Surgical
The Anesthesia Checklist for EP Procedures provides a structured and safe approach for anesthesia management during electrophysiology (EP) procedures.
Read MoreCare Pathways/CDS: The purpose of this guideline document is to establish a process for the safe management of patients with Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) around the time of surgeries or procedures.
Read MoreJournal Articles: OBJECTIVES This study compared the efficacy and safety of the VASCADE MVP Venous Vascular Closure System (VVCS) device (Cardiva Medical, Santa Clara, California) to manual compression (MC) for closing multiple access sites after catheter-based electrophysiology procedures. BACKGROUND The The VASCADE MVP VVCS is designed to provide earlier ambulatory hemostasis than MC after catheter-based procedures. METHODS The AMBULATE (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore (VASCADE MVP) VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 – 12 Fr Sheath Sizes) trial was a multicenter, randomized trial of device closure versus MC in patients who underwent ablation. Outcomes included time to ambulation (TTA), total post-procedure time (TPPT), time to discharge eligibility (TTDe), time to hemostasis (TTH), 30-day major and minor complications, pain medication usage, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS A total of 204 patients at 13 sites were randomized to the device arm (100 patients; 369 access sites) or the MC arm (104 patients; 382 access sites). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Mean TTA, TPPT, TTDe, and TTH were substantially lower in the device arm (respective decreases of 54%, 54%, 52%, and 55%; all p < 0.0001). Opioid use was reduced by 58% (p ¼ 0.001). There were no major access site complications. Incidence of minor complications was 1.0% for the device arm and 2.4% for the MC arm (p ¼ 0.45). Patient satisfaction scores with duration of and comfort during bedrest were 63% and 36% higher in device group (both p < 0.0001). Satisfaction with bedrest pain was 25% higher (p ¼ 0.001) for the device overall, and 40% higher (p ¼ 0.002) for patients with a previous ablation. CONCLUSIONS Use of the closure device for multiple access ablation procedures resulted in significant reductions in TTA, TPPT, TTH, TTDe, and opioid use, with increased patient satisfaction and no increase in complications. (A Randomized, Multi-center Trial to Compare Cardiva Mid-Bore VVCS to Manual Compression in Closure of Multiple Femoral Venous Access Sites in 6 - 12 Fr Sheath Sizes [AMBULATE]; NCT03193021)
Read MoreCare Pathways/CDS: Care pathway for AFib patients presenting for an endoscopic procedure. Includes steps to follow, decision support tool, and link to the full guideline.
Read MoreCare Pathways/CDS: Clinical Pathway for Suspected AF
Read MoreCare Pathways/CDS: Care pathway for clinicians to use when suspecting atrio-esophageal fistula in patients.
Read MoreTools: ManageAnticoag helps clinicians navigate periprocedural planning and bleed management scenarios for patients on oral anticoagulants (OAC).
Read MoreGuidelines/Clinical Documents: This manuscript builds on the work of a diverse, multiple-stakeholder Think Tank meeting and multidisciplinary Inter-pro Forum educational activity held in January 2019, both led by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS). When examining the current clinical landscape, the Think Tank concluded that there is a clear need for AF CoEs to improve AF care and its delivery. In this manuscript, HRS hopes to accelerate this evolution by reviewing the rationale for AF CoEs, the available evidence for integrated and multidisciplinary care, and future challenges and opportunities. The document also defines the key priorities to be used as a guide for HRS and its diverse stakeholders to build consensus on defining the core components of an AF CoE.
Read More