Search

Introduction: Transvenous leads have been implicated in tricuspid valve (TV) dysfunction, but limited data are available regarding the effect of extracting leads across the TV on valve regurgitation. The aim of this study is to quantify tricuspid regurgitation (TR) before and after lead extraction and identify predictors of worsening TR. Methods: We studied 321 patients who had echocardiographic data before and after lead extraction. TR was graded on a scale (0 = none/trivial, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe). A change of >1 grade following extraction was considered significant. Results: A total of 321 patients underwent extraction of a total of 338 leads across the TV (1.05 ± 0.31 leads across the TV per patient). There was no significant difference on average TR grade pre‐ and postextraction (1.18 ± 0.91 vs. 1.15 ± 0.87; p = 0.79). TR severity increased after extraction in 84 patients, but was classified as significantly worse (i.e., >1 grade change in severity) in only 8 patients (2.5%). Use of laser lead extraction was associated with a higher rate of worsening TR postextraction (44.0% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.04). Conclusion: In our single‐center analysis, extraction of leads across the TV did not significantly affect the extent of TR in most patients. Laser lead extraction was associated with a higher rate of worsening TR after extraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. Methods and results The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). Conclusion This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infection remains a major complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Implantable devices that avoid transvenous leads, such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD), can reduce the risk of serious infection‐related complications, such as bloodstream infection and infective endocarditis. While the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S‐ICD use for patients at high risk of infection, currently, there are no clinical trial data that address best practices for the prevention of S‐ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop a consensus on these topics. Methods: An expert process mapping methodology was used to achieve consensus on the appropriate steps to minimize or prevent S‐ICD infections. Two face‐to‐face meetings of high‐volume S‐ICD implanters and an infectious diseases specialist, with expertise in cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections, were conducted to develop consensus on useful strategies pre‐, peri‐, and postimplant to reduce S‐ICD infection risk. Results: Expert panel consensus on recommended steps for patient preparation, S‐ICD implantation, and postoperative management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management. Conclusion: Achieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology for S‐ICD infection prevention was attainable, and the results should be helpful to clinicians in adopting interventions to minimize risks of S‐ICD infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented which discusses the shift towards same-day discharge (SDD) after various cardiac procedures, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. The article explores the safety and benefits of SDD after transvenous lead extraction (TLE), highlighting factors such as noninfectious indications, early procedure times, good social support, and physician judgment aligning with patient decision.

Introduction: Transvenous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (TV‐ICD) infection is a serious complication that frequently requires complete device removal for attempted cure, which can be associated with patient morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study is to assess mortality risk associated with TV‐ICD infection in a large Medicare population with de novo TV‐ICD implants. Methods: A survival analysis was conducted using 100% fee‐for‐service Medicare facility‐level claims data to identify patients who underwent de novo TV‐ICD implantation between 7/2016 and 1/2018. TV‐ICD infection within 2 years of implantation was identified using International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition and current procedural terminology codes. Baseline patient risk factors associated with mortality were identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index categories. Infection was treated as a time‐dependent variable in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to account for immortal time bias. Results: Among 26,742 Medicare patients with de novo TV‐ICD, 518 (1.9%) had a device‐related infection. The overall number of decedents was 4721 (17.7%) over 2 years, with 4555 (17%) in the noninfection group and 166 (32%) in the infection group. After adjusting for baseline patient demographic characteristics and various comorbidities, the presence of TV‐ICD infection was associated with an increase of 2.4 (95% CI: 2.08–2.85) times in the mortality hazard ratio. Conclusion: The rate of TV‐ICD infection and associated mortality in a large, real‐world Medicare population is noteworthy. The positive association between device‐related infection and risk of mortality further highlights the need to reduce infections [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Infection is a well‐recognized complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation, including the more recently available subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD). Although the AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S‐ICD use, currently there are no clinical trial data that address the diagnosis and management of S‐ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop consensus on these topics. Methods: A process mapping methodology was used to achieve a primary goal – the development of consensus on the diagnosis and management of S‐ICD infections. Two face‐to‐face meetings of panel experts were conducted to recommend useful information to clinicians in individual patient management of S‐ICD infections. Results: Panel consensus of a stepwise approach in the diagnosis and management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management. Conclusion: Achieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology in S‐ICD infection diagnosis and management was attainable, and the results should be helpful in individual patient management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are limited data on cardiac implantable electronic device implantation (CIED) in patients with persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). Objective: To describe the outcomes of implanting CIEDs with a focus on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with PLSVC. Methods: We identified all patients with a PLSVC that underwent CIED implantation from December 2008 until February 2019 at our institution by querying the electronic medical record (n = 34). We then identified controls in a 3:1 fashion (n = 102) by matching on device type (CRT vs non‐CRT). Procedure success, complications, fluoroscopy and procedural time were recorded. Outcomes were compared using a two‐way analysis of variance test and conditional regression modeling for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: A total of 34 patients with PLSVC underwent 38 procedures. Four patients underwent dual chamber system implantation followed by a subsequent upgrade to CRT. Thirteen patients underwent CRT implantation: one was implanted via the right subclavian while the rest were implanted via the PLSVC. Left ventricular (P =.06). Procedure and fluoroscopy times were significantly higher in the PLSVC as compared with the control group (97.7 vs 66.1 minute, P <.001 and 18.1 minute vs 8.7 minutes, P =.005, respectively). Conclusion: CIED implant in patients with PLSVC is feasible but technically more challenging and appears to be associated with higher risk of right ventricular lead dislodgment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Consensus statements on lead extraction give consideration to open surgical removal in the setting of large vegetations, to mitigate the risk of massive embolism that may occur with percutaneous lead removal. Vacuum‐assisted debulking (VD) of large vegetations as an adjunct to percutaneous lead extraction may provide an opportunity to mitigate these risks. Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing lead extraction at our institution for endovascular infection from 2012 to 2018 and stratified them into two groups based on presence of adjunctive VD (n = 6) or without VD (no‐VD, n = 39). VD was performed with the AngioVac system (Angio‐Dynamics, Latham, NY, USA). Results: Across the cohort, mean age was 62 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 41 ± 16%, and 39% had end‐stage renal disease on dialysis. Defibrillator systems were present in 71%, and 22% had cardiac resynchronization devices. Mean duration of the oldest extracted lead was 6.3 ± 4.9 years. There were no significant differences in baseline covariates between groups. Those in the VD group were significantly less likely to have Staphylococcus aureus as a causative organism (P =.04). In the VD group, vegetations targeted for debulking ranged in size from 1.8 to 6 cm (longest dimension). There were no operative deaths or clinically evident embolic events in either group. The overall nonfatal complication rate in the VD group was higher (33.3% vs 2.3%, P =.043). Conclusion: : VD can be performed as an adjunct to percutaneous lead extraction with a reasonable safety profile. The relative safety and efficacy of this approach removal requires further study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) increases the risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) infection. We sought to define outcomes of lead extraction in patients with ESRD.Methods and Results: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extractions at our institution from January 2006 to March 2014 were stratified by absence (Control-Ex, n = 465) or presence (ESRD-Ex, n = 43) of ESRD. Procedural outcomes and survival were determined by medical records review. Survival in the ESRD-Ex group was compared with a contemporaneous cohort with ESRD undergoing ICD lead implantation (ESRD-I, n = 127). Among extraction patients, those with ESRD were more likely to be extracted for infection (74.4% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.001). Extraction procedure success (Control-Ex: 97% vs. ESRD-Ex: 93%, P = 0.17) and procedural deaths (Control-Ex: 1.1% vs. ESRD-Ex: 2.3%, P = 0.413) were similar. Survival 1 year following extraction was worse in the ESRD-Ex group compared with the Control-Ex, with a survival rate of 65.6% vs. 92.6% (P < 0.001); these curves continued to diverge through year 3. One-year survival in the ESRD-Ex group was worse than among ESRD patients undergoing ICD implant (ESRD-I), but these curves converged and survival was similar by year 3.Conclusions: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction can be performed safely and effectively in patients with ESRD. However, despite high rates of procedural success, long-term mortality following extraction in ESRD patients is substantial. Much of the long-term mortality risk appears to be accounted for by the presence of ESRD and an indication for an ICD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This study compared risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional pacing and defibrillator systems with particular attention to clinically actionable outcomes. Background While recipients of new MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator systems may undergo MRI scanning with very low risk, safety and regulatory concerns persist regarding such scanning in recipients of non-MRI conditional systems. Methods Patients with any cardiac device who were referred for MRI were prospectively enrolled at a single center and underwent scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Pre- and postscan lead characteristic changes, system integrity, and symptoms were analyzed. A comparison was made between non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional devices. Results 105 patients were evaluated allowing for comparison of 97 scans with non-MRI conditional devices and 16 scans with MRI conditional devices. The cohort included those with pacemaker dependency, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization devices. Small, nonsignificant changes were observed in lead characteristics following scanning, and there was no significant difference when comparing non-MRI and MRI conditional devices. Lead parameter changes did not require lead revision or programming changes. No device reset, failures, or premature scan termination was observed. Conclusions 1.5 T MRI scanning in patients with MRI conditional and non-MRI conditional cardiac devices was performed with similar, low clinical risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The UNTOUCHED study will assess the safety and efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) in the most common cohort of patients receiving ICDs. The primary goal is to evaluate the inappropriate shock (IAS)-free rate in primary prevention patients with a reduced ejection fraction (EF) and compare with a historical control of transvenous ICD patients with similar programming. Methods and Results The UNTOUCHED study is a global, multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized study of patients undergoing de novo S-ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with a left ventricular EF ≤35%. The primary end point of this trial is freedom from IAS at 18 months. The lower 95% confidence bound of the observed incidence will be compared to a performance goal of 91.6%, which was derived from the IAS rate in MADIT-RIT. The secondary end points are all-cause shock-free rate at 18 months, and system- and procedure-related complication-free rate at 1 month and 6 months. Enrollment of a minimum of 1,100 subjects from up to 200 centers worldwide is planned based on power calculations of the primary and principal secondary end points. Conclusions This trial will provide important data regarding the rates of inappropriate and appropriate shock therapy in real-world use of the S-ICD in the most common group of patients receiving ICDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: St. Jude Riata/Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) were recalled by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 for an increased rate of failure. More than 227,000 leads were implanted and at least 79,000 patients still have active Riata leads. Studies have examined clinical predictors of lead failure in Riata leads, but none have addressed the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator exchange on lead failure. The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of ICD generator exchange on the rate of electrical failure in the Riata lead at 1 year. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in patients who underwent implantation of a Riata/Riata ST lead at one center. Patients with a functioning Riata lead (with/without externalized conductor) at the time of ICD exchange were compared to controls with Riata leads implanted for a comparable amount of time who did not undergo generator replacement. Results: Riata leads were implanted in 1,042 patients prior to the recall and 153 of these patients underwent generator exchange without lead replacement. Conductor externalization was noted in 21.5% of Riata leads in the ICD exchange cohort, which was not different from the control group (19.2%; P = 0.32). Two leads failed in the first year after generator replacement (1.5%) which did not significantly differ from the control group (2.0%; P = 0.57). At change-out, 54% received a commanded shock (18.6 ± 0.9 J) that did not result in any change in the high-voltage lead impedance (46.1 ± 1.1 ohms). Conclusions: Conductor externalization was seen frequently in our cohort of patients. ICD generator exchange did not accelerate the rate of Riata lead failure at 1 year. Although both the control and the change-out cohorts failed at a rate much greater than nonrecalled leads, generator exchange did not appear to add to the problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subcutaneous ICD in Dialysis Patients Background Although the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD®) is an attractive alternative in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), data on S-ICD outcomes in dialysis patients are lacking. Methods Patients with cardiomyopathy undergoing S-ICD implantation in our center were stratified by need for chronic dialysis at the time of implant. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, heart failure hospitalization or appropriate S-ICD shocks, and secondary endpoints were incidence of inappropriate shocks or implant related complications requiring surgical re-intervention. Mean follow-up was longer in the nondialysis cohort (514 ± 495 vs. 227 ± 233 days, P = 0.006), so all endpoints were analyzed using time-dependent comparisons and reported as annual event rates. Results Out of 79 S-ICD implants included in this analysis, 27 patients were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were older and more likely to be diabetic. Mean ejection fraction across the entire cohort was 26.9% without significant difference between dialysis and nondialysis groups. Although not significant, the incidence of the primary endpoint was higher in the dialysis cohort (23.8%/year vs. 10.9%/year, P = 0.317), driven primarily by a higher rate of appropriate shocks. The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar between groups (dialysis 6.0%/year vs. nondialysis 6.8%/year, P = 0.509). No patients in the dialysis cohort had complications requiring surgical re-intervention versus 6 patients in the nondialysis cohort (P = 0.086). Conclusions Our data suggest that S-ICD implantation in dialysis patients is not associated with an excess risk of implant related complications or inappropriate shocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses a study by Adelstein and colleagues on pacemaker leads performance in their center. He discusses indications that Abbott sensing algorithms are not responsible for the higher rate of noise encountered with Tendril leads, the need of physicians to be proactive about reporting their experience, and an overview of studies assessing performance of tendril lead family.

The author presents a case of ischemic cardiomyopathy in a man with a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Analysis of stored information in the device raised concerns about sensing abnormalities that were found to be due to a misalignment of marker notations. Concerns about misdiagnosis are discussed.

Background: The subcutaneous (S) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective for sudden cardiac death prevention. However, patients in previous S-ICD studies had fewer comorbidities, had less left ventricular dysfunction, and received more inappropriate shocks (IAS) than in typical transvenous ICD trials. The UNTOUCHED trial (Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction) was designed to evaluate the IAS rate in a more typical, contemporary ICD patient population implanted with the S-ICD using standardized programming and enhanced discrimination algorithms.Methods: Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and no pacing indications were included. Generation 2 or 3 S-ICD devices were implanted and programmed with rate-based therapy delivery for rates ≥250 beats per minute and morphology discrimination for rates ≥200 and <250 beats per minute. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary end point was the IAS-free rate compared with a 91.6% performance goal, derived from the results for the ICD-only patients in the MADIT-RIT study (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate event-free rates for IAS, all-cause shock, and complications. Multivariable proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors of end points.Results: S-ICD implant was attempted in 1116 patients, and 1111 patients were included in postimplant follow-up analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 55.8±12.4 years, 25.6% were women, 23.4% were Black, 53.5% had ischemic heart disease, 87.7% had symptomatic heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4±5.8%. Eighteen-month freedom from IAS was 95.9% (lower confidence limit, 94.8%). Predictors of reduced incidence of IAS were implanting the most recent generation of device, using the 3-incision technique, no history of atrial fibrillation, and ischemic cause. The 18-month all-cause shock-free rate was 90.6% (lower confidence limit, 89.0%), meeting the prespecified performance goal of 85.8%. Conversion success rate for appropriate, discrete episodes was 98.4%. Complication-free rate at 18 months was 92.7%.Conclusions: This study demonstrates high efficacy and safety with contemporary S-ICD devices and programming despite the relatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials. The inappropriate shock rate (3.1% at 1 year) is the lowest reported for the S-ICD and lower than many transvenous ICD studies using contemporary programming to reduce IAS. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02433379. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recently commercially available subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) uses a completely subcutaneous electrode configuration to treat potentially lethal ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Clinical trials have proven its effectiveness in detecting and treating ventricular fibrillation and tachycardia. The S-ICD offers the advantage of eliminating the need for intravenous and intracardiac leads and their associated risks and shortcomings. However, its major disadvantage is its inability to provide bradycardia rate support and antitachycardia pacing to terminate ventricular tachycardia. This paper discusses the S-ICD clinical trials and advantages and disadvantages of this novel technology to help the physician identify its role and select candidate patients who will benefit from this device. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks.Methods: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population.Results: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05).Conclusions: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are frequently viewed as a lifelong commitment in that patients are routinely scheduled for generator exchange (GE) at end of battery life, several considerations should prompt a reevaluation of risks and benefits before GE. Compared with initial ICD implant, patients receiving replacement devices are older, and have more comorbidities and shorter life expectancy, all of which may limit the benefit of ICD therapy following GE. Additionally, GE is associated with significant complications, including infection, which may increase the risk of mortality. In this paper, we review recent data regarding opportunities for risk stratification before GE, with a particular focus on those with improved left ventricular function and those who have not experienced ICD therapies during the first battery life. We also provide a broader perspective on ICD therapy, focusing on how decisions regarding GE may affect goals of care at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]