scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Andrew I. Cohen

Bio: Andrew I. Cohen is an academic researcher from United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The author has contributed to research in topics: Catheter ablation & Atrial fibrillation. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 15 publications receiving 6422 citations. Previous affiliations of Andrew I. Cohen include Georgetown University & Georgetown University Medical Center.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Jes Olesen, André Bes, Robert S. Kunkel, James W. Lance, Giuseppe Nappi, V Pfaffenrath, Frank Clifford Rose, Bruce S. Schoenberg, D. Soyka, Peer Tfelt-Hansen, K. Michael A. Welch, Marica Wilkinson, Marie-Germaine Bousser, Hans-Christoph Diener, David W. Dodick, Michael First, Peter J. Goadsby, Hartmut Göbel, Miguel J. A. Láinez, Richard B. Lipton, Fumihiko Sakai, Jean Schoenen, Stephen D. Silberstein, Timothy J. Steiner, Lars Bendtsen, Anne Ducros, Stefan Evers, Andrew D. Hershey, Zaza Katsarava, Morris Levin, Julio Pascual, Michael Bjørn Russell, Todd J. Schwedt, Cristina Tassorelli, Gisela M. Terwindt, Maurice Vincent, Shuu Jiun Wang, Andrew Charles, R. Lipton, Hayrunnisa Bolay, Michel Lantéri-Minet, E. A. Macgregor, T. Takeshima, Henrik Winther Schytz, S. Ashina, M. T. Goicochea, K. Hirata, Kenneth A. Holroyd, Christian Lampl, Dimos-Dimitrios Mitsikostas, P. Goadsby, C. Boes, C. Bordini, E. Cittadini, Andrew I. Cohen, M. Leone, A. May, L. Newman, J. Pareja, J. W. Park, T. Rozen, E. Waldenlind, Jong Ling Fuh, Aynur Özge, J. A. Pareja, Mario Fernando Prieto Peres, William B. Young, S. Y. Yu, Ishaq Abu-Arafeh, J. Gladstone, S. J. Huang, Rigmor Jensen, J.M. Láinez, D. Obelieniene, Peter S. Sandor, A. I. Scher, Marcel Arnold, Martin Dichgans, E. Houdart, José M. Ferro, Elizabeth Leroux, Y. S. Li, Aneesh B. Singhal, Gretchen E. Tietjen, Deborah I. Friedman, S. Kirby, B. Mokri, A. Purdy, K. Ravishankar, W. Schievink, R. Stark, F. Taylor, A. V. Krymchantowski, A. Tugrul, N. J. Wiendels, E. Marchioni, V. V. Osipova, Lidia Savi, J. R. Berger, Marcelo E. Bigal, J. González Menacho, Federico Mainardi, J. Pereira-Monteiro, M. Serrano-Dueñas, Roger Cady, C. Fernandez de las Peñas, Vincenzo Guidetti, J. Lance, Peter Svensson, Elizabeth Loder, A. E. Lake, Françoise Radat, J. I. Escobar, R. Benoliel, Claudia Sommer, A. Woda, Joanna M Zakrzewska, V. Aggarwal, L. Bonamico, Dominik A Ettlin, S. Graff-Radford, Jean-Paul Goulet, S. Jääskeläinen, Volker Limmroth, Ambra Michelotti, Donald R. Nixdorf, Mark Obermann, Richard Ohrbach, Paul Pionchon, Tara Renton, S. De Siqueira, Çiçek Wöber-Bingöl 
TL;DR: The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 edition (beta version), may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals as mentioned in this paper. But the authors require the permission of the International Headache Society.
Abstract: The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3 edition (beta version), may be reproduced freely for scientific, educational or clinical uses by institutions, societies or individuals. Otherwise, copyright belongs exclusively to the International Headache Society. Reproduction of any part or parts in any manner for commercial uses requires the Society’s permission, which will be granted on payment of a fee. Please contact the publisher at the address below. International Headache Society 2013. Applications for copyright permissions should be submitted to Sage Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP, United Kingdom (tel: þ44 (0) 20 7324 8500; fax: þ44 (0) 207 324 8600) (www.sagepub.co.uk). Translations

6,519 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombinotic t...

247 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study examines the acute/long‐term CAAF outcomes using these 2 strategies using the second‐generation cryoballoon (CB‐2) versus point‐by‐point radiofrequency (RF).
Abstract: Second-Generation Cryoballoon versus RF Introduction There are limited comparative data on catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CAAF) using the second-generation cryoballoon (CB-2) versus point-by-point radiofrequency (RF). This study examines the acute/long-term CAAF outcomes using these 2 strategies. Methods and Results In this multicenter, retrospective, nonrandomized analysis, procedural and clinical outcomes of 1,196 patients (76% with paroxysmal AF) undergoing CAAF using CB-2 (n = 773) and open-irrigated, non-force sensing RF (n = 423) were evaluated. Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 98% with CB-2 and 99% with RF (P = 0.168). CB-2 was associated with shorter ablation time (40 ± 14 min vs. 66 ± 26 min; P < 0.001) and procedure time (145 ± 49 minutes vs. 188 ± 42 minutes; P < 0.001), but greater fluoroscopic utilization (29 ± 13 minutes vs. 23 ± 14 minutes; P < 0.001). While transient (7.6% vs. 0%; P < 0.001) and persistent (1.2% vs. 0%; P = 0.026) phrenic nerve palsy occurred exclusively with CB-2, other adverse event rates were similar between CB-2 (1.6%) and RF (2.6%); P = 0.207. However, freedom from AF/atrial flutter/tachycardia at 12 months following a single procedure without antiarrhythmic therapy was greater with CB-2 (76.6%) versus RF (60.4%); P < 0.001. While this difference was evident in patients with paroxysmal AF (P < 0.001), it did not reach significance in those with persistent AF (P = 0.089). Additionally, CB-2 was associated with reduced long-term need for antiarrhythmic therapy (16.7% vs. 22.0%; P = 0.024) and repeat ablations (14.6% vs. 24.1%; P < 0.001). Conclusion In this multicenter, retrospective, nonrandomized study, CAAF using CB-2 coupled with RF as occasionally required was associated with greater freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months following a single procedure without antiarrhythmic therapy when compared to open-irrigated, non-force sensing RF, alone.

108 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this large multicenter, retrospective analysis, CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon was associated with improved durability of PV isolation compared to open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency and cryOBalloon ablation and PV ablation time emerged as significant predictors of durable PV isolation at repeat procedure.
Abstract: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (CAAF) using the cryoballoon has emerged as an alternate strategy to point-by-point radiofrequency. However, there is little comparative data on long-term durability of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation comparing these two modalities. In this multicenter, retrospective analysis, the incidences/patterns of late PV reconnection following an index CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon versus open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency were examined. Of the 2002 patients who underwent a first-time CAAF, 186/1126 patients (16.5 %) ablated using cryoballoon and 174/876 patients (19.9 %) with non-contact force-guided radiofrequency required a repeat procedure at 11 ± 5 months. During follow-up, the incidence of atrial flutters/tachycardias was lower (19.9 vs. 32.8 %; p = 0.005) and fewer patients exhibited PV reconnection (47.3 vs. 60.9 %; p = 0.007) with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency. Additionally, fewer PVs had reconnected with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency (18.8 vs. 34.6 %; p < 0.001). With cryoballoon, the right inferior (p < 0.001) and left common (p = 0.039) PVs were more likely to exhibit late reconnection, versus the left superior PV with radiofrequency (p = 0.012). However, when comparing the two strategies, the left common PV was more likely to exhibit reconnection with cryoballoon, whereas all other PVs with the exception of the right inferior PV demonstrated a lower reconnection rate with cryoballoon versus radiofrequency. Lastly, in a logistic regression multivariate analysis, cryoballoon ablation and PV ablation time emerged as significant predictors of durable PV isolation at repeat procedure. In this large multicenter, retrospective analysis, CAAF using the second-generation cryoballoon was associated with improved durability of PV isolation compared to open-irrigated, non-force-sensing radiofrequency.

72 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: To determine if the A wave of the mitral valve echocardiogram can be used as a marker for left atrial (LA) activity and assist in the programming of dual chamber pacemakers, 156 eChocardiograms were obtained from 23 patients with dual chamberpacemakers who had bipolar esophageal recordings of LA depolarization.
Abstract: To determine if the A wave of the mitral valve echocardiogram can be used as a marker for left atrial (LA) activity and assist in the programming of dual chamber pacemakers, 156 echocardiograms with the mitral A wave present were obtained from 23 patients with dual chamber pacemakers, all of whom had bipolar esophageal recordings of LA depolarization. Twelve of these patients also underwent hemodynamic study with cardiac function determined at 5 different pacemaker settings: ventricular demand pacing and dual chamber sequential pacing at 0 or 25, 150, 200 and 250 ms programming atrioventricular (AV) delay. The time delay from right atrial pacing artifact to onset and peak of mitral A wave was linearly related to the time from atrial pacing artifact to LA depolarization on the esophageal lead (p

35 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.
Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

5,739 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This year's edition of the Statistical Update includes data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, metrics to assess and monitor healthy diets, an enhanced focus on social determinants of health, a focus on the global burden of cardiovascular disease, and further evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the American Heart Association’s 2020 Impact Goals.
Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovas...

5,078 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...
Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...

3,034 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The newly recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings and includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain- related TMD.
Abstract: Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are a significant public health problem affecting approximately 5% to 12% of the population.1 TMD is the second most common musculoskeletal condition (after chronic low back pain) resulting in pain and disability.1 Pain-related TMD can impact the individual's daily activities, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Overall, the annual TMD management cost in the USA, not including imaging, has doubled in the last decade to $4 billion.1 Patients often seek consultation with dentists for their TMD, especially for pain-related TMD. Diagnostic criteria for TMD with simple, clear, reliable, and valid operational definitions for the history, examination, and imaging procedures are needed to render physical diagnoses in both clinical and research settings. In addition, biobehavioral assessment of pain-related behavior and psychosocial functioning—an essential part of the diagnostic process—is required and provides the minimal information whereby one can determine whether the patient's pain disorder, especially when chronic, warrants further multidisciplinary assessment. Taken together, a new dual-axis Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) will provide evidence-based criteria for the clinician to use when assessing patients, and will facilitate communication regarding consultations, referrals, and prognosis.2 The research community benefits from the ability to use well-defined and clinically relevant characteristics associated with the phenotype in order to facilitate more generalizable research. When clinicians and researchers use the same criteria, taxonomy, and nomenclature, then clinical questions and experience can be more easily transferred into relevant research questions, and research findings are more accessible to clinicians to better diagnose and manage their patients. The Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) have been the most widely employed diagnostic protocol for TMD research since its publication in 1992.3 This classification system was based on the biopsychosocial model of pain4 that included an Axis I physical assessment, using reliable and well-operationalized diagnostic criteria, and an Axis II assessment of psychosocial status and pain-related disability. The intent was to simultaneously provide a physical diagnosis and identify other relevant characteristics of the patient that could influence the expression and thus management of their TMD. Indeed, the longer the pain persists, the greater the potential for emergence and amplification of cognitive, psychosocial, and behavioral risk factors, with resultant enhanced pain sensitivity, greater likelihood of additional pain persistence, and reduced probability of success from standard treatments.5 The RDC/TMD (1992) was intended to be only a first step toward improved TMD classification, and the authors stated the need for future investigation of the accuracy of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms in terms of reliability and criterion validity—the latter involving the use of credible reference standard diagnoses. Also recommended was further assessment of the clinical utility of the Axis II instruments. The original RDC/TMD Axis I physical diagnoses have content validity based on the critical review by experts of the published diagnostic approach in use at that time and were tested using population-based epidemiologic data.6 Subsequently, a multicenter study showed that, for the most common TMD, the original RDC/TMD diagnoses exhibited sufficient reliability for clinical use.7 While the validity of the individual RDC/TMD diagnoses has been extensively investigated, assessment of the criterion validity for the complete spectrum of RDC/TMD diagnoses had been absent until recently.8 For the original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments, good evidence for their reliability and validity for measuring psychosocial status and pain-related disability already existed when the classification system was published.9–13 Subsequently, a variety of studies have demonstrated the significance and utility of the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures in such areas as predicting outcomes of clinical trials, escalation from acute to chronic pain, and experimental laboratory settings.14–20 Other studies have shown that the original RDC/TMD biobehavioral measures are incomplete in terms of prediction of disease course.21–23 The overall utility of the biobehavioral measures in routine clinical settings has, however, yet to be demonstrated, in part because most studies have to date focused on Axis I diagnoses rather than Axis II biobehavioral factors.24 The aims of this article are to present the evidence-based new Axis I and Axis II DC/TMD to be used in both clinical and research settings, as well as present the processes related to their development.

2,283 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jun 2015-Pain
TL;DR: The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe, has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases, termed “multiple parenting.”
Abstract: Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table ​Table1).1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents. Table 1 Glossary of ICD-11 terms. The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. ​(Fig.1):1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Ustun and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017. Figure 1 Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to ... 2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective.

1,627 citations