ratios. Continuous rhythm monitoring was achieved using an implantable loop recorder. Results: Eighty-three patients had echocardiographic data suitable for analysis. Their mean age was 63.6±9.7 years, 73.5% were male, had AF for 22.8±11.6 months, and had a mean LA maximum volume of 48.8±13.8 mL/m ² . Thirty patients maintained sinus rhythm, and 53 developed AF recurrence. Ablation led to similar reductions in LA volumes at follow-up in both rhythm groups. However, higher LA emptying fraction (36.3±10.6% versus 27.9±9.9%; P P =0.001), and contractile strain (9.2±3.4% versus 5.6±2.5%; P P P <0.001), respectively. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the only independent predictor of AF recurrence. Conclusions: Following ablation for long-standing persistent AF, improvement in LA function was greater in those who maintained sinus rhythm. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the most important determinant of AF recurrence following ablation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02755688

Background Atrial Fibrillation (AF) detection tools have rapidly developed over the last decade alongside the evolution of mobile health (mHealth) monitoring. mHealth wearable technologies have been hypothesised to be a potential non-invasive and near continuous modality for long term detection and monitoring of atrial arrhythmias. We conducted a proof-of-concept study to evaluate changes in heart rate obtained from a consumer wearable device and compare against implanted loop recorder (ILR)-detected recurrence of AF and atrial tachycardia (AT) after AF ablation. Methods REMOTE-AF (Remote Monitoring of AF Recurrence Using mHealth Technology; NCT05037136) was a prospectively designed sub study of the CASA-AF randomised controlled trial (NCT04280042). Participants without a permanent pacemaker had an ILR implanted at their index ablation procedure (catheter vs thoracoscopic) for longstanding persistent AF. Heart rate (HR) and step count were continuously monitored using a wrist-worn wearable device connected to a smartphone. Photoplethysmography (PPG) recorded HR data was pre-processed with noise filtration and episodes at 1 -minute intervals over 30 minutes of HR elevations (Z-score = 2) were compared to corresponding ILR data. Arrhythmias detected by ILR were validated by an independent cardiac physiologist. The AF Effect on Quality of Life (AFEQT) questionnaire was completed by participants at baseline and at the conclusion of the study. Results Thirty-five patients were enrolled, with mean age 70.3 +/- 6.8 yrs, 12 (34%) women, and median follow-up 10 months (IQR 8-12 months). ILR analysis revealed 17 out of 35 patients (49%) had recurrence of AF/AT. Compared with ILR recurrence, wearable-derived elevations in HR ≥ 110 beats per minute had a sensitivity of 95.3%, specificity 54.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) 15.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99.2% and overall accuracy 57.4%. With PPG recorded HR elevation spikes (non-exercise related), the sensitivity was 87.5%, specificity 62.2%, PPV 39.2%, NPV 92.3% and overall accuracy 64.0% in the entire patient cohort. In the AF/AT recurrence only group, sensitivity was 87.6%, specificity 68.3%, PPV 53.6%, NPV 93.0% and overall accuracy 75.0%. Conclusion Consumer wearable devices have the potential to contribute to arrhythmia detection after AF ablation, but further work is needed to improve and validate new composite detection algorithms. What is New? We have utilised a new composite of data obtained from wearable devices in a predominantly older cohort of patients > 65 years old to detect AF/AT recurrence in a long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF) patient population who have undergone AF ablation. We introduce a novel concept of the ‘spike score’, defined as the rate of change in HR over a consecutive two-minute period to detect AF/AT recurrence. This is the first study to have achieved this in a post AF ablation cohort of LSPAF compared to the gold standard ILR. Clinical Implications The use of wearable devices to look for recurrence of atrial arrythmias in post ablation cohorts may enable a more rapid time to detection for more timely interventions. Data composites recorded from wearables may be used alongside the PPG waveform to further improve accuracy in detecting atrial arrythmias. AF/AT recurrence detected via wearable devices and associated smart mobile applications can encourage risk factor modification through lifestyle interventions and improve health literacy.

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide (L) added to the standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in COVID-19 patients hospitalised with moderate/critical clinical symptoms. Design Prospective, open-label, multicentre, stratified, randomised clinical trial. Setting Five hospitals in UK and India, from September 2020 to May 2021. Participants Adults with PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection with moderate/critical symptoms within 15 days of onset. Intervention Leflunomide 100 mg/day (3 days) followed by 10–20 mg/day (7 days) added to standard care. Primary outcomes The time to clinical improvement (TTCI) defined as two-point reduction on a clinical status scale or live discharge prior to 28 days; safety profile measured by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) within 28 days. Results Eligible patients (n=214; age 56.3±14.9 years; 33% female) were randomised to SOC+L (n=104) and SOC group (n=110), stratified according to their clinical risk profile. TTCI was 7 vs 8 days in SOC+L vs SOC group (HR 1.317; 95% CI 0.980 to 1.768; p=0.070). Incidence of serious AEs was similar between the groups and none was attributed to leflunomide. In sensitivity analyses, excluding 10 patients not fulfilling the inclusion criteria and 3 who withdrew consent before leflunomide treatment, TTCI was 7 vs 8 days (HR 1.416, 95% CI 1.041 to 1.935; p=0.028), indicating a trend in favour of the intervention group. All-cause mortality rate was similar between groups, 9/104 vs 10/110. Duration of oxygen dependence was shorter in the SOC+L group being a median 6 days (IQR 4–8) compared with 7 days (IQR 5–10) in SOC group (p=0.047). Conclusion Leflunomide, added to the SOC treatment for COVID-19, was safe and well tolerated but had no major impact on clinical outcomes. It may shorten the time of oxygen dependence by 1 day and thereby improve TTCI/hospital discharge in moderately affected COVID-19 patients. Trial registration numbers EudraCT Number: 2020-002952-18, NCT05007678.

Background: Standalone thoracoscopic surgical ablation may be more effective than catheter ablation in patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Objectives: To determine whether or not surgical ablation is clinically superior to catheter ablation as the first-line treatment strategy in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. Design: This was a prospective, multicentre, randomised control trial. Setting: Four NHS tertiary centres in England. Participants: Adults with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, who had European Heart Rhythm Association symptom scores > 2 and who were naive to previous catheter ablation or thoracic/cardiac surgery. Interventions: Minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional catheter ablation (control intervention). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was freedom from atrial fibrillation/tachycardia ≥ 30 seconds after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs (class 1C/3) at 1 year, excluding a 3-month blanking period. The secondary outcomes include the intervention-related major complication rate; clinical success (≥ 75% reduction in arrhythmia burden); and changes in symptoms, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Methods: Patients (n = 120) were randomised to surgical ablation (n = 60) or catheter ablation (n = 60). An implanted loop recorder provided continuous cardiac monitoring following ablation. Follow-up visits were at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Loop recorder data were reviewed monthly by a physiologist who was blinded to the randomisation outcome. Results: The study treatment was received by 55 patients in the surgical ablation arm and 60 patients in the catheter ablation arm; five patients withdrew from surgical ablation before treatment. Data from randomised and treated patients were analysed as per intention to treat. Patients had a mean age of 62.3 (standard deviation 9.6) years, were predominantly male (74%), had a mean left atrial diameter of 44.6 mm (standard deviation 6 mm) and were in continuous atrial fibrillation for 22 months (range 16–31 months). At 12 months, 26% of patients in the surgical ablation arm (14/54) and 28% of patients in the catheter ablation arm (17/60) were free from atrial arrhythmias after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 2.83; p = 0.84). An arrhythmia burden reduction of ≥ 75% was seen in 36 out of 54 (67%) patients in the surgical ablation arm, compared with 46 out of 60 (77%) patients in the catheter ablation arm (odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.08; p = 0.3). Procedure-related serious complications within 30 days of the intervention occurred in 15% (8/55) of patients in the surgical ablation arm (including one death) compared with 10% (6/60) of patients in the catheter ablation arm (p = 0.46). Surgical ablation was associated with significantly higher costs (£23,221 vs. £18,186; p = 0.02) and fewer quality-adjusted life-years than catheter ablation (0.76 vs. 0.83; p = 0.02). Limitations: This study was conducted in four highly specialised cardiology centres that have substantial experience in both treatment modalities; therefore, the results may not be widely generalisable. The study was not powered to detect small differences in efficacy. Conclusions: We found no evidence to suggest that standalone thoracoscopic surgical ablation outcomes were superior to catheter ablation outcomes in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. Moreover, surgical ablation is associated with a longer hospital stay, smaller improvements in quality of life and higher health-care costs than catheter ablation (standard care therapy). Future work: Evaluation of the impact of ablation treatments on sinus rhythm maintenance and quality of life with extended follow-up to 3 years. Model-based economic analysis to estimate long-term benefits, harms and costs of surgical and catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drug therapy in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation patients. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02755688. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This study was supported by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is part funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London and the NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients’ symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46–2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67–4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688

Background: In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications.Objectives: To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs).Design: Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation.Setting: Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.Participants: Men and women, aged 60–72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included.Intervention: We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants’ surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance.Results: Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants’ preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g.Conclusions: Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15–30% of CRCs and 40–70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance.Future work: Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196.Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.

Atrial fibrillation is the commonest arrhythmia which raises the risk of heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, morbidity and death. Pharmacological treatments of this condition are focused on heart rate control, rhythm control and reduction in risk of stroke. Selective ablation of cardiac tissues resulting in isolation of areas causing atrial fibrillation is another treatment strategy which can be delivered by two minimally invasive interventions: percutaneous catheter ablation and thoracoscopic surgical ablation. The main purpose of this trial is to compare the effectiveness and safety of these two interventions. Catheter Ablation versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (CASA-AF) is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial within three NHS tertiary cardiovascular centres specialising in treatment of atrial fibrillation. Eligible adults (n = 120) with symptomatic, long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation will be randomly allocated to either catheter ablation or thoracoscopic ablation in a 1:1 ratio. Pre-determined lesion sets will be delivered in each treatment arm with confirmation of appropriate conduction block. All patients will have an implantable loop recorder (ILR) inserted subcutaneously immediately following ablation to enable continuous heart rhythm monitoring for at least 12 months. The devices will be programmed to detect episodes of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia ≥ 30 s in duration. The patients will be followed for 12 months, completing appropriate clinical assessments and questionnaires every 3 months. The ILR data will be wirelessly transmitted daily and evaluated every month for the duration of the follow-up. The primary endpoint in the study is freedom from atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia at the end of the follow-up period. The CASA-AF Trial is a National Institute for Health Research-funded study that will provide first-class evidence on the comparative efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of thoracoscopic surgical ablation and conventional percutaneous catheter ablation for long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation. In addition, the results of the trial will provide information on the effects on patients’ quality of life. ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN18250790 . Registered on 24 April 2015.