Comparison between IEGM-based approach and echocardiography in AV/PV and VV delay optimization in CRT-D recipients (Quicksept study).

BACKGROUND: AtrioVentricular (AV) and InterVentricular (VV) delay optimization can improve ventricular function in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) and is usually performed by means of echocardiography. St Jude Medical has developed an automated algorhythm which calculates the optimal AV and VV delays (QuickOpt™) based on Intracardiac ElectroGrams, (IEGM), within 2 min. So far, the efficacy of the algorhythm has been tested acutely with standard lead position at right ventricular (RV) apex. Aim of this project is to evaluate the algorhythm performance in the mid- and long-term with RV lead located in mid-septum. METHODS: AV and VV delays optimization data were collected in 13 centers using both echocardiographic and QuickOpt™ guidance in CRTD implanted patients provided with this algorhythm. Measurements of the aortic Velocity Time Integral (aVTI) were performed with both methods in a random order at pre-discharge, 6-month and 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were studied (46 males; age 68 ± 10y; EF 28 ± 7%). Maximum aVTI obtained by echocardiography at different AV delays, were compared with aVTI acquired at AV delays suggested by QuickOpt. The AV Pearson correlations were 0.96 at pre-discharge, 0.95 and 0,98 at 6- and 12- month follow-up respectively. After programming optimal AV, the same approach was used to compare echocardiographic aVTI with aVTI corresponding to the VV values provided by QuickOpt. The VV Pearson Correlation were 0,92 at pre-discharge, 0,88 and 0.90 at 6-month and 12- month follow-up respectively. CONCLUSIONS: IEGM-based optimization provides comparable results with echocardiographic method (maximum aVTI) used as reference with mid-septum RV lead location.

Diagnosis of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with implanted pacemakers: relationship to symptoms and other variables.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is not always accompanied by clear-cut symptoms and symptoms suggestive of AF may not correspond to a genuine AF episode. The study prospectively evaluated the burden of asymptomatic AF episodes in pacemaker patients (for sick sinus syndrome) with a history of documented paroxysmal AF. METHODS: Consecutive patients were enrolled and implanted with dual-chamber pacemakers equipped with diagnostic features for AF monitoring. Each patient was instructed about typical AF symptoms and was asked to keep a detailed log of symptoms. Stored pacemaker data were analyzed using only AF episodes >30 s. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 16 +/- 6 months and 102 patients were enrolled (73 +/- 7 years, 59 M). Thirteen patients (13%) dropped out with the development of permanent AF and their data were discarded. Twenty-three patients (26%) without device-stored AF episodes all reported at least one annotated AF episode. There were 1,245 device-stored AF episodes in 66 (74%) out of 89 patients. Patients reported 1,141 episodes of AF-related symptoms. Only 240 (21%) corresponded to a genuine device-stored AF event. The sensitivity and positive predictive value of symptoms to detect AF were respectively 19% and 21%. Episode duration, rate increase at the onset of the arrhythmia, heart disease, or antiarrhythmic drug therapy showed no statistically significant differences comparing symptomatic and asymptomatic episodes. CONCLUSIONS: Many pacemaker patients with paroxysmal AF can develop AF-like symptoms in the absence of device-stored AF. AF-related symptoms have low sensitivity and low positive predictive value in patients with permanent pacemakers.

Automatic atrial capture device control in real-life practice: A multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Device-based fully automatic pacing capture detection is useful in clinical practice and important in the era of remote care management. The main objective of this study was to verify the effectiveness of the new ACAP Confirm® algorithm in managing atrial capture in the medium term in comparison with early post-implantation testing. METHODS: Data were collected from 318 patients (66% male; mean age, 73±10 years); 237 of these patients underwent device implantation and 81 box changes in 31 Italian hospitals. Atrial threshold measurements were taken manually and automatically at different pulse widths before discharge and during follow-up (7±2 months) examination. RESULTS: The algorithm worked as expected in 73% of cases, considering all performed tests. The success rate was 65% and 88% pre-discharge and during follow-up examination (p<0.001), respectively, in patients who had undergone implantation. We did not detect any difference in the performance of the algorithm as a result of the type of atrial lead used. The success rate was 70% during pre-discharge testing in patients undergoing device replacement. Considering all examination types, manual and automatic measurements yielded threshold values of 1.07±0.47 V and 1.03±0.47 V at 0.2-ms pulse duration (p=0.37); 0.66±0.37 V and 0.67±0.36 V at 0.4 ms (p=0.42); and 0.5±0.28 V and 0.5±0.29 V at 1 ms (p=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the algorithm works before discharge, and its reliability increases over the medium term. The algorithm also proved accurate in detecting the atrial threshold automatically. The possibility of activating it does not seem to be influenced by the lead type used, but by the time from implantation.

Right ventricular septal pacing: Safety and efficacy in a long term follow up.

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the permanent high interventricular septal pacing in a long term follow up, as alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated: (1) 244 patients (74 ± 8 years; 169 men, 75 women) implanted with a single (132 pts) or dual chamber (112 pts) pacemaker (PM) with ventricular screw-in lead placed at the right ventricular high septal parahisian site (SEPTAL pacing); (2) 22 patients with permanent pacemaker and low percentage of pacing (< 20%) (NO pacing); (3) 33 patients with high percentage (> 80%) right ventricular apical pacing (RVA). All patients had a narrow spontaneous QRS (101 ± 14 ms). We evaluated New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, quality of life (QoL), 6 min walking test (6MWT) and left ventricular function (end-diastolic volume, LV-EDV; end-systolic volume, LV-ESV; ejection fraction, LV-EF) with 2D-echocardiography. RESULTS: Pacing parameters were stable during follow up (21 mo/patient). In SEPTAL pacing group we observed an improvement in NYHA class, QoL score and 6MWT. While LV-EDV didn't significantly increase (104 ± 40 mL vs 100 ± 37 mL; P = 0.35), LV-ESV slightly increased (55 ± 31 mL vs 49 ± 27 mL; P = 0.05) and LV-EF slightly decreased (49% ± 11% vs 53% ± 11%; P = 0.001) but never falling < 45%. In the RVA pacing control group we observed a worsening of NYHA class and an important reduction of LV-EF (from 56% ± 6% to 43% ± 9%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Right ventricular permanent high septal pacing is safe and effective in a long term follow up evaluation; it could be a good alternative to the conventional RVA pacing in order to avoid its deleterious effects.

Effects of phenobarbital and levetiracetam on PR and QTc intervals in patients with post-stroke seizure.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sudden unexplained/unexpected death (SUDEP) is related to high mortality in patients with epilepsy. The prolongation of QT interval, involved in cardiac arrhythmia-related SUDEP, may be precipitated by antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). In this study, we evaluated the effects of phenobarbital and levetiracetam on PR-QTc intervals in patients with post-stroke seizures. METHODS: We performed an open-label, parallel group, prospective, multicenter study between June 2009 and December 2013 in patients older than 18 years of age with a clinical diagnosis of post-stroke seizure and treated with phenobarbital or levetiracetam. In order to exclude a role of cerebral post-stroke injury on modulation of PR and QTc intervals, patients with cerebral post-stroke injury and without seizures were also enrolled as controls. RESULTS: Interictal electrocardiography analysis revealed no significant difference in PR interval between patients treated with an AED (n = 49) and control patients (n = 50) (181.25 ± 12.05 vs. 182.4 ± 10.3 ms; p > 0.05). In contrast, a significantly longer QTc interval was recorded in patients treated with an AED compared with control patients (441.2 ± 56.6 vs. 396.8 ± 49.3 ms; p < 0.01). Patients treated with phenobarbital showed a significantly longer QTc interval than patients treated with levetiracetam (460.0 ± 57.2 vs. 421.5 ± 50.1 ms; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study reported that in patients with late post-stroke seizures, phenobarbital prolonged QTc interval more so than levetiracetam.