Cryoballoon Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in a Patient with a Left Pneumonectomy.

Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) is the most important component of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) and can be achieved by radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation (CBA). The CBA system has shown excellent efficacy and safety in a number of clinical trials and is independent of the PV anatomy. However, pneumonectomy can significantly alter the anatomy posing a challenge to CBA. Few cases of PVI accomplished by CBA have been described in patients with lobectomy, but none in the pneumonectomy population. We describe a case of successful CBA for paroxysmal AF in a patient with a left total pneumonectomy.

Ventricular Fibrillation Cardiopulmonary Arrest Following Micra™ Leadless Pacemaker Implantation.

Leadless cardiac pacemakers such as the Micra™ transcatheter leadless pacing system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) are an alternative to traditional transvenous pacemakers. Implantation of leadless pacemakers, albeit safe, may be associated with complications, including cardiac tamponade; high capture thresholds; and, rarely, ventricular arrhythmias. We report a case of ventricular fibrillation arrest following the implantation of a Micra™ leadless pacemaker.

Body Piercing with a Metallic Tongue Stud Resulting in Ineffective Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Shocks: "Heart to Mouth".

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) provide circulatory support to patients with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Many such patients have a pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) at the time of their LVAD surgery. LVAD implantation can alter the ICD lead parameters, including R-wave sensing, right ventricular capture threshold, and impedance. These changes can in turn affect the ability of the ICD to successfully treat malignant ventricular arrhythmias. In most patients who present with ineffective ICD shocks, the failed shock is assumed to be secondary to the patient's severe cardiomyopathy. Especially, the role of physical examination in such patients is often minimized. In our patient, a thorough history-taking and history-guided physical examination led us to the root cause of the failed ICD shocks. Our patient was noted to have a metal tongue piercing, which was the likely cause of his ineffective ICD shocks. Our case highlights the importance of a comprehensive history-taking and physical examination.

Azygous Vein Coil Implantation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients: A Hands-on Approach.

Recently, there have been reports of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients presenting with multiple ineffective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks. In such patients, the placement of an azygous vein coil by providing an alternative anteroposterior trajectory of the electrical shock vector can enable successful defibrillation. This review discusses a hands-on approach to azygous vein coil implantation. Additionally, we compare our tools and technique to those that have been previously described by other operators. From 2018 to 2021, eight patients were identified who underwent azygous vein coil implantation at MedStar Washington Hospital Center using a specific technique and tools. Demographic and procedural data were obtained by a retrospective review of patient charts, procedure logs, fluoroscopy, and venography performed during coil implantation. The indication for azygous vein coil implantation was ineffective ICD shocks in seven patients. The presenting rhythm was ventricular fibrillation in six (75%) cases and sustained ventricular tachycardia in two (25%) cases. Using the approach described, we were able to successfully implant an azygous vein coil in all eight (100%) patients. There were no procedure-related complications. Postimplantation, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was successfully performed in six of eight (75%) patients. One patient failed DFT testing despite placement of an azygous vein coil. In another patient, DFT testing was not performed because the patient was in atrial fibrillation and was not systemically anticoagulated. In conclusion, the placement of an azygous vein coil in LVAD patients with failed ICD shocks using the tools and technique described in this report is safe and highly efficacious (successful in 100% of cases).

Successful implantation of a left ventricular lead in an anomalous coronary sinus.

We describe the case of a 56-year-old man who was referred for CRT implantation and found to have anomalous CS. Catheterization of the CS initially failed due to this anomaly. However, a single large posterior-lateral branch with diminutive CS in the atrioventricular groove allowed for successful implantation of the LV lead.

"Retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty" for obtaining venous access in patients with refractory venous obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with wire and catheter refractory venous occlusion are traditionally referred for pectoral transvenous lead extraction (TLE) to obtain venous access. TLE causes 1-2 mm circumferential mechanical or laser destruction of tissue surrounding the lead(s). This not only exposes the patient to the risk of major complications but also can damage nontargeted leads. We present a series of patients where retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty was used to obtain venous access in patients with refractory obstruction. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2021, we identified 17 patients where retained wire lead removal followed by fibroplasty was used to retain venous access. Demographic and procedural data were obtained by retrospective review of patient charts. RESULTS: We were able to successfully obtain venous access in all 17 patients in whom this technique was attempted. In two patients the target lead was less than or equal to 1 year old. In the remaining 15 patients, the average dwell time of the target lead(s) was 6 years. There were no procedure-related complications, and no changes in the parameters of other leads were noted. CONCLUSION: Retained wire femoral lead removal and fibroplasty is safe and highly efficacious at obtaining venous access in patients with refractory venous occlusion. If the target lead(s) is less than or equal to 1 year old, this technique can help obtain venous access at the time of the initial surgery, hence avoiding the need for TLE. Furthermore, in patients referred for TLE to obtain venous access, this technique by avoiding the use of TLE tools spares the patient of the associated risks.

The combination of coronary sinus ostial atresia/abnormalities and a small persistent left superior vena cava-Opportunity for left ventricular lead implantation and unrecognized source of thromboembolic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Coronary sinus (CS) ostial atresia/abnormalities prevent access to the CS from the right atrium (RA) for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation. Some patients with CS ostial abnormalities also have a small persistent left superior vena cava (sPLSVC). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe CS ostial abnormalities and sPLSVC as an opportunity for LV lead implantation and unrecognized source of stroke. METHODS: Twenty patients with CS ostial abnormalities and sPLSVC were identified. Clinical information, imaging methods, LV lead implantation techniques, and complications were summarized. RESULTS: Forty percent had at least 1 previously unsuccessful LV lead placement. In 70%, sPLSVC was identified by catheter manipulation and contrast injection in the left brachiocephalic vein, and in 30% by levophase CS venography. In 30%, sPLSVC was associated with drainage from the CS into the left atrium (LA). When associated with CS ostial abnormalities, the sPLSVC diameter averaged 5.6 ± 3 mm. sPLSVC was used for successful LV lead implantation in 90% of cases. In 80%, the LV lead was implanted down sPLSVC, and in 20%, sPLSVC was used to access the CS from the RA. Presumably because of unrecognized drainage from the CS to the LA, 1 patient had a stroke during implantation via sPLSVC. CONCLUSION: When CS ostial abnormalities prevent access to the CS from the RA, sPLSVC can be used to successfully implant LV leads. In some, the CS partially drains into the LA and stroke can occur spontaneously or during lead intervention. It is important to distinguish sPLSVC associated with CS ostial abnormalities from isolated PLSVC.

Paclitaxel coated balloon fibroplasty: A more effective treatment for chronic symptomatic lead/catheter related central venous obstruction?

Central venous occlusion is a common complication following transvenous lead or therapeutic catheter placement that can present either acutely or chronically.

Interventional device implantation, Part I: Basic techniques to avoid complications: A hands-on approach.

INTRODUCTION: The essence of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is biventricular (BiV) pacing, which involves implanting pacing leads in both the right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV). Unlike traditional RV pacing, many hurdles lie ahead of successful LV lead implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this review, we first highlight the importance of optimizing the patient and the tools. Next, we describe the CRT tools developed over several decades, to facilitate successful implantation. Thereafter, we provide a streamlined step-by-step summary of the basic BiV implantation procedure. Lastly, we discuss some commonly encountered challenges during implantation and the techniques to tackle them. CONCLUSION: A systematic approach to every step of the implantation process can reduce procedure time, decrease patient exposure to radiation and contrast, and minimize complications. The use of right tools and techniques can enable all implanters to become more successful with BiV implantation.

Ineffective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks among patients on continuous left ventricular assist device support: Clinical characteristics and management.

BACKGROUND: Placement of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has been described to compromise implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) defibrillation threshold (DFT). Elevated DFT will have negative consequences and increases the risk of ineffective ICD shocks, morbidity, and mortality. DFT testing is not routinely performed in clinical practice, despite this fact. OBJECTIVE: We describe the clinical characteristics of 7 LVAD patients who presented with multiple ineffective ICD shocks, along with the management strategy in such patients. METHODS: Seven patients (5 male, mean age 52.2 ± 9 years, 85.7% nonischemic cardiomyopathy) with an ICD in situ who progressed to NYHA class IV, ACC/AHA stage D chronic systolic congestive heart failure who underwent successful LVAD implantation presented to our institution in the setting of ventricular tachyarrhythmia and ineffective ICD shocks. Six patients underwent implantation of azygos and subclavian coils with subsequent DFT testing. The remaining patient was made comfort care. RESULTS: Five patients had successful DFT testing with azygos (n = 4) and subclavian (n = 1) defibrillation coil implantation. One patient had unsuccessful DFT testing despite evaluation of multiple shock vectors. There were no major or minor vascular complications in any of the cases. There were no procedural-related deaths. CONCLUSION: This case series highlights the need for a systematic approach to management of ICDs and DFT testing in LVAD patients. The addition of new shock vectors with azygos and subclavian coil implantation may reduce DFT, shock burden, morbidity, and mortality.

Multicenter prospective observational long-term follow-up study of endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy using the Jurdham procedure.

BACKGROUND: Endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (eCRT) avoids the limitations and failures of coronary sinus (CS) resynchronization. However, data regarding long-term outcomes are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report the long-term outcome of eCRT performed using the Jurdham procedure in a real-world setting. METHODS: eCRT was performed in patients who failed a CS implant or failed to respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), or in selected patients requiring lifelong oral anticoagulation (OAC). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA FC), and left ventricular stimulation parameters were assessed during long-term follow-up (FU). RESULTS: From August 2009 to March 2018, the Jurdham procedure was performed in 88 patients at 15 centers in 8 countries, with FU of 32.88 ± 61.52 months (range 0-88 months; 196 patient-years). NYHA FC improved from 2.9 preimplant to 1.3 during FU. LVEF increased <10 percentage points from baseline in 7% of patients, between 10 and 20 percentage points in 11% of patients, and >20 percentage points in 82% of patients. All-cause mortality at 60 months was 30.5%. Three transient ischemic attacks (1.53 per 100 patient-years) and 6 strokes (3.06 per 100 patient-years) occurred. Of the 6 patients with stroke, 4 (66%) had almost complete recovery. CONCLUSION: eCRT using the Jurdham procedure is an effective and safe technique in anticoagulated patients. This approach may be an attractive option for patients with failed CS implants or nonresponders to CS CRT. In addition, it might be a reasonable approach as a first option for treatment of patients requiring lifelong OAC.

Challenging Implants Require Tools and Techniques Not Tips and Tricks.

The EP Clinics article "How to implant CRT devices in a busy clinical practice" describes the basics of the "interventional telescoping technique". This article focuses on specific circumstances where the tools and techniques are invaluable: (1) inability to locate the coronary sinus (CS), (2) inability to advance a catheter into the CS, (3) patients with CS atresia, (4) unstable CS access, (4) angulated target veins, (5) small and/or tortuous target veins, (6) target veins into which a wire cannot be advanced, (7) target veins with a drain pipe takeoff, (8) target veins close to the CS ostium.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: overcoming anatomical challenges / Terapia de ressincronização cardíaca: superando desafios anatômicos

A anatomia venosa coronária pode dificultar ou impossibilitar o implante com sucesso de um dispositivo de terapia de ressincronização cardíaca. O objetivo desta revisão foi o de apresentar uma abordagem interventiva com muitas técnicas e ferramentas que precisam ser aprendidas e conhecidas para melhorar os resultados desta terapia e a saúde dos pacientes

Coronary venous anatomy can make successful implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy device difficult or impossible. The aim of this review is introduce an interventional approach with many techniques and tools that are needed to be learned and known in order to improve the results of this therapy and the health of patients

Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients With Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators: The RAID Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) remain a challenging problem in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether ranolazine administration decreases the likelihood of VT, VF, or death in patients with an ICD. METHODS: This was double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which high-risk ICD patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy were randomized to 1,000 mg ranolazine twice a day or placebo. The primary endpoint was VT or VF requiring appropriate ICD therapy or death, whichever occurred first. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included ICD shock for VT, VF, or death and recurrent VT or VF requiring ICD therapy. RESULTS: Among 1,012 ICD patients (510 randomized to ranolazine and 502 to placebo) the mean age was 64 ± 10 years and 18% were women. During 28 ± 16 months of follow-up there were 372 (37%) patients with primary endpoint, 270 (27%) patients with VT or VF, and 148 (15%) deaths. The blinded study drug was discontinued in 199 (39.6%) patients receiving placebo and in 253 (49.6%) patients receiving ranolazine (p = 0.001). The hazard ratio for ranolazine versus placebo was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.67 to 1.05; p = 0.117) for VT, VF, or death. In a pre-specified secondary analysis, patients randomized to ranolazine had a marginally significant lower risk of ICD therapies for recurrent VT or VF (hazard ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.028). There were no other significant treatment effects in other pre-specified secondary analyses, which included individual components of the primary endpoint, inappropriate shocks, cardiac hospitalizations, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ICD patients, treatment with ranolazine did not significantly reduce the incidence of the first VT or VF, or death. However, the study was underpowered to detect a difference in the primary endpoint. In prespecified secondary endpoint analyses, ranolazine administration was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent VT or VF requiring ICD therapy without evidence for increased mortality. (Ranolazine Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Trial [RAID]; NCT01215253).

Venous System Interventions for Device Implantation.

Subclavian obstruction is common after lead implantation and the need to add or replace a lead is increasing. Subclavian venoplasty (SV) is a safe and effective option for venous occlusion. Peripheral venography overestimates the severity of the obstruction. A wire can usually be advanced into the central circulation for SV. Compared with dilators, SV improves the quality of venous access, providing unrestricted catheter manipulation for His bundle pacing and left ventricular lead implantation. SV preserves venous access and reduces lead burden. SV can easily be added to the implanting physicians lead management options.

Rationale and design of a randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy: The MPP Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing. METHODS: A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSION: This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders.

Safety and Efficacy of Multipoint Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The MultiPoint Pacing Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial assessed the safety and efficacy of pacing 2 left ventricular sites with a quadripolar lead in patients with heart failure indicated for a CRT-D device. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy nonresponse is a complex problem where stimulation of multiple left ventricular sites may be a solution. METHODS: Enrolled patients were indicated for a CRT-D system. Bi-ventricular (Bi-V) pacing was activated at implant. Three months later, clinical response was assessed and the patient was randomized (1:1) to receive Bi-V pacing or MPP. Patients were followed for 6 months post-randomization and clinical response was again assessed. RESULTS: The CRT-D system was successfully implanted in 455 of 469 attempted implants (97%). A total of 381 patients were randomized to Bi-V or MPP at 3 months. The primary safety endpoint was met with freedom from system-related complications of 93.2%. The primary efficacy endpoint of the noninferiority comparison of nonresponder rates between the 2 arms was met. Patients randomized to MPP arm and programmed to pace from anatomically distant poles (MPP-AS) responded to therapy at significantly higher rates than MultiPoint pacing-other programmed settings (MPP-Other). Within this group, 87% were responders at 9 months, 100% designated as nonresponders at 3 months converted to responders at 9 months, and 54% experienced an incremental response compared to MPP-Other. Also within MPP-AS, 92% of patients with de novo CRT-D implant were classified as responders compared with patients with MPP-Other. CONCLUSIONS: MPP is safe and effective for treating heart failure. The study met the pre-specified hypothesis that response to MPP is noninferior to Bi-V pacing with a quadripolar left ventricular lead. (MultiPoint Pacing IDE Study [MPP IDE]; NCT01786993).

Improvement in Clinical Outcomes With Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: The BLOCK HF Study.

BACKGROUND: Sustained right ventricular (RV) apical pacing may lead to deterioration in ventricular function and an increased risk of heart failure, especially in patients with pre-existing systolic dysfunction. The BLOCK HF (Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With Atrioventricular Block) trial demonstrated that biventricular-paced patients had a reduced incidence of a composite endpoint of death, heart failure-related urgent care, and adverse left ventricular remodeling. OBJECTIVES: In a pre-specified analysis, this study examined clinical outcomes, including clinical composite score, quality of life (QOL), and change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification. METHODS: The BLOCK HF trial randomized patients with atrioventricular block, NYHA symptom class I to III heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50% to biventricular or RV pacing. NYHA functional classification, QOL, and clinical composite score were assessed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Bayesian statistical methods were used, with the pre-specified metric of benefit being a posterior probability ≥0.95. RESULTS: Patients with biventricular pacing showed greater improvement in NYHA functional class at 12 months, with 19% improved, 61% unchanged, and 17% worsened, compared with 12%/62%/23% in the RV arm. QOL was improved through 12 months. At 6 months, clinical composite score was improved/unchanged/worsened in 53%/24%/24% in the biventricular arm compared with 39%/33%/28% in the RV arm. This improvement in clinical composite score was sustained through 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction, biventricular pacing not only reduces the risk of mortality/morbidity, but also leads to better clinical outcomes, including improved QOL and heart failure status, compared with RV pacing. (Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With Atrioventricular Block [BLOCK HF]; NCT00267098).

Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing restores an adequate heart rate in patients with atrioventricular block, but high percentages of right ventricular apical pacing may promote left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We evaluated whether biventricular pacing might reduce mortality, morbidity, and adverse left ventricular remodeling in such patients. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had indications for pacing with atrioventricular block; New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, II, or III heart failure; and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less. Patients received a cardiac-resynchronization pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (the latter if the patient had an indication for defibrillation therapy) and were randomly assigned to standard right ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing. The primary outcome was the time to death from any cause, an urgent care visit for heart failure that required intravenous therapy, or a 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index. RESULTS: Of 918 patients enrolled, 691 underwent randomization and were followed for an average of 37 months. The primary outcome occurred in 190 of 342 patients (55.6%) in the right-ventricular-pacing group, as compared with 160 of 349 (45.8%) in the biventricular-pacing group. Patients randomly assigned to biventricular pacing had a significantly lower incidence of the primary outcome over time than did those assigned to right ventricular pacing (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% credible interval, 0.60 to 0.90); results were similar in the pacemaker and ICD groups. Left ventricular lead-related complications occurred in 6.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Biventricular pacing was superior to conventional right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block and left ventricular systolic dysfunction with NYHA class I, II, or III heart failure. (Funded by Medtronic; BLOCK HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00267098.).

Impact of using a telescoping-support catheter system for left ventricular lead placement on implant success and procedure time of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Proper positioning of the left ventricular (LV) lead improves clinical outcomes and survival in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Techniques of LV lead insertion using contrast injection and a telescoping system of delivery catheters to support advancement of the lead into the target branch may allow more efficient, targeted lead placement. We sought to evaluate the impact of an LV lead implant approach using telescoping-support catheters (group TS) on success rate, lead location, and procedural time compared to standard over-the-wire implant techniques (group OTW). METHODS: Four hundred thirty-seven consecutive patients undergoing CRT implantation were divided into group TS (n = 105) or group OTW (n = 332) based upon a review of the operative technique used for LV lead implantation. The primary outcome was success of LV lead implantation at the index procedure. Secondary endpoints included optimal positioning of the LV lead and reduction in procedural fluoroscopy time. RESULTS: Failed LV lead placement was lower (1.9% vs 8.1%, P = 0.02) and optimal lead positioning was achieved more often for group TS than group OTW (87% vs 75%, P = 0.01). In addition, there were significantly shorter fluoroscopy times for group TS versus group OTW (29.6 minutes vs 41.9 minutes, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: A CRT-implant approach using contrast injection and a telescoping-support catheter system results in fewer failed LV lead implants, improved LV lead location, and shorter procedure times.