Transvenous lead extraction: Experience of the Tandem approach.

AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is important in the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices but carries risk. It is most commonly completed from the superior access, often with 'bail-out' support via the femoral approach. Superior and inferior access may be used in tandem, which has been proposed as an advance in safety and efficacy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tandem approach. METHOD: The 'Tandem' procedure entailed grasping of the targeted lead in the right atrium to provide countertraction as a rotational dissecting sheath was advanced over the lead from the subclavian access. Consecutive 'Tandem' procedures performed by a single operator between December 2020 and March 2023 in a single large-volume TLE centre were included and compared with the conventional superior approach (control) using 1:1 propensity score matching; patients were statistically matched for demographics. RESULTS: The Tandem in comparison with the conventional approach extracted leads of much greater dwell time (148.9 ± 79 vs. 108.6 ± 77 months, P < 0.01) in a shorter procedure duration (96 ± 36 vs. 127 ± 67 min, P < 0.01) but requiring more fluoroscopy (16.4 ± 10.9 vs. 10.8 ± 14.9 min, P < 0.01). The Tandem and control groups had similar clinical (100% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.07) and complete (94.8% vs. 92.8%, P = 0.42) success, with comparable minor (4% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.72) and major (0% vs. 4%, P = 0.25) complications; procedural (0% vs. 1.3%, P = 1) and 30-day (1.3% vs. 4%, P = 0.62) mortality were also similar. CONCLUSION: The Tandem procedure is as safe and effective as the conventional TLE. It can be applied to leads of a long dwell time with a potentially shorter procedure duration.

Progress in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy and Optimisation.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has become the cornerstone of heart failure (HF) treatment. Despite the obvious benefit from this therapy, an estimated 30% of CRT patients do not respond ("non-responders"). The cause of "non-response" is multi-factorial and includes suboptimal device settings. To optimise CRT settings, echocardiography has been considered the gold standard but has limitations: it is user dependent and consumes time and resources. CRT proprietary algorithms have been developed to perform device optimisation efficiently and with limited resources. In this review, we discuss CRT optimisation including the various adopted proprietary algorithms and conduction system pacing.

Comparison of non-laser and laser transvenous lead extraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77-2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69-2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02-2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Effect of esophageal cooling on ablation lesion formation in the left atrium: Insights from Ablation Index data in the IMPACT trial and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The IMPACT study established the role of controlled esophageal cooling in preventing esophageal thermal injury during radiofrequency (RF) ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The effect of esophageal cooling on ablation lesion delivery and procedural and patient outcomes had not been previously studied. The objective was to determine the effect of esophageal cooling on the formation of RF lesions, the ability to achieve procedural endpoints, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Participants in the IMPACT trial underwent AF ablation guided by Ablation Index (30 W at 350-400 AI posteriorly, 40 W at ≥450 AI anteriorly). A blinded 1:1 randomization assigned patients to the use of the ensoETM® device to keep esophageal temperature at 4°C during ablation or standard practice using a single-sensor temperature probe. Ablation parameters and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Procedural data from 188 patients were analyzed. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were similar, and all pulmonary veins were isolated. First-pass pulmonary vein isolation and reconnection at the end of the waiting period were similar in both randomized groups (51/64 vs. 51/68; p = 0.54 and 5/64 vs. 7/68; p = 0.76, respectively). Posterior wall isolation was also similar: 24/33 versus 27/38; p = 0.88. Ablation effect on tissue, measured in impedance drop, was no different between the two randomized groups: 8.6Ω (IQR: 6-11.8) versus 8.76Ω (IQR: 6-12.2; p = 0.25). Arrhythmia recurrence was similar after 12 months (21.1% vs. 24.1%; 95% CI: 0.38-1.84; HR: 0.83; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cooling has been shown to be effective in reducing ablation-related thermal injury during RF ablation. This protection does not compromise standard procedural endpoints or clinical success at 12 months.

Medium-Term Outcomes in COVID-19.

COVID-19 causes severe illness that results in morbidity and mortality. Electrocardiographic features, including QT prolongation, have been associated with poor acute outcomes; data on the medium-term outcomes remain scarce. This study evaluated the 1-year outcomes of patients who survived the acute COVID-19 infection. Methods and Materials: Data of the 159 patients who survived the COVID-19 illness during the first wave (1 March 2020−18 May 2020) were collected. Patient demographics, laboratory findings and electrocardiography data were evaluated. Patients who subsequently died within 1-year of the index illness were compared to those who remained well. Results: Of the 159 patients who had survived the index illness, 28 (17.6%) subsequently perished within 1-year. In comparison to the patients that were alive after 1-year, the deceased were older (68 vs. 83 years, p < 0.01) and equally male (60.4% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.68), with a similar proportion of hypertension (59.5% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.68), diabetes (25.2% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.096) and ischaemic heart disease (11.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.54). The QTc interval for the alive and deceased patients shortened by a similar degree from the illness to post-COVID (−26 ± 33.5 vs. −20.6 ± 30.04 milliseconds, p = 0.5); the post-COVID R-R interval was longer in the alive patients compared to the deceased (818.9 ± 169.3 vs. 761.1 ± 61.2 ms, p = 0.02). A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that age (HR1.098 [1.045−1.153], p < 0.01), diabetes (HR3.972 [1.47−10.8], p < 0.01) and the post-COVID R-R interval (HR0.993 [0.989−0.996], p < 0.01) were associated with 1-year mortality. Conclusions: The COVID-19-associated mortality risk extends to the post-COVID period. The QTc does recover following the acute illness and is not associated with outcomes; the R-R interval is a predictor of 1-year mortality.

Cost-effectiveness of catheter ablation versus medical therapy for the treatment of atrial fibrillation in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Research evidence has shown that catheter ablation is a safe and superior treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to medical therapy, but real-world practice has been slow to adopt an early interventional approach. This study aims to determine the cost effectiveness of catheter ablation compared to medical therapy from the perspective of the United Kingdom. METHODS: A patient-level Markov health-state transition model was used to conduct a cost-utility analysis. The population included patients previously treated for AF with medical therapy, including those with heart failure (HF), simulated over a lifetime horizon. Data sources included published literature on utilization and cardiovascular event rates in real world patients, a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for AF recurrence, and publicly available government data/reports on costs. RESULTS: Catheter ablation resulted in a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8614 per additional quality adjusted life years (QALY) gained when compared to medical therapy. More patients in the medical therapy group failed rhythm control at any point compared to catheter ablation (72% vs. 24%) and at a faster rate (median time to treatment failure: 3.8 vs. 10 years). Additionally, catheter ablation was estimated to be more cost-effective in patients with AF and HF (ICER = £6438) and remained cost-effective over all tested time horizons (10, 15, and 20 years), with the ICER ranging from £9047-£15 737 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation is a cost-effective treatment for atrial fibrillation, compared to medical therapy, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

Transvenous lead extraction: The influence of age on patient outcomes in the PROMET study cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy contributes to an improvement in morbidity and mortality across all patient demographics. Patient age is a recognized risk factor for unfavorable outcomes in invasive procedures. This is the largest series of non-laser transvenous lead extraction (TLE) evaluating the association between patient age and procedure outcomes. METHODS: Data of 2205 (3849 leads) patients was collected retrospectively from six European TLE centers between January 2005-December 2018 in the PROMET study. Of these, 153 patients with 319 leads were excluded for incomplete data. A comparison of outcomes was performed between the age groups young [< 50 years], young intermediate [50-69 years], older intermediate [70-79 years], and octogenarian [≥80 years]. RESULTS: Infection was most common indication for TLE in the octogenarian cohort, less common in the younger population (60.1% vs. 33.2%, respectively, p < .01). High-voltage leads were extracted most frequently from young patients, less frequently from octogenarians (31.6% vs. 10%, p < .001), while the opposite was evident for pacemaker leads (p < .001). Rotational sheath use was equally prevalent across all patient groups (p = .79). Minor and major complications across all the age groups were statistically similar, as was procedural success; the 30-day mortality was most significant in the octogenarian and least in the young patients (4.9% vs. 0.4%, p = .005). Propensity matching multivariate analysis found systemic infection, lead dwell time, and patient age (p = .013, OR 1.064 [1.013-1.116]) increased risk of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE is safe and effective across all age groups. 30-day mortality risk is significantly higher in the older patients.

Innovative Cardiac Resynchronization: Deployable Lead as an Anchor to Facilitate Guidewire Advancement.

An acutely angulated coronary sinus ostium coupled with a dilated right atrium presents technical challenges for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation. Innovative use of a deployable left ventricle lead as an anchor to support guidewire navigation within the cardiac venous system permits optimal CRT deployment. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Prolonged QT predicts prognosis in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) causes severe illness and multi-organ dysfunction. An abnormal electrocardiogram is associated with poor outcome, and QT prolongation during the illness has been linked to pharmacological effects. This study sought to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 illness on the corrected QT interval (QTc). METHOD: For 293 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital via the emergency department for COVID-19 between 01/03/20 -18/05/20, demographic data, laboratory findings, admission electrocardiograph and clinical observations were compared in those who survived and those who died within 6 weeks. Hospital records were reviewed for prior electrocardiograms for comparison with those recorded on presentation with COVID-19. RESULTS: Patients who died were older than survivors (82 vs 69.8 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have cancer (22.3% vs 13.1%, p = 0.034), dementia (25.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.034) and ischemic heart disease (27.8% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001). Deceased patients exhibited higher levels of C-reactive protein (244.6 mg/L vs 146.5 mg/L, p < 0.01), troponin (1982.4 ng/L vs 413.4 ng/L, p = 0.017), with a significantly longer QTc interval (461.1 ms vs 449.3 ms, p = 0.007). Pre-COVID electrocardiograms were located for 172 patients; the QTc recorded on presentation with COVID-19 was longer than the prior measurement in both groups, but was more prolonged in the deceased group (448.4 ms vs 472.9 ms, pre-COVID vs COVID, p < 0.01). Multivariate Cox-regression analysis revealed age, C-reactive protein and prolonged QTc of >455 ms (males) and >465 ms (females) (p = 0.028, HR 1.49 [1.04-2.13]), as predictors of mortality. QTc prolongation beyond these dichotomy limits was associated with increased mortality risk (p = 0.0027, HR 1.78 [1.2-2.6]). CONCLUSION: QTc prolongation occurs in COVID-19 illness and is associated with poor outcome.

Percutaneous management of lead-related cardiac perforation with limited use of computed tomography and cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related perforation is uncommon but potentially lethal. Management typically includes the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning and often involves cardiac surgery. METHODS: Patients presenting to a single referral centre with CIED-related cardiac perforation between 2013 and 2019 were identified. Demographics, diagnostic modalities, the method of lead revision, and 30-day complications were examined. RESULTS: A total of 46 cases were identified; median time from implantation to diagnosis was 14 days (interquartile range = 4-50). Most were females (29/46, 63%), 9/46 (20%) had cancer, 18 patients (39%) used oral anticoagulants, and no patients had prior cardiac surgery. Active fixation was involved in 98% of cases; 9% involved an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead. Thirty-seven leads perforated the right ventricle (apex: 24) and 9 punctured the right atrium (lateral wall: 5). Abnormal electrical parameters were noted in 95% of interrogated cases. Perforation was visualized in 41% and 6% of cases with chest X-ray (CXR) and transthoracic echocardiography, respectively. CXR revealed a perforation, gross lead displacement, or left-sided pleural effusion in 74% of cases. Pericardial effusion occurred in 26 patients (57%) of whom 11 (24%) developed tamponade, successfully drained percutaneously. Pre-extraction CT scan was performed in 19 patients but was essential in four cases. Transvenous lead revision (TLR) was successfully performed in all cases with original leads repositioned in six patients, without recourse to surgery. Thirty-day mortality and complications were low (0% and 26%, respectively). CONCLUSION: CT scanning provides incremental diagnostic value in a minority of CIED-related perforations. TLR is a safe and effective strategy.