Bradycardia risk stratification with implantable loop recorder after unexplained syncope.

BACKGROUND: An implantable loop recorder is an effective tool for diagnosing unexplained syncope. However, after a first episode in non-high-risk patients, the usefulness of implantable loop recorder implantation remains unclear. AIMS: To analyse relevant risk factors for significant bradycardia in order to identify patients who do or do not benefit from implantable loop recorder implantation. Also, to study whether implantable loop recorder implantation with remote monitoring is associated with less recurrence of traumatic syncope. METHODS: This was a retrospective monocentric study including patients with implantable loop recorder implantation after unexplained syncope, using remote monitoring and iterative consultations. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-seven patients were implanted for unexplained syncope. Significant bradycardia occurred in 53 patients (22.4%): 23 (43.4%) caused by paroxysmal atrioventricular block and 30 (56.6%) caused by sinus node dysfunction, leading to permanent pacemaker implantation in 48 patients. Compared with younger patients, there was a 3.46-fold increase (95% confidence interval 1.92-6.23; P<0.0001) in the risk of significant bradycardia in patients aged≥60 years. Based on multivariable analysis, only "typical syncope" was associated with significant bradycardia occurrence (hazard ratio 3.14, 95% confidence interval 1.75-5.65; P=0.0001). There was no recurrence of significant bradycardia with traumatic complications among patients implanted for traumatic syncope. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that: (1) implantable loop recorders identify more significant bradycardia in patients aged≥60 presenting with a first non-high-risk typical syncope, suggesting that an implantable loop recorder should be implanted after a first episode of unexplained syncope in such conditions; and (2) after traumatic syncope, implantable loop recorder implantation is safe, and is associated with little or no recurrence of traumatic syncope.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Patients With Congenital Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Very few data have been published on the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes associated with S-ICDs in patients with CHD. METHODS: This nationwide French cohort including all patients with an S-ICD was initiated in 2020 by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research. Characteristics at implantation and outcomes were analyzed in patients with CHD. RESULTS: From October 12, 2012, to December 31, 2019, among 4,924 patients receiving an S-ICD implant in 150 centers, 101 (2.1%) had CHD. Tetralogy of Fallot, univentricular heart, and dextro-transposition of the great arteries represented almost one-half of the population. Patients with CHD were significantly younger (age 37.1 ± 15.4 years vs 50.1 ± 14.9 years; P < 0.001), more frequently female (37.6% vs 23.0%; P < 0.001), more likely to receive an S-ICD for secondary prevention (72.3% vs 35.9%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have severe systolic dysfunction of the systemic ventricle (28.1% vs 53.1%; P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up period of 1.9 years, 16 (15.8%) patients with CHD received at least 1 appropriate shock, with all shocks successfully terminating the ventricular arrhythmia. The crude risk of appropriate S-ICD shock was twice as high in patients with CHD compared with non-CHD patients (annual incidences of 9.0% vs 4.4%; HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.4); however, this association was no longer significant after propensity matching (especially considering S-ICD indication, P = 0.12). The burden of all complications (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.1; P = 0.4) and inappropriate shocks (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; P = 0.9) was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, patients with CHD represented 2% of all S-ICD implantations. Our findings emphasize the effectiveness and safety of S-ICD in this particularly high-risk population. (S-ICD French Cohort Study [HONEST]; NCT05302115).

Dynamic changes in nocturnal heart rate predict short-term cardiovascular events in patients using the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: from the WEARIT-France cohort study.

AIMS: While elevated resting heart rate measured at a single point of time has been associated with cardiovascular outcomes, utility of continuous monitoring of nocturnal heart rate (NHR) has never been evaluated. We hypothesized that dynamic NHR changes may predict, at short term, impending cardiovascular events in patients equipped with a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The WEARIT-France prospective cohort study enrolled heart failure patients with WCD between 2014 and 2018. Night-time was defined as midnight to 7 a.m. NHR initial trajectories were classified into four categories based on mean NHR in the first week (High/Low) and NHR evolution over the second week (Up/Down) of WCD use. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization. A total of 1013 [61 (interquartile range, IQR 53-68) years, 16% women, left ventricular ejection fraction 26% (IQR 22-30)] were included. During a median WCD wear duration of 68 (IQR 44-90) days, 58 patients (6%) experienced 69 events. After considering potential confounders, High-Up NHR trajectory was significantly associated with the primary endpoint compared to Low-Down [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56-14.45, P < 0.001]. Additionally, a rise of >5 bpm in weekly average NHR from the preceding week was associated with 2.5 higher composite event risk (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.22-5.18, P = 0.012) as well as total mortality (HR 11.21, 95% CI 3.55-35.37, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular hospitalization (HR 2.70, 95% CI 1.51-4.82, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Dynamic monitoring of NHR may allow timely identification of impending cardiovascular events, with the potential for 'pre-emptive' action. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03319160.

CRT-D replacement strategy: results of the BioCONTINUE study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), the need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) back-up may be questionable at time of CRT-D replacement (REP) if ICD implant criteria are no longer met due to an improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and if no major ventricular arrhythmic event (VAE) occurred during the CRT-D lifetime. The aim of our study was to assess the relevance of ICD back-up and predictors of VAE after REP in primary prevention CRT-D patients. METHODS: The prospective, observational, international BioCONTINUE study investigated the rate of patients with at least 1 sustained VAE (sVAE) post-REP and searched for predictive factors of sVAE. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-six patients (70 ± 10 years, 77% men, mean LVEF 40.6 ± 12.6%) were followed for 28.4 ± 10.2 months. The rate of patients with sVAE was 8.3%, 10.3%, and 21.2% at 1, 2, and 4 years post-REP. Patients without persistent ICD indication at REP still had a sVAE rate of 5.7% (95% CI 2.3-11.5%) at 2 years. In multivariate analysis, predictive factors of subsequent sVAE were (i) persistent ICD indication (hazard ratio (HR) 3.6; 95% CI 1.6-8.3; p = 0.003); (ii) 64-72 years of age as compared to ≥ 79 years (HR 3.7; 95% CI 1.4-9.7; p = 0.008); and (iii) ischemic heart disease (HR 4.4; 95% CI 2.1-9.3; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of sVAE (21.2% at 4 years post-REP) depends on age, ischemic heart disease, and ICD indication at the time of REP. A non-trivial risk of sVAE remains in patients without persistent ICD indication. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02323503.

Outcome of Temporary Circulatory Support As a Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Temporary circulatory support (TCS) as a bridge-to-left ventricular assist device (BTL) in cardiogenic shock patients has been increasing, but limited data exists on this BTL strategy. We aimed at analyzing the outcome of BTL patients in a population of cardiogenic shock patients compared with those without TCS at the time of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery and identify predictors of postoperative mortality in this specific population. DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective observational study conducted in 19 centers from 2006 to 2016. SETTING: Nineteen French centers. PATIENTS: A total of 329 cardiogenic shock patients at the time of LVAD implantation were analyzed. Patients were divided in three groups: those under TCS at the time of LVAD implantation (n = 173), those with TCS removal before LVAD surgery (n = 24), and those who did not undergo a bridging strategy (n = 152). Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among the BTL group, 68 (39.3%), 18 (10.4%), and 15 (8.7%) patients were under venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Impella, and IABP support alone, and 72 patients (20.6%) were under multiple TCS support. BTL patients presented similar 30 days survival compared with the TCS removal and non-BTL groups. However, BTL group had a significantly longer ICU duration stay, with two-fold duration of mechanical ventilation time, but the three groups experienced similar postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis identified three independent predictors of mortality in the BTL group: combined surgery with LVAD, body mass index (BMI), and heart failure (HF) duration. BTL strategy was not an independent predictor of mortality in cardiogenic shock patients who underwent LVAD. CONCLUSIONS: BTL strategy is not associated with a lower survival among cardiogenic shock patients with LVAD implantation. Predictors of mortality are combined surgery with LVAD, higher BMI, and HF duration.

Adherence to diagnostic and therapeutic practice guidelines for suspected cardiac implantable electronic device infections.

BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines describing the optimal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for patients with suspected cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections, their management is often challenging. AIMS: To describe our diagnostic and therapeutic practices for suspected CIED infection, and to compare them with European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) guidelines. METHODS: Patients hospitalized in the tertiary care Nancy University Hospital for suspected CIED infection from 2014 to 2019 were included retrospectively. We applied the EHRA classification of CIED infection, and compared diagnostic and therapeutic management with the EHRA guidelines. RESULTS: Among 184 patients (mean age 72.3±12.4 years), 137 had a proven infection of the lead (by transthoracic echocardiography/transoesophageal echocardiography, 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography or positive culture of the lead) or an isolated pocket infection without proof of lead infection, and 47 had no proof of CIED infection. According to the EHRA classification, CIED infection was considered as definite in 145 patients and possible in 31 and was excluded in eight patients. Regarding recommended diagnostic procedures, blood cultures were performed in 90.8%, transthoracic echocardiography in 97.8%, transoesophageal echocardiography in 85.9%, 18F-fluorodesoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in 50.5% and imaging for embolisms in 78.3% of the patients. Compared with therapeutic recommendations for the 145 cases of definite CIED infection, device removal was performed in 96 patients (66.2%) and antibiotic therapy was prescribed in 130 (89.7%), with a duration equal to or longer than that recommended in 105 (72.4%) of the patients. CONCLUSION: This study underlines the difficulties in following theoretical guidelines in daily practice, where both technical and human considerations interfere with their strict appliance.

Characteristics and outcome of ambulatory heart failure patients receiving a left ventricular assist device.

AIMS: Despite regularly updated guidelines, there is still a delay in referral of advanced heart failure patients to mechanical circulatory support and transplant centres. We aimed to analyse characteristics and outcome of non-inotrope-dependent patients implanted with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The ASSIST-ICD registry collected LVAD data in 19 centres in France between February 2006 and December 2016. We used data of patients in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Classes 4-7. The primary endpoint was survival analysis. Predictors of mortality were searched with multivariable analyses. A total of 303 patients (mean age 61.0 ± 9.9 years, male sex 86.8%) were included in the present analysis. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy was the leading heart failure aetiology (64%), and bridge to transplantation was the main implantation strategy (56.1%). The overall likelihood of being alive while on LVAD support or having a transplant at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 66%, 61.7%, 58.7%, and 55.1%, respectively. Age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.05; P = 0.02], a concomitant procedure (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.52-3.53; P < 0.0001), and temporary mechanical right ventricular support during LVAD implantation (HR 2.94, 95% CI 1.49-5.77; P = 0.002) were the only independent variables associated with mortality. Heart failure medications before or after LVAD implantation were not associated with survival. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory heart failure patients displayed unsatisfactory survival rates after LVAD implantation. A better selection of patients who can benefit from LVAD may help improving outcomes.

Comparison of Outcomes and Mortality in Patients Having Left Ventricular Assist Device Implanted Early -vs- Late After Diagnosis of Cardiomyopathy.

LVAD implantation in patients with a recently diagnosed cardiomyopathy has been poorly investigated. This work aims at describing the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving a LVAD within 30 days following the diagnosis of cardiomyopathy. Patients from the ASSIST-ICD study was divided into recently and remotely diagnosed cardiomyopathy based on the time from initial diagnosis of cardiomyopathy to LVAD implantation using the cut point of 30 days. The primary end point of the study was all-cause mortality at 30-day and during follow-up. A total of 652 patients were included and followed during a median time of 9.1 (2.5 to 22.1) months. In this population, 117 (17.9%) had a recently diagnosed cardiomyopathy and had LVAD implantation after a median time of 15.0 (9.0 to 24.0) days following the diagnosis. This group of patients was significantly younger, with more ischemic cardiomyopathy, more sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) events at the time of the diagnosis and were more likely to receive temporary mechanical support before LVAD compared with the remotely diagnosed group. Postoperative in-hospital survival was similar in groups, but recently diagnosed patients had a better long-term survival after hospital discharge. SCA before LVAD and any cardiac surgery combined with LVAD implantation were identified as 2 independent predictors of postoperative mortality in recently diagnosed patients. In conclusion, rescue LVAD implantation for recently diagnosed severe cardiomyopathy is common in clinical practice. Such patients experience a relatively low postoperative mortality and have a better long-term survival compared with remotely diagnosed patients.

Predictors of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks and Prognostic Impact in Patients With Structural Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: In this study we aimed to assess long-term outcomes in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients with structural heart disease by focussing especially on shock incidence, predictors, and associated prognoses. METHODS: In this multicenter registry‒based study, we retrospectively included all patients who underwent S-ICD implantation at 3 tertiary centers. The prognostic impact of S-ICD shock was assessed with a composite outcome that included all-cause death and hospitalisation for heart failure. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients with underlying cardiomyopathy were included in the investigation. Using multivariable Fine and Gray regression models, secondary prevention, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), conditional shock threshold, and QRS duration appeared to be independent predictors of appropriate S-ICD shock occurrence. In the multivariate Cox regression model adjusted for age, baseline LVEF, underlying cardiomyopathy subtype, New York Heart Association class, and appropriate shocks were significantly associated with increased composite prognostic outcome risk (hazard ratio [HR], 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-5.65; P = 0.014), whereas inappropriate shocks were not (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.75-4.48; P = 0.18). The analysis of each component of the composite prognostic outcome highlighted that the occurrence of appropriate shocks was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.26-7.58; P = 0.013) and a trend for mortality (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16; P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate S-ICD shocks were associated with a 3-fold increase in acute heart failure admission, whereas inappropriate shocks were not. Conditional shock threshold programming is an independent predictor of S-ICD shock, and its prognostic impact should be investigated further in patients with structural heart disease.

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in patients with a transient risk of sudden cardiac death: the WEARIT-France cohort study.

AIMS: We aimed to provide contemporary real-world data on wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) use, not only in terms of effectiveness and safety but also compliance and acceptability. METHODS AND RESULTS: Across 88 French centres, the WEARIT-France study enrolled retrospectively patients who used the WCD between May 2014 and December 2016, and prospectively all patients equipped for WCD therapy between January 2017 and March 2018. All patients received systematic education session through a standardized programme across France at the time of initiation of WCD therapy and were systematically enrolled in the LifeVest Network remote services. Overall, 1157 patients were included (mean age 60 ± 12 years, 16% women; 46% prospectively): 82.1% with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, 10.3% after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator explant, and 7.6% before heart transplantation. Median WCD usage period was 62 (37-97) days. Median daily wear time of WCD was 23.4 (22.2-23.8) h. In multivariate analysis, younger age was associated with lower compliance [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-0.99, P < 0.01]. A total of 18 participants (1.6%) received at least one appropriate shock, giving an incidence of appropriate therapy of 7.2 per 100 patient-years. Patient-response button allowed the shock to be aborted in 35.7% of well-tolerated sustained ventricular arrhythmias and in 95.4% of inappropriate ventricular arrhythmia detection, finally resulting in an inappropriate therapy in eight patients (0.7%). CONCLUSION: Our real-life findings reinforce previous studies on the efficacy and safety of the WCD in the setting of transient high-risk group in selected patients. Moreover, they emphasize the fact that when prescribed appropriately, in concert with adequate patient education and dedicated follow-up using specific remote monitoring system, compliance with WCD is high and the device well-tolerated by the patient.

Septuagenarian population has similar survival and outcomes to younger patients after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation may be an attractive alternative therapeutic option for elderly patients with heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation. AIM: We aimed to describe the characteristics and outcomes of elderly patients (i.e. aged≥70 years) receiving an LVAD. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in 19 centres between 2006 and 2016. Patients were divided into two groups-younger (aged<70 years) and elderly (aged≥70 years), based on age at time of LVAD implantation. RESULTS: A total of 652 patients were included in the final analysis, and 74 patients (11.3%) were aged≥70 years at the time of LVAD implantation (maximal age 77.6 years). The proportion of elderly patients receiving an LVAD each year was constant, with a median of 10.6% (interquartile range 8.0-15.4%) per year, and all were implanted as destination therapy. Elderly and younger patients had similar durations of hospitalization in intensive care units and total lengths of hospital stays. Both age groups experienced similar rates of LVAD-related complications (i.e. stroke, bleeding, driveline infection and LVAD exchange), and the occurrence of LVAD complications did not impact survival in the elderly group compared with the younger group. Lastly, when compared with younger patients implanted as destination therapy, the elderly group also exhibited similar mid-term survival. CONCLUSION: This work strongly suggests that selected elderly adults can be scheduled for LVAD implantation.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Extraction: First Multicenter French Experience.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this multicenter study was to characterize the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) lead extraction procedures. BACKGROUND: S-ICDs have been developed to limit lead-related complications inherent to transvenous ICD devices. To date, no study has specifically investigated the safety and feasibility of S-ICD lead extraction procedures. METHODS: Patients requiring S-ICD lead extraction between February 1, 2014, and February 28, 2019, were retrospectively included in 10 centers. The primary endpoint of the study was procedural success, defined as the removal of all the lead and lead material from the subcutaneous space. Secondary endpoints included procedural complications and the need for specific extraction tools. RESULTS: S-ICD lead extraction procedures were performed in 32 patients (mean age 45.7 ± 13.8 years, 75.0% men, 65.6% in primary prevention). The median time from S-ICD lead implantation was 9.3 months (5.4 to 17.5 months). The primary endpoint, that is, complete removal of the material, was achieved in 96.9% of the patients, and only 1 procedural failure occurred (3.1%). Simple traction of the S-ICD lead was successful in 19 patients (59.4%), whereas 3 patients (9.4%) needed an additional incision and 9 patients (28.1%) required mechanical sheath to remove lead adhesions around the coil. No procedure-related complications occurred. Patients with successful simple traction extraction were implanted more recently (7.1 months [2.8 to 12.2 months] vs. 16.5 months [7.5 to 20.8 months]; p = 0.04) and had less prior history of sternotomy (2 [10.5%] vs. 5 [38.5%] patients; p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: S-ICD lead extraction is an efficient and safe procedure, but may require some specific tools like mechanical sheath, specifically when fibrotic adhesions developed around the parasternal coil.

Implantable cardiac defibrillator leads dysfunction after LVAD implantation.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead dysfunction has been reported after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in limited single-center studies. We aimed at describing and characterizing the incidence of ICD lead parameters dysfunction after LVAD implantation. METHODS: Among the 652 patients enrolled in the ASSIST-ICD study, only patients with an ICD prior to LVAD were included (n = 401). ICD lead parameters dysfunction following LVAD implantation is defined as follows: (a) >50% decrease in sensing threshold, (b) pacing lead impedance increase/decrease by >100Ω, and (c) >50% increase in pacing threshold. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients with an ICD prior to LVAD had available ICD interrogation reports prior and after LVAD. A total of 67 (55%) patients exhibited at least one significant lead dysfunction: 17 (15%) exhibited >50% decrease in right ventricular (RV) sensing, 51 (42%) had >100 Ω increase/decrease in RV pacing impedance, and 24 (20%) experienced >50% increase in RV pacing threshold. A total of 52 patients experienced ventricular arrhythmia during follow-up and all were successfully detected and treated by the device. All lead dysfunction could be managed conservatively. CONCLUSION: More than 50% of LVAD-recipients may experience >1 significant change in lead parameters but none had severe clinical consequences.

Current results of left ventricular assist device therapy in France: the ASSIST-ICD registry.

OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to provide a picture of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) activity in France between 2007 and 2016 based on the multicentric ASSIST-ICD registry. METHODS: We retrospectively collected 136 variables including in-hospital data, follow-up survival rates and adverse events from 671 LVAD recipients at 20 out of 24 LVAD implant centres in France. The average follow-up time was 1.2 years (standard deviation: 1.4); the total follow-up time was 807.5 patient-years. RESULTS: The included devices were the HeartMate II®, HeartWare LVAS® or Jarvik 2000®. The overall likelihood of being alive while on LVAD support or having a transplant (primary end point) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years postimplantation was 65.2%, 59.7%, 55.9% and 47.7%, respectively, given a cumulative incidence of 29.2% of receiving a transplant at year 5. At implantation, 21.5% of patients were on extracorporeal life support. The overall rate of cardiogenic shock at implantation was 53%. The major complications were driveline infection (26.1%), pump pocket or cannula infection (12.6%), LVAD thrombosis (12.2%), ischaemic (12.8%) or haemorrhagic stroke (5.4%; all strokes 18.2%), non-cerebral haemorrhage (9.1%) and LVAD exchange (5.2%). The primary end point (survival) was stratified by age at surgery and by the type of device used, with inference from baseline profiles. The primary end point combined with an absence of complications (secondary end point) was also stratified by device type. CONCLUSIONS: The ASSIST-ICD registry provides a real-life picture of LVAD use in 20 of the 24 implant centres in France. Despite older average age and a higher proportion of patients chosen for destination therapy, survival rates improved compared to those in previous national registry results. This LVAD registry contrasts with other international registries because patients with implants have more severe disease, and the national policy for graft attribution is distinct. We recommend referring patients for LVAD earlier and suggest a discussion of the optimal timing of a transplant for bridged patients (more dismal results after the second year of support?).

Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Patients With Uncommon Etiology Cardiomyopathy.

The impact of uncommon etiology cardiomyopathies on Left-ventricular assist device (LVAD)-recipient outcomes is not very well known. This study aimed to characterize patients with uncommon cardiomyopathy etiologies and examine the outcomes between uncommon and ischemic/idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. This observational study was conducted in 19 centers between 2006 and 2016. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with uncommon etiology were compared to patients with idiopathic dilated/ischemic cardiomyopathies. Among 652 LVAD-recipients included, a total of 590 (90.5%) patients were classified as ischemic/idiopathic and 62 (9.5%) patients were classified in the "uncommon etiologies" group. Main uncommon etiologies were: hypertrophic (n = 12(19%)); cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) (n = 12(19%)); myocarditis (n = 11(18%)); valvulopathy (n = 9(15%)) and others (n = 18(29%)). Patients with uncommon etiologies were significantly younger with more female and presented less co-morbidities. Additionally, patients with uncommon cardiomyopathies were less implanted as destination therapy compared with ischemic/idiopathic group (29% vs 38.8%). During a follow-up period of 9.1 months, both groups experienced similar survival. However, subgroup of hypertrophic/valvular cardiomyopathies and CTRCD had significantly higher mortality compared to the ischemic/idiopathic or myocarditis/others cardiomyopathies. Conversely, patients with myocarditis/others etiologies experienced a better survival. Indeed, the 12-months survival in the myocarditis/others; ischemic/idiopathic and hypertrophic/CTRCD/valvulopathy group were 77%; 65%, and 46% respectively. In conclusion, LVAD-recipients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease and CTRCD experienced the higher mortality rate.

Early Ventricular Arrhythmias After LVAD Implantation Is the Strongest Predictor of 30-Day Post-Operative Mortality.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate incidence, clinical significance, and predictors of early ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. BACKGROUND: LVAD implantation is increasingly used in patients with end-stage heart failure. Early VAs may occur during the 30-day post-operative period, but many questions remain unanswered regarding their incidence and clinical impact. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in 19 centers between 2006 and 2016. Early VAs were defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation occurring <30 days post-LVAD implantation and requiring appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, external electrical shock, or medical therapy. RESULTS: A total of 652 patients (median age: 59.8 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 20.7 ± 7.4%; HeartMate 2: 72.8%; HeartWare: 19.5%; Jarvik 2000: 7.7%) were included in the analysis. Early VAs occurred in 162 patients (24.8%), most frequently during the first week after LVAD implantation. Multivariable analysis identified history of VAs prior to LVAD and any combined surgery with LVAD as 2 predictors of early VAs. The occurrence of early VAs with electrical storm was the strongest predictor of 30-day post-operative mortality, associated with a 7-fold increase of 30-day mortality. However, in patients discharged alive from hospital, occurrence of early VAs did not influence long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: Early VAs are common after LVAD implantation and increase 30-day post-operative mortality, without affecting long-term survival. Further studies will be needed to analyze whether pre- or pre-operative ablation of VAs may improve post-operative outcomes. (Determination of Risk Factors of Ventricular Arrhythmias After Implantation of Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device [ASSIST-ICD]; NCT02873169).

Risk factors and prognostic impact of left ventricular assist device-associated infections.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated infections may be life-threatening and impact patients' outcome. We aimed to identify the characteristics, risk factors, and prognosis of LVAD-associated infections. METHODS: Patients included in the ASSIST-ICD study (19 centers) were enrolled. The main outcome was the occurrence of LVAD-associated infection (driveline infection, pocket infection, or pump/cannula infection) during follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 652 patients enrolled, 201 (30.1%) presented a total of 248 LVAD infections diagnosed 6.5 months after implantation, including 171 (26.2%), 51 (7.8%), and 26 (4.0%) percutaneous driveline infection, pocket infection, or pump/cannula infection, respectively. Patients with infections were aged 58.7 years, and most received HeartMate II (82.1%) or HeartWare (13.4%). Most patients (62%) had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) before LVAD, and 104 (16.0%) had ICD implantation, extraction, or replacement after the LVAD surgery. Main pathogens found among the 248 infections were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 113' 45.4%), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 61; 24.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 34; 13.7%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 13; 5.2%), and Candida species (n = 13; 5.2%). In multivariable analysis, HeartMate II (subhazard ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.36; P = .031) and ICD-related procedures post-LVAD (subhazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98; P = .031) were significantly associated with LVAD infections. Infections had no detrimental impact on survival. CONCLUSIONS: Left ventricular assist device-associated infections affect one-third of LVAD recipients, mostly related to skin pathogens and gram-negative bacilli, with increased risk with HeartMate II as compared with HeartWare, and in patients who required ICD-related procedures post-LVAD. This is a plea to better select patients needing ICD implantation/replacement after LVAD implantation.

Predictors and Clinical Impact of Late Ventricular Arrhythmias in Patients With Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, clinical impact, and predictors of late ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients aiming to clarify implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indications. BACKGROUND: The arrhythmic risk and need for ICD in patients implanted with an LVAD are not very well known. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in 19 centers between 2006 and 2016. Late VAs were defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation occurring >30 days post-LVAD implantation, without acute reversible cause and requiring appropriate ICD therapy, external electrical shock, or medical therapy. RESULTS: Among 659 LVAD recipients, 494 (median 58.9 years of age; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 20.7 ± 7.4%; 73.1% HeartMate II, 18.6% HeartWare, 8.3% Jarvik 2000) were discharged alive from hospital and included in the final analysis. Late VAs occurred in 133 (26.9%) patients. Multivariable analysis identified 6 independent predictors of late VAs: VAs before LVAD implantation, atrial fibrillation before LVAD implantation, idiopathic etiology of the cardiomyopathy, heart failure duration >12 months, early VAs (<30 days post-LVAD), and no angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors during follow-up. The "VT-LVAD score" was created, identifying 4 risk groups: low (score 0 to 1), intermediate (score 2 to 4), high (score 5 to 6), and very high (score 7 to 10). The rates of VAs at 1 year were 0.0%, 8.0%, 31.0% and 55.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Late VAs are common after LVAD implantation. The VT-LVAD score may help to identify patients at risk of late VAs and guide ICD indications in previously nonimplanted patients. (Determination of Risk Factors of Ventricular Arrhythmias [VAs] after implantation of continuous flow left ventricular assist device with continuous flow left ventricular assist device [CF-LVAD] [ASSIST-ICD]; NCT02873169).