ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Device Removal , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency , Humans , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/physiopathology , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/etiology , Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency/diagnosis , Male , Female , Device Removal/adverse effects , Aged , Treatment Outcome , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Tricuspid Valve/physiopathology , Tricuspid Valve/surgery , Tricuspid Valve/diagnostic imaging , Defibrillators, Implantable , Time Factors , Pacemaker, Artificial , Aged, 80 and over , Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy DevicesABSTRACT
Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have revolutionized the field of pacing by miniaturizing pacemakers and rendering them completelty intracardiac, hence reducing complications related to pacemaker pockets and transvenous leads. However, first generation LPs appear to be associated with a higher rate of myocardial perforation as compared to transvenous pacemakers (TV-PPM). Currently, LPs are predominantly designed to pace the right ventricle with no LPs that provide atrial or biventricular pacing. In this article, we review the available data on LPs while advocating for the need for a randomized controlled trial comparing LPs to TV-PPMs. In addition, we review the future directions of leadless devices.
Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/trends , Pacemaker, Artificial/trends , Action Potentials , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnosis , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/physiopathology , Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/adverse effects , Diffusion of Innovation , Equipment Design , Forecasting , Heart Conduction System/physiopathology , Heart Rate , Humans , Miniaturization , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Ventricular Function, RightABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac death is a substantial cause of mortality in patients with cardiomyopathy, but evidence supporting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is less robust in nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) than in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Improved risk stratification is needed. We assessed whether absolute quantification of stress myocardial blood flow (sMBF) measured by positron emission tomography (PET) predicts ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and/or death in patients with NICM. METHODS: In this pilot study, we prospectively followed patients with NICM (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%) and an ICD who underwent cardiac PET stress imaging with sMBF quantification. NICM was defined as the absence of angiographic obstructive coronary stenosis, significant relative perfusion defects on imaging, coronary revascularization, or acute coronary syndrome. Endpoints were appropriate device therapy for VA and all-cause mortality. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients who had no prior history of VA (ie, the primary prevention population). RESULTS: We followed 37 patients (60 ± 14 years, 46% male) for 41 ± 23 months. The median sMBF was 1.56 mL/g/min (interquartile range: 1.00-1.82). Lower sMBF predicted VA, both in the whole population (hazard ratio [HR] for each 0.1 mL/g/min increase: 0.84, P = .015) and in the primary prevention subset (n = 27; HR for each 0.1 mL/g/min increase: 0.81, P = .049). Patients with sMBF below the median had significantly more VA than those above the median, both in the whole population (P = .004) and in the primary prevention subset (P = .046). Estimated 3-year VA rates in the whole population were 67% among low-flow patients vs 13% among high-flow patients, and 39% vs 8%, respectively, among primary-prevention patients. sMBF did not predict all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NICM, lower sMBF predicts VA. This relationship may be useful for risk stratification for ventricular arrhythmia and decision making regarding ICD implantation.