{"id":30700,"date":"2012-08-03T08:00:53","date_gmt":"2012-08-03T12:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/?post_type=discussion&#038;p=30700"},"modified":"2012-08-22T21:10:23","modified_gmt":"2012-08-23T01:10:23","slug":"to-repeat-or-not-to-repeat-the-tee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/2012\/08\/03\/to-repeat-or-not-to-repeat-the-tee\/","title":{"rendered":"To Repeat \u2014 or Not to Repeat \u2014 the TEE"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Mrs. K is a physically active 84-year-old woman with a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia who presented to the ED reporting 1 week of intermittent palpitations, accompanied by dyspnea and atypical chest pain. Physical exam findings were a pulse of 140 bpm, blood pressure 130\/80 mm Hg, respirations 10\/minute, oxygen saturation 100% on room air, non-distended neck veins, and clear lungs. Cardiac exam revealed irregular\/irregular tachycardia with no murmurs or gallops. Mrs. K\u2019s extremities were warm, well-perfused, and without edema. An initial electrocardiogram showed atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response.<\/p>\n<p>Mrs. K was admitted for rate control and sent for a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) to guide electrical cardioversion. The TEE revealed a small thrombus in the left-atrial appendage but was otherwise unremarkable\u2014normal ventricular function, no significant valvular disease. The cardioversion was canceled, and Mrs. K was discharged home on therapeutic anticoagulation and rate control. At follow-up, she reported diminished exercise capacity and mild dyspnea on exertion since her hospital discharge. Therefore, the plan was to pursue a rhythm control strategy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation.<\/p>\n<p>To determine whether \u2014 before electrical cardioversion \u2014 to perform a repeat TEE in a patient with atrial fibrillation, a previously identified thrombus in the left-atrial appendage, and 3 weeks of therapeutic anticoagulation, I turned to the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nejm.org\/doi\/full\/10.1056\/NEJM200105103441901\">ACUTE (Assessment of Cardioversion Using Transesophageal Echocardiography) trial<\/a>. Here are the details about this trial:<\/p>\n<p>Investigators randomized 1222 patients with AF of at least 2 days\u2019 duration to undergo either a conventional, non\u2013TEE-guided anticoagulation strategy (lasting 3 weeks prior to cardioversion) or an early TEE-guided strategy. Patients in the TEE-guided group who had a thrombus detected were given 3 weeks of warfarin, followed by a repeat TEE. After the repeat TEE, cardioversion was performed <em>only<\/em> if no thrombus was detected (thrombi were detected in 13.8% of the TEE-guided group).<\/p>\n<p>During a mean follow-up of 8 weeks, incidence of the composite endpoint \u2014 cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral embolism \u2014 was similar in the two groups (conventional, 0.5%; TEE-guided, 0.8%). The incidence of any bleeding was significantly higher in the conventional group (5.5% vs. 2.9% in the TEE-guided group), but the two groups were similar in major bleeding, death, and functional status. Normal sinus rhythm was maintained in about half of each group at 8 weeks.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Question:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Given that the conventionally treated and TEE-guided groups in the ACUTE trial had a similar rate of embolism at follow-up and that no trial participants had precisely Mrs. K\u2019s profile \u2014 thrombus detected on initial TEE, 3 weeks of anticoagulation, and diminished exercise capacity with dyspnea on follow-up \u2014 <strong>is cardioversion without a repeat TEE an appropriate management strategy?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Response:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/members\/jamesfang\/\">James Fang, MD<\/a><\/p>\n<p><em>August 16, 2012<\/em><\/p>\n<p>For this woman, cardioversion would not be appropriate without a repeat TEE, given that the original TEE documented a thrombus (before prolonged anticoagulation had been initiated). The best randomized-trial evidence we have to guide management of this patient comes from the ACUTE trial, despite some limitations.<\/p>\n<p>The ACUTE protocol mandated a repeat TEE when a thrombus was detected on initial TEE. This strategy, which prompted prolonged anticoagulation in 76 of the 619 patients in the TEE-guided group, kept the thromboembolic rate at a very low &lt;1%. Although the rate in the conventional-therapy arm was similarly low, <em>all<\/em> patients were treated as if they had a thrombus (i.e., assuming the worst-case scenario) and therefore underwent prolonged anticoagulation (3 weeks before plus 4 weeks after cardioversion), rather than the abbreviated anticoagulation strategy used in the TEE-guided arm. The downside was more bleeding, albeit manageable, and decreased immediate restoration of sinus rhythm.<\/p>\n<p>Alternatively, if symptoms and heart rate could be reasonably managed, the patient could have undergone 3 weeks of anticoagulation and then elective cardioversion followed by anticoagulation without TEE (i.e., conventional management). Relevant to this point is the substantial number of patients who spontaneously converted to sinus rhythm (125\/603 in the non-TEE arm; 62\/619 in the TEE arm) without direct-current cardioversion.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the ACUTE trial showed that an accelerated strategy of TEE-guided search for thrombus (to limit the duration of anticoagulation and, therefore, its complications) was safe and effective for achieving sinus rhythm in the short term. However, the trial was not an endorsement of TEE cardioversion over conventional management. In fact, at 8-week follow-up, the two groups were similar in their rates of sinus rhythm, functional capacity, and death.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, keep in mind that the ACUTE trial participants were highly selected\u2014clinical equipoise had to exist for the clinician and the investigator. In fact, the trial was stopped early, given low rates of enrollment and events at the time of the interim analysis.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Follow-Up:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/members\/ericoligino545\/\">Eric Oligino, MD<\/a><\/p>\n<p><em>August 22, 2012<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Mrs. K. had documented therapeutic anticoagulation lasting more than 3 weeks during her post-discharge follow-up, before returning for electrical cardioversion. However, given the small left-atrial thrombus detected on her previous TEE, a repeat TEE was performed. A small thrombus was again identified in the left-atrial appendage, and the electrical cardioversion was canceled. Mrs. K was discharged home on an increased dose of warfarin with a target INR of 2.5 to 3.5. During follow-up, she continued to be symptomatic but did not have any bleeding complications related to the increased INR goal. Mrs. K. is scheduled to return for electrical cardioversion without a repeat TEE in the upcoming weeks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Is cardioversion without a repeat transesophageal echocardiogram appropriate when an initial TEE revealed a small thrombus and the patient has already undergone 3 weeks of anticoagulation?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":625,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[495,13],"tags":[341,1380,1378,1381,1379],"class_list":["post-30700","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anticoagulation-2","category-electrophysiology","tag-atrial-fibrillation","tag-cardioversion","tag-tee","tag-thrombosis","tag-transesophageal-echocardiogram"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30700","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/625"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30700"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30700\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/cardioexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}