Search

Background Many patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) also have atrial fibrillation (AF). Shock testing during ICD implantation carries a potential risk of cardioversion to sinus rhythm (SR) and thrombembolic events. We aimed to analyze the recurrence of AF after cardioversion to SR during ICD shock testing. Methods A total of 555 consecutive patients referred to a tertiary hospital in Switzerland for ICD implantation or generator exchange between 02/2002 and 03/2010 were screened for AF. Fifty-seven patients who were in AF at the time of ICD shock testing were included. Results Forty-four patients (77%) were successfully cardioverted from AF to SR. Type of AF (persistent, not permanent 64 vs 31% of cardioverted patients) was the only predictor. Thirty-nine patients (89%) experienced a recurrence of AF/atrial flutter after a median of 54 days (interquartile range 35-251 days). The only predictor for recurrence of AF was previous AF declared as permanent. No ischemic stroke occurred during hospitalization for the procedure. Conclusions For patients in AF undergoing shock testing at the time of ICD implant, there is a high chance of cardioversion from AF to SR, but there is also a high risk of early recurrence. Decisions regarding long-term anticoagulation should not be based on the heart rhythm immediately following shock testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead (SFL; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) has a significantly impaired long-term survival, and active fixation leads fare worse than passive leads. The goal of this study was to present data of a series of passive SFL only with very long mean follow-up of more than 6 years. Methods Patients in whom a passive SFL was implanted in two large Swiss centers were followed. We excluded eight (5.5%) patients with a follow-up of <6 months. Patients who died or were lost during follow-up were censored at death or last device check, all others on January 31, 2014. We employed two different definitions of failure: strict = fracture with inappropriate discharge; sudden increase in impedance >1,500 or high-voltage impedance >100 Ohm; >300 nonphysiological short interventricular-intervals. Lenient = any of the above plus a linear increase in impedance >1,500 Ohm or a linear decrease in sensing to a level that treating cardiologists considered inappropriate. Results We included 137 patients. Age was 60 ± 12 years. Mean and median follow-up were 6.2 ± 2.1 and 6.8 (interquartile range 4.8-7.8) years. Applying the strict definition, 12 leads (8.8%) were replaced after 4.9 ± 2.4 years (range 1.2-8.1). Applying the lenient definition, 14 leads (10.2%) failed. Cumulative lead survival was 98.5% at 3, 96.9% at 4, 94.2% at 5, and 93.1% at 6 years. Leads 'at risk' were: n = 122 (89%), 115 (84%), 101 (74%), and 88 (64%). Conclusions In this population with passive SFLs, 5-year lead survival is impaired with 94.2% based on 74% of leads 'at risk' at this time point. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To compare the feasibility and efficiency of atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation and device implantation in patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation using three different approaches. Methods Sixty-nine patients (57% male; age 72 ± 10; ejection fraction 45 ± 15%) undergoing device implantation and AVJ ablation were retrospectively studied at a tertiary referral center. In 20 patients (29%) AVJ ablation was performed via the femoral vein immediately following device implantation (group 1), whereas 33 patients (48%) underwent a staged procedure with AVJ ablation via the femoral vein >3 weeks after device implantation (group 2). In a third group of 16 patients (23%), AVJ ablation was performed during device implantation through the pocket using the same axillary vein access site (group 3). The main outcome measures were: procedure time, fluoroscopy time, laboratory occupancy time, and success rate. Results There was a significant difference in procedure time (118 ± 45 minutes. in group 1, 133 ± 32 minutes in group 2, and 87 ± 26 minutes in group 3, P < 0.001) and the laboratory occupancy time (175 ± 48 minutes in group 1, 200 ± 32 minutes in group 2, and 121 ± 27 minutes in group 3, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fluoroscopy time (group 1: 20 ± 15 minutes, group 2: 27 ± 22 minutes, and group 3: 24 ± 9 minutes P = 0.4). The procedure was successfully completed in all patients, but cross-over to a femoral approach was required in one patient in group 3. Conclusion The alternative approach of AVJ ablation during permanent pacemaker implantation from the same axillary vein access site is feasible and more efficient compared to the femoral approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To categorize indications of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), to determine predictors for conduction disturbances and to quantify the need for ventricular pacing during follow-up. Method We studied 97 patients (median age 83 years, 58% female) undergoing TAVI using the Medtronic CoreValve Revalving System (MCRS; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) or Edwards-Sapien Valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA). During follow-up, no need for ventricular pacing was defined as <1% ventricular pacing and intrinsic 1:1 atrioventricular (AV) conduction. Results In the 35 patients (36.1%) undergoing PPM implantation three indication categories were identified: (1) high-grade AV block (Mobitz 2 or higher), (2) new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) with a prolonged PR interval, and (3) new-onset LBBB. The only independent predictors of high-grade AV block were the use of MCRS (odds ratio [OR] 79.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.57-1373.31) and the presence of preprocedural right bundle branch block (OR 81.95; 95% 95% CI 8.72-770.46). Whereas high-grade AV block resolved only in 17% of cases, none of the patients receiving a PPM due to LBBB with or without PR prolongation required ventricular pacing during follow-up. Conclusion Our findings justify early PPM implantation in patients with high-grade AV block and may suggest a more conservative approach to PPM implantation in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]