Outcomes in patients with cardiac amyloidosis and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

AIMS: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is associated with increased mortality due to arrhythmias, heart failure, and electromechanical dissociation. However, the role of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) remains unclear. We conducted case-control study to assess survival in CA patients with and without a primary prevention ICD and compared outcomes to an age, sex, and device implant year-matched non-CA group with primary prevention ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: There were 91 subjects with CA [mean age= 71.2 ± 10.2, female 22.0%, 49 AL with Mayo Stage 2.9 ± 1.0, 41 transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR), 1 other] followed by Vanderbilt Amyloidosis centre. Patients with ICD (n = 23) were compared with those without (n = 68) and a non-amyloid group with ICD (n = 46). All subjects with ICD had implantation for primary prevention. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 36.2% ± 14.4% in CA with ICD, 41.0% ± 10.6% in CA without ICD, and 33.5% ± 14.4% in non-CA patients. Over 3.5 ± 3.1 years, 6 (26.1%) CA, and 12 (26.1%) non-CA subjects received ICD therapies (P = 0.71). Patients with CA had a significantly higher mortality (43.9% vs. 17.4%, P = 0.002) compared with the non-CA group. Mean time from device implantation to death was 21.8 months in AL and 22.8 months in ATTR patients. There was no significant difference in mortality between CA patients who did and did not receive an ICD (39.0% vs. 46.0%, P = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable event rates patients with CA had a significantly higher mortality and ICDs were not associated with longer survival. With the emergence of effective therapy for AL amyloidosis, further study of ICD is needed in this group.

Transvenous Extraction and Removal of Pacing Leads Placed after Cardiac Transplantation.

There is an increasing prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) due to expanding adoption and availability of these evidence-based therapies. With the increased prevalence of these life-saving devices, there has also been an increased demand for lead removal and lead extraction. Understanding the specific subgroups of patients at high risk for complications during and after lead extraction has become imperative to properly manage endovascular CIED leads. There have been multiple published studies describing clinical variables that predict adverse outcomes in CIED system extractions; however, the risk of complications in leads placed after cardiac transplantation has not specifically been addressed to date. We present four cases of transvenous extraction and removal of pacing leads placed after cardiac transplantation. There were no major complications related to extraction in these four cases; however, three of the four patients died within one year after the procedure. While the etiology of death in these cases seemed to be unrelated to the extraction procedure, the indications for extraction (infection in the setting of immunosuppression and calcineurin-associated ESRD and poor sensing/capture possibly secondary to chronic rejection and/or frequent right heart biopsies) likely contributed at least indirectly to the subsequent death.