Search

Both balloon-expandable and self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves are used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We compared procedural and clinical outcome variables of Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro in an all-comers collective.In this single-center registry, patients were consecutively treated with the Sapien 3 from November 2014 to March 2017 (n = 129) and from April 2017 to December 2018 mainly (95%) with the Evolut R/Pro (n = 124), due to a switch in the main TAVI supplier driven by hospital management. Data were retrospectively analyzed before and after the switch.One-year follow-up data were available for 122 (94%) of the Sapien and 112 (90%) of the Evolut patients. Baseline characteristics were comparable (EuroSCORE: Sapien 21.8 ± 0.9% vs Evolut 22.5 ± 0.8%; P=.20). Evolut implantation was associated with a higher radiation dose (Sapien 35770 ± 2345 mGy•cm² vs Evolut 85072 ± 8202 mGy•cm²; P.001), more postimplantation balloon dilations (Sapien 17.1% vs Evolut 37.1%; P.001), but similar procedure time (Sapien 75.2 ± 3.8 min vs Evolut 74.6 ± 3 min; P=.30). In-hospital mortality (Sapien 3.1% vs Evolut 4.0%; P=.70), all-cause mortality (Sapien 13.2% vs Evolut 15.3%; P=.70), all-stroke rate (Sapien 1.5% vs Evolut 6.5%; P=.05), and pacemaker implantation rate (Sapien 13.2% vs Evolut 18.5%; P=.30) were similar at 1 year. Permanent pacemaker rate was numerically higher in the first 6 months with Evolut (6 months 26.7% vs6 months 16%; P=.62); furthermore, radiation dose and balloon dilations also suggest a learning curve with Evolut.Switching from Sapien 3 to Evolut R/Pro was not associated with a difference regarding periprocedural or 1-year clinical outcomes.

We developed criteria for implantation and programming of permanent endocardial pacemakers in patients with a nonthoracotomy ICD system. These criteria were prospectively used in 10 patients who recieved an ICD prior to (n = 5) or following (n = 5) implantation of a dual chamber (n = 6) or ventricular (n = 4) pacemaker with a unipolar (n = 4) or bipolar (n = 6) lead configuration. All patients were tested for interactions or malfunctions. Undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by the atrial sense amplifier and inadequate atrial pacing occurred in one patient with a unipolar dual chamber system programmed to AAIR but didn't impair ICD sensing. Transient or permanent loss of capture or sensing of the pacemaker was not observed after ICD shocks with the output programmed to double pulse width and voltage of stimulation threshold and the sensitivity to 50% of the detected R wave. One episode of transient reprogramming occurred without clinical consequences. One unipolar ventricular pacemaker lead had to be exchanged against a bipolar lead because of oversensing of the pacing artifact by the ICD. There was no failure of an ICD to detect ventricular arrhythmias due to inadequate pacemaker activity. During a follow-up period of 21 +/- 11 months, a total of 78 ventricular arrhythmias were effectively treated in six patients. Thus, a combined use of transvenous ICD and pacemaker is possible despite the close vicinity of pacing and defibrillations leads. Optimized programming different to the common settings is required. As interactions occurred only in unipolar pacemaker leads bipolar systems should be used in these patients.

The unipolar system for transvenous defibrillation, consisting of a single right ventricular lead as the cathode and the device shell as anode, has been shown to combine low defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) and simple implantation techniques. We compared the defibrillation efficacy of this system with the defibrillation efficacy of a dual lead system with a 12-cm long defibrillation anode placed in the left subclavian vein. The data of 38 consecutive patients were retrospectively analyzed. The implantation of an active can system was attempted in 20 patients (group 1), and of the dual lead system in 18 patients (group 2). Both groups had comparable demographic data, cardiac disease, ventricular function, or clinical arrhythmia. The criterion for successful implantation was a DFT ofor = 24 J. This criterion was met in all 18 patients of group 2. The active can system could not be inserted in 3 of the 20 group 1 patients because of a DFT24 J. In these patients, the implantation of one (n = 2) or two (n = 1) additional transvenous leads was necessary to achieve a DFTor = 24 J. The DFTs of the 17 successfully implanted group 1 patients were not significantly different from the 18 patients in group 2 (12.3 +/- 5.7 J vs 10.8 +/- 4.8 J). The defibrillation impedance was similar in both groups (50.1 +/- 6.1 omega vs 48.9 +/- 5.2 omega). In group 1, both operation duration (66.8 +/- 17 min vs 80.8 +/- 11 min; P0.05) and fluoroscopy time (3.3 +/- 2.1 min vs 5.7 +/- 2.9 min; P0.05) were significantly shorter. Thus, the active can system allows reliable transvenous defibrillation and a marked reduction of operation duration and fluoroscopy time. The dual lead system, with an increased surface area defibrillation anode, seems to be a promising alternative for active can failures.

Lead failures constitute a major risk for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, data about the incidence and patterns of ICD-lead failures in a larger population are lacking. We analyzed the short-term and midterm performance of 27 epicardial and 103 nonthoracotomy ICD-lead systems during a follow-up period of 36 +/- 21 months and 22 +/- 10 months, respectively (p0.05). The failure rate was 5 (19%) of 27 in the epicardial and 6 (6%) of 103 in the nonthoracotomy group (p0.05). The most common symptom was erroneous detection of ventricular fibrillation from artifact sensing in five patients. Two patients had to be resuscitated because of failure to defibrillate. Loss of pacing and loss of sensing were seen in two patients. Only two asymptomatic lead fractures could be diagnosed on routine radiograph. In conclusion, there was a considerable rate of lead failures, especially in epicardial systems. Long-term studies addressing the longevity of ICD leads, mechanisms of their failures, and improved diagnostic facilities are important to further increase the safety of this therapeutic approach.