Safety of catheter ablation in patients with recently implanted cardiac implantable electronic device: A 5-year experience.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain. METHODS: This single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population. RESULTS: We identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (n = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (n = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (n = 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (n = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED-related infection following CA was (n = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power-on-reset or CIED-related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (p = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (p = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post-CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (p = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: CA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy for pacing induced cardiomyopathy: Role of baseline right ventricular pacing burden.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is indicated for patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing burden ≥40% (pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, PICM). It is uncertain whether baseline RV pacing burden impacts response to CRT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of all CRT upgrades for PICM at our hospital from January 2017 to December 2018. Univariate and multivariable-adjusted changes in LVEF, and echocardiographic response (≥10% improvement in LVEF) at 3-12 months post-CRT upgrade were compared in those with RV pacing burden ≥90% versus <90%. RESULTS: We included 75 patients (age 74 ± 11 years, 71% male) who underwent CRT upgrade for PICM. The baseline RV pacing burden was ≥90% in 56 patients (median 99% [IQR 98%-99%]), and <90% in 19 patients (median 79% [IQR 73%-87%]). Improvement in LVEF was greater in those with baseline RV pacing burden ≥90% versus <90% (15.7 ± 9.3% vs. 7.5 ± 9.6%, p = .003). Baseline RV pacing burden ≥90% was a strong predictor of an improvement in LVEF ≥10% after CRT upgrade both in univariate and multivariate-adjusted models (p = .005 and .02, respectively). CONCLUSION: A higher baseline RV pacing burden predicts a greater improvement in LVEF after CRT upgrade for PICM.

Multicenter assessment of the outcomes of subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with prior or future sternotomy.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is a viable alternative to transvenous ICD and avoids intravascular complications in patients without a pacing indication. The outcomes of S-ICD implantation are uncertain in patients with prior sternotomy. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the implant techniques and outcomes with S-ICD implantation in patients with and without prior sternotomy. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study including adult patients with an S-ICD implanted between January 2014 and June 2020. Outcomes were compared between patients with and without prior sternotomy. RESULTS: Among the 212 patients (49 ± 15 years old, 43% women, BMI 30 ± 8 kg/m2 , 68% primary prevention, 30% ischemic cardiomyopathy, LVEF median 30% IQR 25%-45%) who underwent S-ICD implantation, 47 (22%) had a prior sternotomy. There was no difference in the sensing vector (57% vs. 53% primary, p = 0.55), laterality of the S-ICD lead to the sternum (94% vs. 96% leftward, p = 0.54), or the defibrillation threshold (65 ± 1.4 J vs. 65 ± 0.8 J, p = 0.76) with versus without prior sternotomy. The frequency of 30-day complications was similar with and without prior sternotomy (n = 3/47 vs. n = 15/165, 6% vs. 9%, p = 0.56). Over a median follow-up of 28 months (IQR 10-49 months), the frequency of inappropriate shocks was similar between those with and without prior sternotomy (n = 3/47 and n = 16/165, 6% vs. 10%, p = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Implantation of an S-ICD in patients with prior sternotomy is safe with a similar risk of 30-day complications and inappropriate ICD shocks as patients without prior sternotomy.

UltraSound Axillary Vein Access (USAA): Learning curve and randomized comparison to traditional venous access for cardiac device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Many techniques exist for venous access (VA) during cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the learning curve with ultrasound (US) guided axillary vein access (USAA). METHODS: Single-center prospective randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing CIED implantation. Patients were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to USAA versus conventional VA techniques. The primary outcomes were the success rates, VA times and 30-day complication rates. RESULTS: The study included 100 patients (age 68 ± 14 years, BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m2 ). USAA was successful in 66/70 implants (94%). Initial attempts at conventional VA included 47% axillary (n = 14), 30% (n = 9) cephalic, and 23% (n = 7) subclavian. The median access time was longer for USAA than conventional access (8.3 IQR 4.2-15.3 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4-8.6 min, p = .009). Among the five inexperienced USAA implanters, there was a significant improvement in median access time from first to last tertile of USAA implants (17.0 IQR 7.0-21.0 min to 8.6 IQR 4.5-10.8 min, p = .038). The experienced USAA implanter had similar access times with USAA compared with conventional access (4.0 IQR 3.3-4.7 min vs. 5.2 IQR 3.4-8.6 min, p = .15). Venograms were less common with USAA than conventional access (2% vs. 33%, p < .0001). The 30-day complication rate was similar with USAA (n = 4/70, 6%) versus conventional (n = 3/30, 10%, p = .44). CONCLUSION: Although the success rate with USAA was high, there was a significant learning curve. Once experienced with the USAA technique, there is the potential for reduced complications without adding to the procedure duration.

Impact of ultra-conservative ICD programming in patients with LVADs: Avoiding potentially unnecessary tachy-therapies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) often tolerate ventricular arrhythmias (VA). We aim to assess the frequency and outcomes of ICD therapies averted by ultraconservative ICD programming (UCP) in LVAD patients. METHODS: This single center, retrospective cohort study included patients with LVADs and ICDs implanted from 2015 to 2019 that had UCP. The aim for UCP was to maximally delay VA treatments and maximize anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) prior to ICD shocks. VA events were reviewed after UCP and evaluated under prior conservative programming to assess for potentially averted events (that would have resulted in either ATP or defibrillation with prior programming). RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study with follow-up of median 16 ± 10.2 months after UCP. The median time from LVAD implantation to reprogramming was 7 days (IQR 5-9 days). Fourteen patients (28%) had potentially averted VA events that would have been treated with their prior ICD programming (82 total events, median two events per patient, IQR 1-10 events). Treated VA events occurred in 15 patients (30%). Eleven of the 14 patients with potentially averted VAs had treated events as well. Only one patient reported definitive symptoms of self-limited "dizziness" during a potentially averted event that did not result in hospitalization. No patients died of complications from or needed emergent care/hospitalization due a potentially averted VA. CONCLUSIONS: UCP in LVAD patients likely prevented unnecessary VA treatments in many patients with minimal reported symptoms during these potentially averted events. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Electromagnetic interference from left ventricular assist devices detected in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

INTRODUCTION: Electromagnetic interference (EMI) from left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can cause implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) oversensing. We sought to assess the frequency of inappropriate shocks/oversensing due to LVAD-related EMI and prospectively compare integrated (IB) versus dedicated bipolar (DB) sensing in patients with LVADs. METHODS: Single-center study in LVAD patients with Medtronic or Abbott ICDs between September 2017 and March 2020. We excluded patients that were pacemaker dependent. Measurements were obtained of IB and DB sensing and noise to calculate a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Device checks were reviewed to assess appropriate and inappropriate sensing events. RESULTS: Forty patients (age 52 ± 14 years, 75% men, 38% ischemic cardiomyopathy) were included with the median time between LVAD implantation and enrollment of 6.7 months (2.3, 11.4 months). LVAD subtypes included: HeartWare (n = 22, 55%), Heartmate II (n = 10, 25%), and Heartmate III (n = 8, 20%). Over a follow-up duration of 21.6 ± 12.9 months after LVAD implantation, 5% of patients (n = 2) had oversensing of EMI from the LVAD (both with HeartWare LVADs and Abbott ICDs) at 4 days and 10.8 months after LVAD implantation. Both patients underwent adjustment of ventricular sensing with resolution of oversensing and no further events over 5 and 15 months of further follow-up. The SNR was similar between IB and DB sensing (50 [29-67] and 57 [41-69], p = 0.89). CONCLUSION: ICD oversensing of EMI from LVADs is infrequent and can be managed with reprogramming the sensitivity. There was no significant difference in the R-wave SNR with IB versus DB ICD leads.

Five years of keeping a watch on the left atrial appendage-how has the WATCHMAN fared?

Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a promising site-directed therapy for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) who are ineligible or contraindicated for long-term oral anticoagulation. A variety of LAAC modalities are available, including percutaneous endocardial occluder devices such as WATCHMANTM (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA, USA), and an ever-increasing body of evidence is helping to define the optimal use of each technique. Similarly increased experience with LAAC has revealed challenges such as device-related thrombi and peri-device leaks for which the long-term significance and appropriate management are areas of active investigation. We review the evolution and long-term outcomes with the WATCHMANTM device with particular emphasis on the nuances of its use and its role in the broader landscape of appendageology.

Study of spatial relationship of phrenic nerves with cardiac structures relevant to electrophysiologic interventions.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation with catheter ablation in treating atrial fibrillation carries the risk of injury to phrenic nerve (PN). Left PN (LPN) stimulation continues to be one of the common complications of transvenous left ventricular lead placement during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 30 formalin-fixed cadavers, spatial relationship of PNs with PV ostia, left atrial appendage (LAA), and cardiac veins was observed. Segmental location of LPN and cardiac vein crossover was also noted. Right and left PNs coursed abutting the ostium of right superior and left superior PVs in five (16.6%) and one (3.33%) cases, respectively. LPN coursed along the lateral surface of LAA in 20 (66.66%) cases and behind LAA in one (3.33%) case. Out of 18 (60%) cases having two cardiac veins draining free wall of left ventricle (LV) and suitable for CRT lead placement, both cardiac veins were crossed by LPN in two (6.66%) cases. LPN-cardiac vein crossover was located in midlateral segment in 10 (33.3%) cases; mid posterolateral segment in five (16.7%) cases; apical lateral segment and apical posterolateral segment in three (10.0%) cases each. CONCLUSION: PN is highly susceptible to either injury during catheter ablation or stimulation with LV pacing in certain critical locations. Detailed knowledge of spatial relationship of PNs with cardiac structures could help minimize inadvertent complications during these transcatheter electrophysiological procedures.

In-hospital complications associated with catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in the United States between 2000 and 2010: analysis of 93 801 procedures.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation ablation has made tremendous progress with respect to innovation, efficacy, and safety. However, limited data exist regarding the burden and trends in adverse outcomes arising from this procedure. The aim of our study was to examine the frequency of adverse events attributable to atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and the influence of operator and hospital volume on outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: With the use of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified AF patients treated with catheter ablation. We investigated common complications including cardiac perforation and tamponade, pneumothorax, stroke, transient ischemic attack, vascular access complications (hemorrhage/hematoma, vascular complications requiring surgical repair, and accidental arterial puncture), and in-hospital death described with AF ablation, and we defined these complications by using validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. An estimated 93,801 AF ablations were performed from 2000 to 2010. The overall frequency of complications was 6.29% with combined cardiac complications (2.54%) being the most frequent. Cardiac complications were followed by vascular complications (1.53%), respiratory complications (1.3%), and neurological complications (1.02%). The in-hospital mortality was 0.46%. Annual operator (<25 procedures) and hospital volume (<50 procedures) were significantly associated with adverse outcomes. There was a small (nonsignificant) rise in overall complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: The overall complication rate was 6.29% in patients undergoing AF ablation. There was a significant association between operator and hospital volume and adverse outcomes. This suggests a need for future research into identifying the safety measures in AF ablations and instituting appropriate interventions to improve overall AF ablation outcomes.