Search

Maria Rosa Costanzo,1 Shahrokh Javaheri,2,3 Piotr Ponikowski,4 Olaf Oldenburg,5 Ralph Augostini,3 Lee R Goldberg,6 Christoph Stellbrink,7 Henrik Fox,8 Alan R Schwartz,6 Sanjaya Gupta,9 Scott McKane,10 Timothy E Meyer,10 William T Abraham3 for the remedē®System Pivotal Trial Study Group1Advocate Heart Institute, Naperville, IL, USA; 2Bethesda North Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 3The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA; 4Department of Heart Diseases, Medical University, Military Hospital, Wroclaw, Poland; 5Ludgerus-Kliniken Münster, Clemens Hospital, Münster, Germany; 6University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 7Bielefeld Medical Center, Bielefeld, Germany; 8Clinic for General and Interventional Cardiology Angiology, Herz- und Diabeteszentrum NRW, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany; 9University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, Saint Luke’s Mid-America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO, USA; 10Respicardia, Inc., Minnetonka, MN, USACorrespondence: Maria Rosa CostanzoAdvocate Heart Institute, Naperville, IL, 60566, USAEmail mariarosa.costanzo@aah.orgBackground: The remedē System Pivotal Trial was a prospective, multi-center, randomized trial demonstrating transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) therapy is safe and effectively treats central sleep apnea (CSA) and improves sleep architecture and daytime sleepiness. Subsequently, the remedē System was approved by FDA in 2017. As a condition of approval, the Post Approval Study (PAS) collected clinical evidence regarding long-term safety and effectiveness in adults with moderate to severe CSA through five years post implant.Methods: Patients remaining in the Pivotal Trial at the time of FDA approval were invited to enroll in the PAS and consented to undergo sleep studies (scored by a central laboratory), complete the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) questionnaire to assess daytime sleepiness, and safety assessment. All subjects (treatment and former control group) receiving active therapy were pooled; data from both trials were combined for analysis.Results: Fifty-three of the original 151 Pivotal Trial patients consented to participate in the PAS and 52 completed the 5-year visit. Following TPNS therapy, the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), central-apnea index (CAI), arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, and sleep architecture showed sustained improvements. Comparing 5 years to baseline, AHI and CAI decreased significantly (AHI baseline median 46 events/hour vs 17 at 5 years; CAI baseline median 23 events/hour vs 1 at 5 years), though residual hypopneas were present. In parallel, the arousal index, oxygen desaturation index and sleep architecture improved. The ESS improved by a statistically significant median reduction of 3 points at 5 years. Serious adverse events related to implant procedure, device or delivered therapy were reported by 14% of patients which include 16 (9%) patients who underwent a pulse generator reposition or lead revision (primarily in the first year). None of the events caused long-term harm. No unanticipated adverse device effects or related deaths occurred through 5 years.Conclusion: Long-term TPNS safely improves CSA, sleep architecture and daytime sleepiness through 5 years post implant.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01816776.Keywords: central sleep apnea, phrenic nerve stimulation

Background: Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSR), which often occurs in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), may be a predictor for poor outcome. Phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) may interrupt CSR in patients with CHF. We report the clinical use of transvenous PNS in patients with CHF and CSR.Methods: Nineteen patients with CHF and CSR were enrolled. A single stimulation lead was placed at the junction between the superior vena cava and brachiocephalic vein or in the left-side pericardiophrenic vein. PNS stimulation was performed using Eupnea System device (RespiCardia Inc). Respiratory properties were assessed before and during PNS. PNS was assessed at a maximum of 10 mA.Results: Successful stimulation capture was achieved in 16 patients. Failure to capture occurred in three patients because of dislocation of leads. No adverse events were seen under maximum normal stimulation parameters for an overnight study. When PNS was applied following a series of central sleep apneic events, a trend toward stabilization of breathing and heart rate as well as improvement in oxygen saturation was seen. Compared with pre-PNS, during PNS there was a significant decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (33.8 ± 9.3 vs 8.1 ± 2.3, P = .00), an increase in mean and minimal oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (89.7% ± 1.6% vs 94.3% ± 0.9% and 80.3% ± 3.7% vs 88.5% ± 3.3%, respectively, all P = .00) and end-tidal CO2 (38.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg vs 40.3 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = .02), but no significant difference in sleep efficiency (74.6% ± 4.1% vs 73.7% ± 5.4%, P = .36).Conclusions: The preliminary results showed that in a small group of patients with CHF and CSR, 1 night of unilateral transvenous PNS improved indices of CSR and was not associated with adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is associated with fewer lead-related complications than a transvenous ICD; however, the subcutaneous ICI) cannot provide bradycardia and antitachycardia pacing. Whether a modular pacing-defibrillator system comprising a leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD to provide antitachycardia and bradycardia pacingis safe remains unknown. METHODS We conducted a multinational, single-group study that enrolled patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias and followed them for 6 months after implantation of a modular pacemaker-defibrillator system. The safety end point was freedom from leadless pacemaker-related major complications, evaluated against a performance goal of 8696. The two primary performance end points were successful communication between the pacemaker and the ICD (performance goal, 8890) and a pacing threshold of up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width (performance goal, 8096). RESULTS We enrolled 293 patients, 162 of whom were in the 6-month end-point cohort and 151 of whom completed the 6-month follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, 16.7% were women, and the mean (*SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.1112.6%. The percentage of patients who were free from leadless pacemakerrelated major complications was 9Z5°/o, which exceeded the prespecified performance goal. Wireless-device communication was successful in 98.8% of communication tests, which exceeded the prespecified goal. Of 151 patients, 147 (97.496) had pacing thresholds of 2.0 V or less, which exceeded the prespecified goal. The percentage of episodes of arrhythmia that were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing was 61.3°/0, and there were no episodes for which antitachycardia pacing was not delivered owing to communication failure. Of 162 patients, 8 died (4.996); none of the deaths were deemed to be related to arrhythmias or the implantation procedure. CONCLUSIONS The leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD exceeded performance goals for freedom from major complications related to the leadless pacemaker, for communication between the leadiess pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD, and for the percentage of patients with a pacing threshold up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width at 6 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MODULAR ATP ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798768.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]