Sudden cardiac death after implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker: a case report illustrating that not always less is more.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms and survival in selected patients with systolic heart failure and ventricular conduction delay. In subjects without prior life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia, clinicians have to select between implanting a CRT pacemaker (CRT-P) or a more complex device with additional defibrillator capability (CRT-D). This individual decision can be challenging in light of the available evidence and the potential risks and benefits. CASE SUMMARY: A 76-year-old male with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, heart failure New York Heart Association Class III, left bundle branch block (QRS duration 185 ms) and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% despite optimal medical therapy was indicated for CRT. In light of the patient characteristics and clinical condition, a CRT-P device was implanted. No complication occurred, and the patient was discharged after an appropriate device function was confirmed. Despite the clinical improvement, he died suddenly without prior symptoms approximately 2 months thereafter. Post-mortem device interrogation provided no evidence for device malfunction and confirmed sudden cardiac death (SCD) due to spontaneous ventricular fibrillation. DISCUSSION: Patients indicated for CRT often have overlapping internal cardioverter defibrillator indication for the primary prevention of SCD. By weighing individual risks and potential benefits, clinicians have to decide whether to implant a CRT-P (less is more) or a more complex and costly CRT-D device. Despite careful consideration of patient characteristics and clinical conditions, however, SCD can occur in subjects categorized as low risk and implanted with a CRT-P. More data from randomized clinical trials are needed to better support physicians in the often challenging process of selecting the most appropriate device for CRT.

[Safety and efficiency of interventional electrophysiology utilizing the German "Belegarztsystem"]. / Effizienz und Sicherheit einer interventionellen Elektrophysiologie im kooperativen Belegarztsystem.

INTRODUCTION: Electrophysiology study (EPS) and catheter ablation (abl.), in particular for atrial fibrillation, are increasingly performed in Germany. Therefore, measures and steps to ensure quality assurance are indicated. Most of the procedures are performed by physicians employed by hospitals; however, some are also carried out by attending cardiologists on contract in private practice, applying the so-called Belegarztsystem. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficiency of an interventional electrophysiology performed in a German Belegarztsystem. METHODS: Based on a prospective registry, we analyzed procedure-related data from 1400 consecutive EPS/abl. performed at our center between 2014 and 2018. One-year follow-up data (arrhythmia recurrences, complications, deaths) were collected for all procedures carried out during the first 2 years. RESULTS: In the total study cohort, no periprocedural death occurred, and there was a low cumulative incidence of groin complications (0.9%). The most common procedure (n = 772) was complex ablation for atrial fibrillation/flutter (55%). In this group, the success rate was 98% (acute) and 65% (1 year), and the cumulative rate of complications was 5.0% (transient ischemic attack/stroke 0.1%, pericardial tamponade 0.4%, relevant pericarditis/pericardial effusion 1.1%, groin complication 1.5%, other 1.9%). For the other procedures, rates for success and complications were comparable, and procedure times and x­ray doses tended to be lower in our analysis as compared to prior reports. CONCLUSION: Interventional electrophysiology, carried out by experienced operators and qualified staff, can be performed safely and effectively by attending physicians in a Belegarztsystem.

Present criteria for prophylactic ICD implantation: Insights from the EU-CERT-ICD (Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in EUrope) project.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. It is urgently needed to better identify patients who benefit from prophylactic ICD therapy. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD) completed in 2019 will assess this issue. SUMMARY: The EU-CERT-ICD is a prospective investigator-initiated non-randomized, controlled, multicenter observational cohort study done in 44 centers across 15 European countries. A total of 2327 patients with heart failure due to ischemic heart disease or dilated cardiomyopathy indicated for primary prophylactic ICD implantation were recruited between 2014 and 2018 (>1500 patients at first ICD implantation, >750 patients non-randomized non-ICD control group). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and first appropriate shock was co-primary endpoint. At baseline, all patients underwent 12­lead ECG and Holter-ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. The EU-CERT-ICD data will provide much needed information on the survival benefit of preventive ICD therapy and expand on previous prospective risk stratification studies which showed very good applicability of clinical parameters and advanced risk stratifiers in order to define patient subgroups with above or below average ICD benefit. CONCLUSION: The EU-CERT-ICD study will provide new and current data about effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. The study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical risk markers in general, and advanced ECG risk markers in particular.

Morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and obstructive sleep apnoea: results from the DIAST-CHF cohort.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Aim of the study was to investigate the association between obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a cohort of patients with cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: In this prospective study, 378 patients of the DIAST-CHF cohort were screened for OSA by home polygraphy. Inclusion criteria were risk factors for diastolic heart failure, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atherosclerotic disease, or history of chronic heart failure. Patients were followed up after 1, 2, 5, 9 and 10 years for the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE and MACCE). RESULTS: 344 patients were included in the analysis, of which 60% were diagnosed with OSA (apnoea-hypopnoea index ≥5/h). Overall mortality was higher in the OSA group (14.9% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.007), but significance disappeared after adjustment for age and sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-4.16, p = 0.12). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of MACE or MACCE in patients with OSA compared to those without OSA (MACE: 31% vs. 30%; p = 0.61; MACCE: 32% vs. 30%; p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: We did not find evidence of an adverse effect of OSA on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a cohort of patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Reverse left ventricular structural remodeling after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with preserved left ventricular function: Insights from cardiovascular magnetic resonance native T1 mapping.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) improves left ventricular (LV) function in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, suggestive of underlying arrhythmia-induced adverse remodeling. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether arrhythmia-induced LV remodeling occurs in patients with AF and preserved LV systolic function and to assess whether this remodeling is reversible after restoration of sinus rhythm by catheter ablation. METHODS: Forty-three patients with AF and preserved LV systolic function (LV ejection fraction 62% ± 7%) underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging before catheter ablation including native T1 mapping using a modified Look-Locker inversion recovery sequence. Twenty-five patients underwent follow-up CMR 3 months after catheter ablation. Twenty-two matched controls without AF underwent the same CMR protocol. RESULTS: Patients with AF had higher baseline LV native T1 values than did controls (1296 ± 55 ms vs 1243 ± 55 ms; P < .01). During a median follow-up of 9 months (interquartile range 4-14 months), 17 patients (40%) experienced AF recurrence. No differences in baseline T1 values were observed between patients with and without AF recurrence. There was a significant decrease in native T1 values in patients with successful restoration of sinus rhythm after catheter ablation at 3 months of follow-up CMR (1300 ± 45 ms vs 1270 ± 55 ms; P < .01), while they remain unchanged in patients with AF recurrence (1303 ± 51 ms vs 1309 ± 31 ms; P = .64). CONCLUSION: These preliminary results suggest that subclinical arrhythmia-induced LV structural remodeling occurs in patients with AF and preserved LV systolic function. This remodeling might be reversible after catheter ablation with successful restoration of sinus rhythm as quantified noninvasively and gadolinium-free by CMR native T1 mapping.

Rationale and design of the EU-CERT-ICD prospective study: comparative effectiveness of prophylactic ICD implantation.

AIMS: The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EU-CERT-ICD is a prospective investigator-initiated non-randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non-randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality; the co-primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The EU-CERT-ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers.

Data on differential multivariable risk prediction of appropriate shock vs. competing mortality.

This data article features supplementary figures and tables related to the article "Differential Multivariable risk prediction of appropriate shock vs. competing mortality - a prospective cohort study to estimate benefits from implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy" (Bergau et al., 2018) [1]. The figures show the clinical study CONSORT graph (data that show the number of patients not-analyzable as well as a distribution of patients by outcomes) and the correlation scatter plot for risk scores of appropriate shock vs. mortality (data that show the calculated score values of the two scores plotted against each other). The tables show the results for the univariate Cox regressions for prediction of mortality and appropriate shock. For further information, please see Bergau et al. (2018) [1].

Differential multivariable risk prediction of appropriate shock versus competing mortality - A prospective cohort study to estimate benefits from ICD therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We prospectively investigated combinations of risk stratifiers including multiple EP diagnostics in a cohort study of ICD patients. METHODS: For 672 enrolled patients, we collected history, LVEF, EP study and T-wave alternans testing, 24-h Holter, NT-proBNP, and the eGFR. All-cause mortality and first appropriate ICD shock were predefined endpoints. RESULTS: The 635 patients included in the final analyses were 63 ±â€¯13 years old, 81% were male, LVEF averaged 40 ±â€¯14%, 20% were inducible at EP study, 63% had a primary prophylactic ICD. During follow-up over 4.3 ±â€¯1.5 years, 108 patients died (4.0% per year), and appropriate shock therapy occurred in n = 96 (3.9% per year). In multivariate regression, age (p < 0.001), LVEF (p < 0.001), NYHA functional class (p = 0.007), eGFR (p = 0.024), a history of atrial fibrillation (p = 0.011), and NT-pro-BNP (p = 0.002) were predictors of mortality. LVEF (p = 0.002), inducibility at EP study (p = 0.007), and secondary prophylaxis (p = 0.002) were identified as independent predictors of appropriate shocks. A high annualized risk of shocks of about 10% per year was prevalent in the upper quintile of the shock score. In contrast, a low annual risk of shocks (1.8% per year) was found in the lower two quintiles of the shock score. The lower two quintiles of the mortality score featured an annual mortality <0.6%. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective ICD patient cohort, a very good approximation of mortality versus arrhythmic risk was possible using a multivariable diagnostic strategy. EP stimulation is the best test to assess risk of arrhythmias resulting in ICD shocks.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Cardiac Contractility Modulation.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to confirm a subgroup analysis of the prior FIX-HF-5 (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure) study showing that cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improved exercise tolerance (ET) and quality of life in patients with ejection fractions between 25% and 45%. BACKGROUND: CCM therapy for New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III and IV heart failure (HF) patients consists of nonexcitatory electrical signals delivered to the heart during the absolute refractory period. METHODS: A total of 160 patients with NYHA functional class III or IV symptoms, QRS duration <130 ms, and ejection fraction ≥25% and ≤45% were randomized to continued medical therapy (control, n = 86) or CCM (treatment, n = 74, unblinded) for 24 weeks. Peak Vo2 (primary endpoint), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire, NYHA functional class, and 6-min hall walk were measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Bayesian repeated measures linear modeling was used for the primary endpoint analysis with 30% borrowing from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup. Safety was assessed by the percentage of patients free of device-related adverse events with a pre-specified lower bound of 70%. RESULTS: The difference in peak Vo2 between groups was 0.84 (95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.123 to 1.552) ml O2/kg/min, satisfying the primary endpoint. Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire (p < 0.001), NYHA functional class (p < 0.001), and 6-min hall walk (p = 0.02) were all better in the treatment versus control group. There were 7 device-related events, yielding a lower bound of 80% of patients free of events, satisfying the primary safety endpoint. The composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations was reduced from 10.8% to 2.9% (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: CCM is safe, improves exercise tolerance and quality of life in the specified group of HF patients, and leads to fewer HF hospitalizations. (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure; NCT01381172).