Initiation and development of a percutaneous left atrial appendage closure programme: A French centre's experience and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure may be considered in selected patients with atrial fibrillation at significant risk of both thromboembolism and haemorrhage. AIMS: To report the experience of a tertiary French centre in percutaneous left atrial appendage closure and to discuss the outcomes compared with previously published series. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of all patients referred for percutaneous left atrial appendage closure between 2014 and 2020. Patient characteristics, procedural management and outcomes were reported, and the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events during follow-up were compared with historical incidence rates. RESULTS: Overall, 207 patients had left atrial appendage closure (mean age 75.3±8.6 years; 68% men; CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.8±1.5 ; HAS-BLED score 3.3±1.1), with a 97.6% (n=202) success rate. Twenty (9.7%) patients had at least one significant periprocedural complication, including six (2.9%) tamponades and three (1.4%) thromboembolisms. Periprocedural complication rates decreased from earlier to more recent periods (from 13% before 2018 to 5.9% after; P=0.07). During a mean follow-up of 23.1±20.2 months, 11 thromboembolic events were observed (2.8% per patient-year), a 72% risk reduction compared with the estimated theoretical annual risk. Conversely, 21 (10%) patients experienced bleeding during follow-up, with almost half of the events occurring during the first 3 months. After the first 3 months, the risk of major bleeding was 4.0% per patient-year, a 31% risk reduction compared with the expected estimated risk. CONCLUSION: This real-world evaluation emphasizes the feasibility and benefit of left atrial appendage closure, but also illustrates the need for multidisciplinary expertise to initiate and develop this activity.

Predictive value of premature atrial complex characteristics in pulmonary vein isolation for patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Premature atrial complexes from pulmonary veins are the main triggers for atrial fibrillation in the early stages. Thus, pulmonary vein isolation is the cornerstone of catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. However, the success rate remains perfectible. AIM: To assess whether premature atrial complex characteristics before catheter ablation can predict pulmonary vein isolation success in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We investigated consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from January 2013 to April 2017 in two French centres. Patients were included if they were treated with pulmonary vein isolation alone, and had 24-hour Holter electrocardiogram data before catheter ablation available and a follow-up of≥6 months. Catheter ablation success was defined as freedom from any sustained atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 3-month blanking period following catheter ablation. RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were included; all had an acute successful pulmonary vein isolation procedure, and 34 (33%) had atrial arrhythmia recurrences during a mean follow-up of 30±15 months (group 1). Patients in group 1 presented a longer history of atrial fibrillation (71.9±65.8 vs. 42.9±48.4 months; P=0.008) compared with those who were "free from arrhythmia" (group 2). Importantly, the daily number of premature atrial complexes before catheter ablation was significantly lower in group 1 (498±1413 vs. 1493±3366 in group 2; P=0.028). A daily premature atrial complex cut-off number of<670 predicted recurrences after pulmonary vein isolation (41.1% vs. 13.3%; sensitivity 88.2%; specificity 37.7%; area under the curve 0.635; P=0.017), and was the only independent predictive criterion in the multivariable analysis (4-fold increased risk). CONCLUSION: Preprocedural premature atrial complex analysis on 24-hour Holter electrocardiogram in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation may improve patient selection for pulmonary vein isolation.

Relation of Body Mass Index to Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure Implanted With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

We aimed at characterizing the impact of low and high body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery and define the predictors of mortality in patients with abnormal BMI (low/high). This study was conducted in 19 centers from 2006 to 2016. Patients were divided based on their baseline BMI into 3 groups of BMI: low (BMI ≤18.5 kg/m²); normal (BMI = 18.5 to 24.99 kg/m²) and high (BMI ≥25 kg/m²) (including overweight (BMI = 25 to 29.99 kg/m²), and obesity (BMI ≥30 Kg/m²)). Among 652 patients, 29 (4.4%), 279 (42.8%) and 344 (52.8%) had a low-, normal-, and high BMI, respectively. Patients with high BMI were significantly more likely men, with more co-morbidities and more history of ventricular/supra-ventricular arrhythmias before LVAD implantation. Patients with abnormal BMI had significantly lower survival than those with normal BMI. Notably, those with low BMI experienced the worst survival whereas overweight or obese patients had similar survival. Four predictors of mortality for LVAD candidates with abnormal BMI were defined: total bilirubin ≥16 µmol/L before LVAD, hypertension, destination therapy, and cardiac surgery with LVAD. Depending on the number of predictor per patients, those with abnormal BMI may be divided in 3 groups of 1-year mortality risk, i.e., low (0 to 1 predictor: 29% and 31%), intermediate (2 to 3 predictors, 51% and 52%, respectively), and high (4 predictors: 83%). In conclusion, LVAD recipients with abnormal BMI experience lower survival, especially underweight patients. Four predictors of mortality have been identified for LVAD population with abnormal BMI, differentiating those a low-, intermediate-, and high risks of death.

Radiotherapy in Patients With a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device.

Recently, the Heart Rhythm Society published recommendations on management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who require radiotherapy (RT). We aimed to report the experience of a teaching hospital, and discuss our practice in the context of recently published guidelines. We identified all consecutive CIED recipients (12,736 patients) who underwent RT between March 2006 and June 2017. Among them, 90 (1%) patients (78.2 ± 10 years, 73% male) had a CIED: 82 pacemakers and 8 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Two patients required CIED extraction prior to RT for ipsilateral breast cancer (no device replacement in 1 patient). Four patients (5%) were considered at high-risk, 35 (39%) at intermediate-risk, and the remaining 50 (56%) at low-risk for CIED dysfunction. Overall, only a minority of patients followed recommended local protocol during RT delivery (31%) and during follow-up (56%). CIED malfunction was detected in 5 patients (6%), mainly back-up mode resetting (80%), with 4 (including 3 pelvic cancer location) patients initially classified as being at intermediate-risk and 1 at low-risk. Four out of the 5 patients with CEID malfunction had received neutron producing beams. In conclusion, our findings underline the lack of rigorous monitoring of patients undergoing RT (though CIED malfunction appears to be rare and relatively benign in nature), and emphasize the interest of considering neutron producing beam for risk stratification as recommended in recent guidelines. Optimization of patient's management requires a close collaboration between both CIED clinicians and radiation oncologists, and more systematic remote CIED monitoring may be helpful.

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.

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.

Catheter ablation of electrical storm in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic strategies for electrical storm (ES) in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the acute and long-term results of ventricular tachycardia (VT) radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) as a treatment of ES in patients with ARVC. METHODS: This multicenter study retrospectively enrolled 23 consecutive patients with ARVC (mean age 43.6 ± 16.7 years; all men) who underwent 24 RFCA procedures for ES between 2003 and 2015. RESULTS: Thirteen patients (57%) had a previous VT RFCA procedure; 14 (61%) had right ventricular dysfunction and 7 (30%) left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 50%. The clinical VT was inducible in 19 procedures (79%). Epicardial ablation was performed in 4 procedures (17%). The median number of targeted VTs was 1 (range 1-6). Complete acute success (no VT inducible) was achieved in 11 procedures (46%) and partial acute success (clinical VT nor inducible) in 11 (46%). After a median follow-up of 3.9 years (range 1 month-10 years), ES recurred in 2 patients and end-stage heart failure developed in 4 (17%), leading to 1 death and 3 heart transplantations. At 1-year follow-up, the probability of freedom from VT recurrence was 75% and did not significantly predict long-term survival. At the last evaluation, 8 patients (35%) were free of non-ß-blocker antiarrhythmic drugs as compared with 1 (4%) at baseline (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation was efficient to prevent ES recurrence in patients with ARVC. However, these patients were at high risk of evolution toward ARVC-related heart failure that was not associated with VT recurrence.

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.

Automated external defibrillator use in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Current limitations and solutions.

Out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major public health issue, with a survival rate at hospital discharge that remains below 10% in most cities, despite huge investments in this domain. Early basic life support (BLS) and early defibrillation using automated external defibrillators (AEDs) stand as key elements for improving OHCA survival rate. Nevertheless, the use of AEDs in OHCA remains low, for a variety of reasons, including the number, accessibility and ease of locating AEDs, as well as bystanders' awareness of BLS manœuvres and of the need to use AEDs. Several measures have been proposed to improve the rate of AED use, including optimization of AED deployment strategies as well as the use of drones to bring the AEDs to the OHCA scene and of mobile applications to locate the nearest AED. If they are to be effective, these measures should be combined with large communication campaigns on OHCA, and wide-scale education of the public in BLS and AEDs, to reduce the burden of OHCA.

Spectrum and Outcome of Patients Who Have Undergone Implantation of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator After Aborted-Sudden Cardiac Arrest.

Most of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) secondary prevention studies have been published 2 decades ago. We aimed to describe a contemporary cohort of patients who have undergone implantation of an ICD after an aborted-sudden cardiac arrest (SCA). We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients referred to our centers between 2005 and 2013. Predictors of overall mortality or heart transplant were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of 250 patients (76.4% male, 48.7 ± 16.7 years) were included (mean follow-up = 49.6 ± 35 months). The presence of a structural heart disease (SHD) was considered as the primary cause of the aborted-SCA in 160 patients (64%). In 90 patients (36%), no SHD was observed, with patients much younger (40.9 ± 16.2 years vs 53.0 ± 15.5 years in the SHD group, p < 0.0001). The 5-year estimated rates of death or heart transplant were 14.3% and 5.2% in the group with and without SHD, respectively (hazard ratio = 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 15.6, p = 0.014). The 5-year estimated rates of appropriate ICD therapy in the ventricular fibrillation zone were 16.7% and 25.1% in patients without and with SHD (p = 0.24), respectively. Only left ventricular ejection fraction remained independently associated with mortality or heart transplant (hazard ratio = 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 0.97, p = 0.0004). Overall, 69 patients (27.6%) experienced at least 1 ICD-related complication. In conclusion, compared with secondary prevention pivotal studies, the current patients who have undergone implantation of an ICD after aborted-SCA are younger, with a high proportion of structurally normal hearts. Compared with patients without SHD, who depicted a relatively favorable outcome, patients with SHD present a fourfold higher risk of death during follow-up. Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction remains the major influencing factor.