Search

Background: Heart failure affects >6 million people in the United States alone and is most prevalent in Black patients who suffer the highest mortality risk. Yet prior studies have suggested that Black patients are less likely to receive advanced heart failure therapy. We hypothesized that Black patients would have decreased rates of durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation within our expansive heart failure program., Methods: A retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted at a single high-volume academic medical center. Patients between 18 and 85 years admitted with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock or congestive heart failure between 1, 2013 and 12, 2017 with a left ventricular ejection fraction < 30% and inotropic dependence or need for mechanical circulatory support were included. Patients with contraindications to durable LVAD were excluded. An adjusted logistic regression model for durable LVAD implantation within 90 days of the index admission was used to determine the effect of race on durable LVAD implantation., Results: Among the 702 study patients (60.9% White, 34.1% Black), durable LVAD implantation was performed within 90 days of the index admission in 183 (26%) of the cohort. After multivariate analysis, Black patients were not found to have a statistically significant difference in durable LVAD implantation rates compared to White patients in our study (OR: 0.68 [95% confidence interval: 0.45-1.04; p: .074])., Conclusions: Black patients in our study did not have a statistically significant difference in the rate of durable LVAD implantation compared with White patients after adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic, and clinical covariates. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) and electrical storm (ES) are recognized complications following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation; however, their association with long term-outcomes remains poorly understood., Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical impact of ES in a population of patients undergoing LVAD implantation at a quaternary care center in the United States., Methods: This was an observational retrospective study of patients undergoing LVAD implantation from 2009 to 2020 at Duke University Hospital. The incidence of ES (≥3 sustained VA episodes over a 24-hour period without an identifiable reversible cause) was determined from patient records. Risk factors for ES were identified using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling., Results: Among 730 patients undergoing LVAD implant, 78 (10.7%) developed ES at a median of 269 (interquartile range [IQR] 7-766) days following surgery. Twenty-seven patients (34.6%) developed ES within 30 days, while 51 (65.4%) presented with ES at a median 639 (IQR 281-1017) days after implant. Following ES, 41% of patients died within 1 year. Patients who developed ES were more likely to have a history of VAs, ventricular tachycardia ablation, antiarrhythmic drug use, and perioperative mechanical circulatory support around the time of LVAD implant than patients without ES., Conclusion: ES occurs in 1 in 10 patients after LVAD and is associated with higher mortality. Risk factors for ES include a history of VAs, VT ablation, antiarrhythmic drug use, and perioperative mechanical circulatory support. Optimal management of ES surrounding LVAD implant, including escalation of medical therapy, catheter ablation, or adjunctive sympatholytic therapies, remains uncertain., (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

[Figure: see text].

Background: There are limited data on the performance of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD)., Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical course and outcomes of patients with both an S-ICD and an LVAD at our institution and via a systematic review of published studies., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 2009 to 2019 at Duke University Hospital. We also performed a systematic review of studies involving patients with an S-ICD and LVAD using the PubMed/Embase databases., Results: Of 588 patients undergoing LVAD implantation with a preexisting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 4 had an S-ICD in situ after LVAD implantation. All 4 patients developed electromagnetic interference (EMI) in the primary/secondary vectors after LVAD implantation, resulting in inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in 2 patients. Sensing in the alternate vector was adequate immediately postoperatively in 1 patient. Postoperative undersensing was present in the alternate vector in 3 patients but improved at first outpatient follow-up in 2 patients, allowing tachy therapies to be reenabled. Eight studies involving 27 patients were identified in the systematic review. EMI was common and frequently absent in the alternate vector (6 of 7 patients)., Conclusion: Undersensing and EMI are common after LVAD implantation in patients with an S-ICD in situ, particularly in the primary and secondary sensing vectors. Undersensing in the alternate vector may improve during follow-up, obviating the need for device revision or extraction., (Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Lead dysfunction can lead to serious consequences including failure to treat ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF). The incidence and mechanisms of lead dysfunction following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are not well-described. We sought to determine the incidence, mechanisms, timing, and complications of right ventricular lead dysfunction requiring revision following LVAD implantation., Methods: Retrospective observational chart review of all LVAD recipients with pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) from 2009 to 2018 was performed including device interrogation reports, laboratory and imaging data, procedural reports, and clinical outcomes., Results: Among 583 patients with an ICD in situ undergoing LVAD implant, the median (interquartile range) age was 62.5 (15.7) years, 21% were female, and the types of LVADs included HeartWare HVAD (26%), HeartMate II (52%), and HeartMate III (22%). Right ventricular lead revision was performed in 38 patients (6.5%) at a median (25th, 75th) of 16.4 (3.6, 29.2) months following LVAD. Mechanisms of lead dysfunction included macrodislodgement (n = 4), surgical lead injury (n = 4), recall (n = 3), insulation failure (n = 8) or conductor fracture (n = 7), and alterations in the lead-myocardial interface (n = 12). Undersensing requiring revision occurred in 22 (58%) cases. Clinical sequelae of undersensing included failure to detect VT/VF (n = 4) and pacing-induced torsade de pointes (n = 1). Oversensing occurred in 12 (32%) and sequelae included inappropriate antitachycardia pacing ([ATP], n = 8), inappropriate ICD shock (n = 6), and ATP-induced VT (n = 1)., Conclusion: The incidence of right ventricular lead dysfunction following LVAD implantation is significant and has important clinical sequelae. Physicians should remain vigilant for lead dysfunction after LVAD surgery and test lead function before discharge., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Compared with medical therapy, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) improves cardiovascular outcomes. Risk scores (CAAP-AF and APPLE) have been developed to predict the likelihood of AF recurrence after ablation, have not been validated specifically in patients with AF and HF., Methods: We analyzed baseline characteristics, risk scores, and rates of AF recurrence 12 months postablation in a cohort of 230 consecutive patients with AF and HF undergoing PVI in the Duke Center for Atrial Fibrillation registry from 2009-2013., Results: During a follow-up period of 12 months, 76 of 230 (33%) patients with HF experienced recurrent AF after ablation. The median APPLE and CAAP-AF scores were 1.5 ([Q1, Q3]: [1.0, 2.0]) and 4.0 ([Q1, Q3]: [3.0, 5.0]), respectively and were not different from those patients with and without recurrent AF. Freedom from AF was not different according to APPLE and CAAP-AF scores. Discrimination for recurrent AF with the CAAP-AF score was modest with a C-statistic of 0.60 (95% CI 0.52-0.67). Discrimination with the APPLE score was similarly modest, with a C-statistic of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.47-0.62)., Conclusions: Validated predictive risk scores for recurrent AF after catheter ablation exhibit limited predictive ability in cohorts of AF and HF. Additional tools are needed to facilitate risk stratification and patient selection for AF ablation in patients with concomitant HF., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Few studies have examined outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of AF ablation in patients with HFpEF vs HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 230 patients with HF who underwent AF ablation, including 97 (42.2%) with HFrEF and 133 (57.8%) with HFpEF. Outcomes included adverse events, symptoms (Mayo AF Symptom Inventory [MAFSI]), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia at 12 months., Results: Overall, 150 of 230 patients had nonparoxysmal AF (62.8% HFpEF vs 63.0% HFrEF). Patients with HFpEF had a smaller mean left atrial diameter (4.4 ± 0.8 cm vs 4.7 ± 0.7 cm; P = .013) and were less likely to be taking a beta-blocker at baseline (72.9% vs 85.6%; P = .022). Median (Q1, Q3) procedure times (233 minutes [192, 290] vs 233.5 minutes [193.0, 297.5]; P = .780) and adverse events such as acute HF (3.8% vs 6.2%; P = .395) were similar between HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia was not significantly different in HFpEF vs HFrEF patients (33.9% vs 32.6%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.47; 95% confidence interval 0.72-3.01), with similar improvements in NYHA functional class (-0.32 vs -0.19; P = .135) and MAFSI symptom severity (-0.23 vs -0.09; P = .116) after ablation., Conclusion: Catheter ablation of AF seems to have similar effectiveness in patients with HF, regardless of presence of systolic dysfunction. There were no significant differences in procedural characteristics, arrhythmia-free recurrence, or functional improvements between patients with HFpEF and those with HFrEF., (Copyright © 2017 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia and it increases the risk of thromboembolic stroke and death. AF is common in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), affecting between 30 and 40% of patients with HFrEF. AF increases the risk of death and hospitalization in patients with HFrEF. Only two antiarrhythmic drugs (amiodarone and dofetilide) are guideline-recommended in patients with AF and heart failure (HF). Meta-analyses of studies of major trials in HF suggest that patients with AF/HFrEF do not benefit from conventional β-blockers. Bucindolol has shown promise in the treatment of patients with AF/HFrEF. We will explore how the shared pathophysiology of AF/HF is targeted by the unique pharmacology of bucindolol and review the existing data for bucindolol in AF/HF. We will explore findings that support a pharmacogenetically modulated effect of bucindolol in patients with polymorphisms in β1-adrenergic receptor and provide an overview of ongoing studies.

Heart failure affects 6 million people in the US, and is most prevalent in Blacks who suffer the highest mortality risk[1, 2]. Yet prior studies have suggested that black patients are less likely to receive advanced heart failure therapy[3-6]. We hypothesized that black patients would have decreased rates of durable LVAD implantation within our expansive heart failure program. A retrospective single center cohort study was conducted using electronic medical record data at our high-volume academic medical center. Patients between 18 and 85 years admitted with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock or congestive heart failure between 1/2013 and 12/2017 with an LVEF<30% and inotropic dependence or need for mechanical circulatory support were included. Patients with contraindications to durable LVAD were excluded. An adjusted logistic regression model for durable LVAD implantation within ninety days of the index admission was used to determine the effect of race on durable LVAD implantation. A total of 702 patients were included, of which 60.8% were white and 34.2% were Black; 72% of the patients in the study were men. Comorbidities were similar among the racial groups with the exception of coronary artery disease (CAD), which had an increased prevalence in whites (N=248; 58%). White patients were older (65 vs 59; p<0.001), more likely to be employed (18 vs 10%; p<0.001) and have private insurance (37 vs 28%; p<0.001). Durable LVAD implantation was performed within ninety days of the index admission in 183 (26%) of the cohort, 22.9% of black vs. 28.8% of Caucasian patients (p=0.119). After adjusting for age, gender, and comorbidities, black patients were significantly less likely than white patients to receive durable LVAD implantation OR-0.66 [0.44-0.98]. Black patients in our study had a decreased rate of durable LVAD implantation compared with white patients after adjustments were made for age, gender and clinical covariates. While this finding was likely mediated by socioeconomic factors, larger prospective studies are needed to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]