Search

Background: Early guidance recommended a bolus of intravenous heparin at the beginning of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation procedures. However, due to concern about bleeding complications, more recent practice has tended toward omitting the bolus and only running a continuous heparin infusion through the introducer sheath. The impact of omitting the heparin bolus on procedural outcomes is not clear. Methods: We reviewed all Medtronic Micra LP implants at our institution from 9/2014 to 9/2022. The decision to bolus with heparin was at operator discretion. Results: Among 621 LP implants, 326 received an intravenous heparin bolus, 243 did not, and 52 patients were excluded because heparin bolus status could not be confirmed. There was a trend toward more frequent omission of the heparin bolus with more recent implants. Median follow‐up after LP implant was 14.3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8.4–27.9) months. There was no difference between heparin bolus and no bolus groups in the number of device deployments/recaptures (1.42 ± 0.81 vs. 1.31 ± 0.66, p =.15). Implant‐related adverse events were also similar between heparin bolus and no bolus groups: access‐site hematoma requiring intervention (7 vs. 5, p =.99), pseudoaneurysm (1 vs. 1, p =.99), cardiac perforation (1 vs. 1, p =.99), intraprocedural device thrombus formation (2 vs. 4, p =.41), 30‐day rehospitalization (21 vs. 15, p =.98), and 30‐day all‐cause mortality (16 vs. 14, p =.70). There was one additional nonfatal cardiac perforation in a patient who was excluded due to unknown heparin bolus status. Regarding device electrical parameters between heparin bolus and no bolus groups, there were no significant differences at the time of implant: pacing capture threshold 0.5 ± 0.4 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p =.10; pacing impedance 739.9 ± 226.4 vs. 719.1 ± 215.4, p =.52; R wave sensing 11.7 ± 5.7 vs. 12.0 ± 5.4, p =.34). Long‐term device performance was also similar between groups. Conclusion: Omission of the systemic heparin bolus at the time of LP implantation appears safe in appropriately selected patients. Heparin bolus may still be considered in long cases requiring multiple device deployments or in patients at high risk for thrombotic complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Introduction: Permanent pacing indications are common after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions. Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have emerged as a useful alternative to transvenous pacemakers. However, current commercially available LPs are unable to provide atrial pacing or cardiac resynchronization and relatively little is known about LP outcomes after cardiac surgery and transcatheter valve interventions. Methods: This retrospective study included patients who received a Micra VR (MicraTM MC1VR01) or Micra AV (MicraTM MC1AVR1) (Medtronic) leadless pacemaker following cardiac surgery or transcatheter structural valve intervention between September 2014 and September 2022. Device performance and clinical outcomes, including ventricular pacing burden, ejection fraction, and need for conversion to transvenous pacing systems, were evaluated during follow‐up. Results: A total of 78 patients were included, of whom 40 received a Micra VR LP implant, and 38 received a Micra AV LP implant. The mean age of the cohort was 65.9 ± 17.9 years, and 48.1% were females. The follow‐up duration for the entire cohort was 1.3 ± 1.1 years: 1.6 ± 1.3 years for the Micra VR group and 0.8 ± 0.5 years for the Micra AV group. Among the cohort, 50 patients had undergone cardiac surgery and 28 underwent transcatheter structural valve interventions. Device electrical performance was excellent during follow‐up, with a small but clinically insignificant increase in ventricular pacing threshold and a slight decrease in pacing impedance. The mean right ventricle pacing (RVP) burden significantly decreased over time in the entire cohort (74.3% ± 37.2% postprocedure vs. 47.7% ± 40.6% at last follow‐up, p <.001), and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) showed a modest but significant downward trend during follow‐up (55.0% ± 10.6% vs. 51.5% ± 11.2% p <.001). Patients with Micra VR implants had significantly reduced LVEF during follow‐up (54.1% ± 11.9% vs. 48.8% ± 11.9%, p =.003), whereas LVEF appeared stable in the Micra AV group during follow‐up (56.1% ± 9.0% vs. 54.6% ± 9.7%, p =.06). Six patients (7.7%) required conversion to transvenous pacing systems, four who required cardiac resynchronization for drop in LVEF with high RVP burden and two who required dual‐chamber pacemakers for symptomatic sinus node dysfunction. Conclusion: Leadless pacemakers provide a useful alternative to transvenous pacemakers in appropriately selected patients after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions. Device performance is excellent over medium‐term follow‐up. However, a significant minority of patients require conversion to transvenous pacing systems for cardiac resynchronization or atrial pacing support, demonstrating the need for close electrophysiologic follow‐up in this cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Micra Coverage with Evidence Development (CED) Study is a novel comparative analysis of Micra (leadless VVI) and transvenous single‐chamber ventricular pacemakers (transvenous VVI) using administrative claims data. To compare chronic complications, device reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and all‐cause mortality after 3 years of follow‐up. Methods: US Medicare claims data linked to manufacturer device registration information were used to identify Medicare beneficiaries with a de novo implant of either a Micra VR leadless VVI or transvenous VVI pacemaker from March 9, 2017 to December 31, 2018. Unadjusted and propensity score overlap‐weight adjusted Fine‐Gray competing risk models were used to compare outcomes at 3 years. Results: Leadless VVI patients (N = 6219) had a 32% lower rate of chronic complications and a 41% lower rate of reintervention compared with transvenous VVI patients (N = 10 212) (chronic complication hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59−0.78; reintervention HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.44−0.78). Infections rates were significantly lower among patients with a leadless VVI (<0.2% vs. 0.7%, p <.0001). Patients with a leadless VVI also had slightly lower rates of heart failure hospitalization (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.84−0.97). There was no difference in the adjusted 3‐year all‐cause mortality rate (HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92−1.03). Conclusion: This nationwide comparative evaluation of leadless VVI versus transvenous VVI de novo pacemaker implants demonstrated that the leadless group had significantly fewer complications, reinterventions, heart failure hospitalizations, and infections than the transvenous group at 3 years, confirming that the previously reported shorter‐term advantages associated with leadless pacing persist and continue to accrue in the medium‐to‐long‐term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Micra atrioventricular (AV) provides leadless atrioventricular synchronous pacing by sensing atrial contraction (A4 signal). Real‐world operation and reliability of AV synchrony (AVS) assessment using device data have not been described. The purposes of this study were to (1) assess the correlation between AVS and atrial mechanical sensed‐ventricular pacing (AM‐VP) percentages in patients with permanent high‐degree AV block and (2) report on the real‐world effectiveness of Micra AV. Methods: The correlation between ECG‐determined AVS in‐clinic and device‐collected %AM‐VP was assessed using data from 40 patients with high‐degree AV block enrolled in the Micra Atrial tRacking using a Ventricular AccELerometer (MARVEL) 2 study. A retrospective analysis to assess continuously‐sampled %AM‐VP since last session, device programming, and electrical parameters was performed using Micra AV transmissions from the Medtronic CareLink database. Patients with transmissions ≥180 days postimplant were included. Results: Among the 40 MARVEL 2 AV block patients with a median %VP of 99.7%, AVS was highly correlated with AM‐VP (median AVS 87.1%, median AM‐VP 79.1%; R2 = 0.764, p <.001). The CareLink cohort included 4384 patients programmed to VDD mode. The mean A4 amplitude was 2.3 ± 1.8 m/s2 at implant and 2.3 ± 1.6 m/s2 at 28 weeks. In patients with %VP >90% (n = 1662), the median %AM‐VP was 74.7%. For the full cohort, median %VP was 65.6% and median projected battery longevity was 10.5 years. Conclusion: In patients with a high pacing burden, %AM‐VP provides a reasonable estimation of AVS. The first large real‐world analysis of Micra AV patients with >90% VP showed stable atrial sensing over time with a median %AM‐VP, a correlate of AVS, of 74.7%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: There is limited information on what clinical factors are associated with the development of pericardial effusion after leadless pacemaker implantation. We sought to determine predictors of and to develop a risk score for pericardial effusion in patients undergoing Micra leadless pacemaker implantation attempt.Methods and Results: Patients (n = 2817) undergoing implant attempt from the Micra global trials were analysed. Characteristics were compared between patients with and without pericardial effusion (including cardiac perforation and tamponade). A risk score for pericardial effusion was developed from 18 pre-procedural clinical variables using lasso logistic regression. Internal validation and future prediction performance were estimated using bootstrap resampling. The scoring system was also externally validated using data from the Micra Acute Performance European and Middle East (MAP EMEA) registry. There were 32 patients with a pericardial effusion [1.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-1.6%]. Following lasso logistic regression, 11 of 18 variables remained in the model from which point values were assigned. The C-index was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71-0.88). Patient risk score profile ranged from -4 (lowest risk) to 5 (highest risk) with 71.8% patients considered low risk (risk score ≤0), 16.6% considered medium risk (risk score = 1), and 11.7% considered high risk (risk score ≥2) for effusion. The median C-index following bootstrap validation was 0.73 (interquartile range: 0.70-0.75). The C-index based on 9 pericardial effusions from the 928 patients in the MAP EMEA registry was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.52-0.83). The pericardial effusion rate increased significantly with additional Micra deployments in medium-risk (P = 0.034) and high-risk (P < 0.001) patients.Conclusion: The overall rate of pericardial effusion following Micra implantation attempt is 1.1% and has decreased over time. The risk of pericardial effusion after Micra implant attempt can be predicted using pre-procedural clinical characteristics with reasonable discrimination.Clinical Trial Registration: The Micra Post-Approval Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02536118), Micra Continued Access Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02488681), and Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02004873). [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.

Background: The feasibility and outcomes of concomitant atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and leadless pacemaker implant are not well studied. We report outcomes in patients undergoing Micra implant with concomitant AVNA. Methods: Patients undergoing AVNA at the time of Micra implant from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing (IDE) Study, Continued Access (CA) study, and Post‐Approval Registry (PAR) were included in the analysis and compared to Micra patients without AVNA. Baseline characteristics, acute and follow‐up outcomes, and electrical performance were compared between patients with and without AVNA during the follow‐up period. Results: A total of 192 patients (mean age 77.4 ± 8.9 years, 72% female) underwent AVNA at the time of Micra implant and were followed for 20.4 ± 15.6 months. AVNA patients were older, more frequently female, and tended to have more co‐morbid conditions compared with non‐AVNA patients (N = 2616). Implant was successful in 191 of 192 patients (99.5%). The mean pacing threshold at implant was 0.58 ± 0.35 V and remained stable during follow‐up. Major complications within 30 days occurred more frequently in AVNA patients than non‐AVNA patients (7.3% vs. 2.0%, p <.001). The risk of major complications through 36‐months was higher in AVNA patients (hazard ratio: 3.81, 95% confidence interval: 2.33–6.23, p <.001). Intermittent loss of capture occurred in three AVNA patients (1.6%), all were within 30 days of implant and required system revision. There were no device macrodislodgements or unexpected device malfunctions. Conclusion: Concomitant AVN ablation and leadless pacemaker implant is feasible. Pacing thresholds are stable over time. However, patient comorbidities and the risk of major complications are higher in patients undergoing AVNA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data on the management of Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS) at the time of an upgrade or during battery depletion is limited. Objective: We sought to evaluate the management patterns of patients implanted with a Micra TPS during long‐term follow‐up. Methods: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent Micra implantation from April 2014 to November 2019. We identified patients who underwent extraction (n = 11) or had an abandoned Micra (n = 12). Results: We identified 302 patients who received a Micra during the period of the study. Mean age was 72.7 ± 15.4 years, 54.6% were men, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 51.9 ± 5.2%. Mean follow‐up was 1105.5 ± 529.3 days. Procedural complications included pericardial tamponade (n = 1) treated with pericardiocentesis, significant rise in thresholds (n = 6) treated with reimplantation (n = 4), and major groin complications (n = 2). Indications for extraction included an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device (n = 3), bridging after extraction of an infected transvenous system (n = 3), elevated thresholds (n = 3), and non‐Micra‐related bacteremia (n = 2). The median time from implantation to extraction was 78 days (interquartile range: 14–113 days), with the longest extraction occurring at 1442 days. All extractions were successful, with no procedural or long‐term complications. Indications for abandonment included the need for CRT (n = 6), battery depletion (n = 2), increasing thresholds/failure to capture (n = 3), and pacemaker syndrome (n = 1). All procedures were successful, with no procedural or long‐term complications. Conclusion: In this large single‐center study, 6% of patients implanted with a Micra required a system modification during long‐term follow‐up, most commonly due to the requirement for CRT pacing. These patients were managed successfully with extraction or abandonment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcomes of catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) are suboptimal. The convergent procedure (CP) may offer improved efficacy by combining endocardial and epicardial ablation. Methods: We reviewed 113 consecutive patients undergoing the CP at our institution. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence (n = 92) or absence (n = 21) of continuous rhythm monitoring (CM) following the CP. Outcomes were reported in two ways. First, using a conventional definition of any atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia (AF/AT) recurrence lasting >30 seconds, after a 90 day blanking period. Second, by determining AF/AT burden at relevant time points in the group with CM. Results: Across the entire cohort, 88% had either persistent or long‐standing persistent AF, mean duration of AF diagnosis before the CP was 5.1 ± 4.6 years, 45% had undergone at least one prior AF ablation, 31% had impaired left ventricle ejection fraction and 62% met criteria for moderate or severe left atrial enlargement. Mean duration of follow‐up after the CP was 501 ± 355 days. In the entire cohort, survival free from any AF/AT episode >30 seconds at 12 months after the blanking period was 53%. However, among those in the CM group who experienced recurrences, mean burden of AF/AT was generally very low (<5%) and remained stable over the duration of follow‐up. Ten patients (9%) required elective cardioversion outside the 90 day blanking period, 11 patients (9.7%) underwent repeat ablation at a mean of 229 ± 178 days post‐CP and 64% were off AADs at the last follow‐up. Procedural complications decreased significantly following the transition from transdiaphragmatic to sub‐xiphoid surgical access: 23% versus 3.8% (P =.005) Conclusions: In a large, consecutive series of patients with predominantly PeAF, the CP was capable of reducing AF burden to very low levels (generally <5%), which appeared durable over time. Complication rates associated with the CP decreased significantly with the transition from transdiaphragmatic to sub‐xiphoid surgical access. Future trials will be necessary to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from the convergent approach. [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: Implantation of the MICRA Leadless pacemaker requires the use of a 27 French introducer, blunt delivery system and device fixation to the myocardium via nitinol tines. While prior studies have proven its safety, it is unclear whether performing this procedure with uninterrupted anticoagulation exposes patients to increased risks. We sought to investigate the feasibility and safety of continuing therapeutic anticoagulation during the periprocedural period. Methods: We evaluated all patients undergoing MICRA placement at our institution between April 2014 and August 2018 with complete follow‐up data (n = 170). Patients were stratified into two groups: those on active anticoagulation (OAC, n = 26), defined as having an International normalized ratio >2.0 or having continued a direct oral anticoagulant, and those not anticoagulated (Off‐OAC, n = 144). We evaluated for a composite outcome of all major complications, including access site complications and pericardial effusion. Results: OAC and Off‐OAC groups had similar mean age (74 ± 13 vs 75 ± 13 years; P = .914). The OAC group had a nonsignificantly lower prevalence of end‐stage renal disease (8% vs 17%; P = .375) and aspirin use (27% vs 47%; P = .131). Those in the OAC group were more likely to be on warfarin than those in the Off‐OAC group (81% vs 30%; P < .001). The rate of the composite endpoint was similar between the OAC and Off‐OAC groups (3.8 % vs 1.4%, respectively; P = .761). Length of stay was similar between groups (1.3 ± 2.6 vs 2.3 ± 3.4 days; P = 0.108). Conclusion: Continuation of therapeutic anticoagulation during MICRA implantation appears to be feasible, safe and associated with shorter hospitalization among appropriately selected individuals. [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]

Introduction: Leadless pacemakers may provide a safe and attractive pacing option to patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. We describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a recent CIED infection undergoing Micra implant attempt. Methods and Results: Patients with prior CIED infection and device explant with Micra implant within 30 days, were identified from the Micra post approval registry. Procedure characteristics and outcomes were summarized. A total of 105 patients with prior CIED infection underwent Micra implant attempt ≤30 days from prior system explant (84 [80%] pacemakers and 13 [12%] ICD/CRT‐D). All system components were explanted in 93% of patients and explant occurred a median of 6 days before Micra implant, with 37% occurring on the day of Micra implant. Micra was successfully implanted in 99% patients, mean follow‐up duration was 8.5 ± 7.1 months (range 0‐28.5). The majority of patients (91%) received IV antibiotics preimplant, while 42% of patients received IV antibiotics postprocedure. The median length of hospitalization following Micra implant was 2 days (IQR, 1‐7). During follow‐up, two patients died from sepsis and four patients required system upgrade, of which two patients received Micra to provide temporary pacing support. There were no Micra devices explanted due to infection. Conclusion: Implantation of the Micra transcatheter pacemaker is safe and feasible in patients with a recent CIED infection. No recurrent infections that required Micra device removal were seen. Leadless pacemakers appear to be a safe pacing alternative for patients with CIED infection who undergo extraction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is recommended with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (SICD).Objective: To describe first shock efficacy for appropriate SICD therapies stratified by the presence of implant DFT testing.Methods: We reviewed all patients receiving SICDs at our institution and stratified them based on whether implant DFT testing was performed. Appropriate shocks were reviewed to see if ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) terminated with a single shock. First shock efficacy was stratified by implant DFT status.Results: 178 patients implanted with SICDs and followed in our center were included in this study. Of these, 135 (76%) underwent DFT testing (DFT(+) group). In the DFT(+), 80 appropriate shocks were needed to treat 69 episodes of VT/VF. The first shock was effective in 61 out of 69 episodes (88.4%), whereas multiple shocks were required to terminate VT/VF in the remaining eight episodes. Among 43 patients without implant DFT testing (DFT(-) group), 20 appropriate shocks to treat 17 episodes of VT/VF occurred in seven patients. VT/VF was successfullyterminated with the first shock in 16 out of 17 episodes (first shock efficacy 94.1%). There was no significant difference in first shock effectiveness between those with and without implant DFT testing (P=0.97).Conclusion: A strategy that omits DFT testing at implant did not appear to compromise the effectiveness of the SICD. These data suggest that routine DFT testing at SICD implant might not be necessary. Randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atrioventricular junctional (AVJ) ablation and pacemaker implantation are indicated when pharmacotherapy fails to achieve adequate rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of concurrent Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker implantation and AVJ ablation. Methods:We retrospectively assessed patients who underwent Micra implantation and concurrent AVJ ablation at three institutions between August 2014 and March 2016. All patients and devices were followed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12months postimplantion. Results: Twenty-one patients with permanent AF (median age 77 [range: 62-88], female 15 [71.4%]) underwent successful Micra implantation followed by concurrent AVJ ablation. There was no device dislodgement or malfunction during the 12-month follow-up. Complete 12-month electrical performance data were available in 14 patients (67%). Among patients with the complete data set, median pacing thresholds at implant and at 1, 3, 6, and 12months were 0.5V(range: 0.25-0.88), 0.44 V (range: 0.25-2.0), 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.63), 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.13), and 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.13) at a pulse width of 0.24 msec, respectively. Two patients died due to noncardiac causes during follow-up. There were no patients with major device-related complications. Conclusions: Concurrent Micra implantation and AVJ ablation is feasible and appears safe. There was no device dislodgement, malfunction, or significant pacing threshold rise requiring device reimplantation during the 12-month follow-up. This combined approach can be considered for patients with AF with suboptimal rate control who have failed AF catheter ablation and/or pharmacotherapy. [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]

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]

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 aim of this study was to retrospectively investigate whether performing surgical atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in conjunction with cardiac surgery (CS) increases the risk for postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) requirement. The 30-day risk for PPM requirement was analyzed in consecutive patients who underwent CS from January 2007 to August 27, 2013. Patients were divided into 3 groups: (1) those who underwent AF ablation concomitant with CS (AF ABL), (2) patients with any history of AF who underwent surgery who did not undergo ablation (AF NO ABL), and (3) those with no histories of AF who underwent surgery (NO AF). Logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for age, gender, and surgery type. Of 13,453 CS patients, 353 (3%) were in the AF ABL group, 1,701 (12%) in the AF NO ABL group, and 11,399 (85%) in the NO AF group. A total of 7,651 patients (57%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 4,384 (33%) underwent valve surgery, and 1,418 (10%) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery. The overall PPM risk was 1.6% (212 of 13,453); risk was 5.7% (20 of 353) in the AF ABL group, 3.1% (53 of 1,701) in the AF NO ABL group, and 1.2% (139 of 11,399) in the NO AF group. The unadjusted and adjusted odds of PPM were higher in the AF ABL and AF NO ABL groups than in the NO AF group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7 to 4.4, and adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.4, respectively). The unadjusted OR comparing the AF ABL group and the AF NO ABL group was significant (unadjusted OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.9 to 3.2); however, the OR adjusted for surgery type, age, and gender showed a trend toward significance (adjusted OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.7). In conclusion, in this large cohort of patients who underwent CS, surgical AF ablation appeared to carry an increased risk for postoperative PPM implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]

Guidelines suggest that patients who receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention should be expected to live more than one year after placement. However, tools for validating this prognosis are not sufficiently predictive. We sought to identify definitive predictors of one-year survival after ICD placement. By reviewing medical records and the Social Security Death Index, we analyzed baseline characteristics and survival outcomes of 3,164 patients who underwent ICD placement at our institution from January 2006 through March 2014. Survival outcome could be confirmed for 2,346 patients (74%). Of these, 184 (7.8%) died within one year of ICD placement. We noted significant differences in numerous variables between those who lived and died. However, multivariable analysis revealed only 5 independent predictors of earlier death: worse New York Heart Association functional class (hazard ratio [HR]=1.87 per class [95% CI, 1.22–2.87]; P <0.01); lower serum sodium level (HR=0.93 per 1 mEq/L increase [95% CI, 0.88–0.99]; P=0.04); atrial fibrillation (HR=1.81 [95% CI, 1.03–3.21]; P=0.04); chronic lung disease (HR=2.05 [95% CI, 1.20–3.51]; P <0.01), and amiodarone use (HR=10.1 [95% CI, 4.51–22.5]; P <0.01). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we developed a model with an area under the curve of 0.718 that predicted death at one year after ICD implantation. Despite significant univariate differences between the ICD recipients who did and did not live beyond one year, we found only moderate predictors of survival. Better tools are needed to predict outcomes when considering ICD placement for primary prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]