RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is associated with fewer lead-related complications than a transvenous ICD; however, the subcutaneous ICD cannot provide bradycardia and antitachycardia pacing. Whether a modular pacing-defibrillator system comprising a leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD to provide antitachycardia and bradycardia pacing is safe remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, single-group study that enrolled patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular arrhythmias and followed them for 6 months after implantation of a modular pacemaker-defibrillator system. The safety end point was freedom from leadless pacemaker-related major complications, evaluated against a performance goal of 86%. The two primary performance end points were successful communication between the pacemaker and the ICD (performance goal, 88%) and a pacing threshold of up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width (performance goal, 80%). RESULTS: We enrolled 293 patients, 162 of whom were in the 6-month end-point cohort and 151 of whom completed the 6-month follow-up period. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, 16.7% were women, and the mean (±SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 33.1±12.6%. The percentage of patients who were free from leadless pacemaker-related major complications was 97.5%, which exceeded the prespecified performance goal. Wireless-device communication was successful in 98.8% of communication tests, which exceeded the prespecified goal. Of 151 patients, 147 (97.4%) had pacing thresholds of 2.0 V or less, which exceeded the prespecified goal. The percentage of episodes of arrhythmia that were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing was 61.3%, and there were no episodes for which antitachycardia pacing was not delivered owing to communication failure. Of 162 patients, 8 died (4.9%); none of the deaths were deemed to be related to arrhythmias or the implantation procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The leadless pacemaker in wireless communication with a subcutaneous ICD exceeded performance goals for freedom from major complications related to the leadless pacemaker, for communication between the leadless pacemaker and subcutaneous ICD, and for the percentage of patients with a pacing threshold up to 2.0 V at a 0.4-msec pulse width at 6 months. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MODULAR ATP ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04798768.).
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Reports of comparison with procedural outcomes for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker (PM) transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are old and limited. We sought to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural properties of ICD and PM TLE and assess the impact of lead age. METHODS: The study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD and PM TLE in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry between 2013 and 2022. Extraction success, complications, and failure employed the definitions described in the HRS 2017 TLE guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 885 ICD leads, a median implant duration of 8 (5-11) years in 810 patients, and 1352 PM leads of 7 (3-13) years in 807 patients were included. Procedural success rates in ICD patients were superior to those of PM in >20 years leads but similar in ≤20 years leads. In the PM group, the complete success rate of TLE decreased significantly according to the increase of lead age, but not in the ICD group. ICD TLE required more extraction tools compared with PM TLE but cases with older leads required non-laser sheath extraction tools in both groups. The most common injury site in major complication cases differed between ICD and PM TLE, although major complication rates showed no difference in both groups (2.7% vs. 1.6%, p = .12). CONCLUSION: The procedural success rate by TLE is greater for ICD patients than PM patients with leads >20 years old but requires more extraction tools. Common vascular complication sites and the impact of lead age on procedural outcomes and required tools differed between ICD and PM TLE.
Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Remoción de Dispositivos , Marcapaso Artificial , Sistema de Registros , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Remoción de Dispositivos/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Tiempo , Factores de Riesgo , Ohio , Cardioversión Eléctrica/instrumentación , Cardioversión Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Hospitales de Alto Volumen , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
AIMS: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility in response to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is a widely used procedural endpoint for VT ablation despite inconclusive evidence with respect to clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. The aim is to determine the utility of acute post-ablation VT inducibility as a predictor of VT recurrence, mortality, or mortality equivalent in high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of high-risk patients (defined as PAINESD > 17) who underwent scar-related VT ablation at our institution between July 2010 and July 2022. Patients' response to PVS (post-procedure) was categorized into three groups: Group A, no clinical VT or VT with cycle length > 240 ms inducible; Group B, only non-clinical VT with cycle length > 240 ms induced; and Group C, all other outcomes (including cases where no PVS was performed). The combined primary endpoint included death, durable left ventricular assist device placement, and cardiac transplant (Cox analysis). Ventricular tachycardia recurrence was considered a secondary endpoint (competing risk analysis). Of the 1677 VT ablation cases, 123 cases met the inclusion criteria for analysis. During a 19-month median follow-up time (interquartile range 4-43 months), 82 (66.7%) patients experienced the composite primary endpoint. There was no difference between Groups A and C with respect to the primary [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57), P = 0.145] or secondary [HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54), P = 0.210] outcomes. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustments. The size of Group B (n = 13) did not permit meaningful statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of post-ablation PVS do not significantly correlate with long-term outcomes in high-risk (PAINESD > 17) VT ablation patients.
Asunto(s)
Ablación por Catéter , Cicatriz , Recurrencia , Taquicardia Ventricular , Humanos , Taquicardia Ventricular/fisiopatología , Taquicardia Ventricular/cirugía , Taquicardia Ventricular/etiología , Taquicardia Ventricular/diagnóstico , Masculino , Femenino , Estudios Retrospectivos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cicatriz/fisiopatología , Cicatriz/etiología , Anciano , Medición de Riesgo , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following cryoballoon ablation (CBA) versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA). We sought to evaluate QoL and clinical outcomes of cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation only (CRYO-PVI-ONLY) versus RFA with PVI and posterior wall isolation (RF-PVI+PWI) in a large prospective PRO registry. METHODS: Patients who underwent AF ablation (2013-2016) at our institution were enrolled in an automated, prospectively maintained PRO registry. CRYO-PVI-ONLY patients were matched (1:1) with RF-PVI+PWI patients based on age, gender, and type of AF (paroxysmal vs. persistent). QoL and clinical outcomes were assessed using PRO surveys at baseline and at 1-year. The atrial fibrillation symptom severity scale (AFSSS) was the measure for QoL. Additionally, we assessed patient-reported clinical improvement, arrhythmia recurrence, and AF burden (as indicated by AF frequency and duration scores). RESULTS: A total of 296 patients were included (148 in each group, 72% paroxysmal). By PRO, a significant improvement in QoL was observed in the overall study population and was comparable between CRYO-PVI-ONLY and RF-PVI+PWI (baseline median AFSSS of 11.5 and 11; reduced to 2 and 4 at 1 year, respectively; p = 0.44). Similarly, the proportion of patients who reported improvement in their overall QoL and AF related symptoms was high and similar between the study groups [92% (CRYO-PVI-ONLY) vs. 92.8% (RF-PVI+PWI); p = 0.88]. Arrhythmia recurrence was significantly more common in the CRYO-PVI-ONLY group (39.7%) compared to RF-PVI+PWI (27.7 %); p = 0.03. Comparable results were observed in paroxysmal and persistent AF. CONCLUSION: CRYO-PVI-ONLY and RF-PVI+PWI resulted in comparable improvements in patient reported outcomes including QoL and AF burden; with RF-PVI+PWI being more effective at reducing recurrences.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Criocirugía , Medición de Resultados Informados por el Paciente , Venas Pulmonares , Humanos , Venas Pulmonares/cirugía , Masculino , Femenino , Criocirugía/métodos , Fibrilación Atrial/cirugía , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Atrios Cardíacos/cirugía , Ablación por Catéter/métodos , Sistema de Registros , Calidad de Vida , Anciano , Ablación por Radiofrecuencia/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The first dual-chamber leadless pacemaker (DC-LP) system consists of 2 separate atrial and ventricular devices that communicate to maintain synchronous atrioventricular pacing and sensing. The initial safety and efficacy were previously reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the chronic electrical performance of the DC-LP system. METHODS: Patients meeting standard dual-chamber pacing indications were enrolled and implanted with the DC-LP system (Aveir DR, Abbott), including right atrial and ventricular helix-fixation LPs (atrial leadless pacemaker [ALP], ventricular leadless pacemaker [VLP]). Pacing capture threshold, sensed amplitude, and pacing impedance were collected using the device programmer at prespecified timepoints from 0-6 months postimplant. RESULTS: De novo devices were successfully implanted in 381 patients with complete 6-month data (62% male; age 69 ± 14 years; weight 82 ± 20 kg; 65% sinus nodal dysfunction, 30% atrioventricular block). ALPs were implanted predominantly in the right atrial appendage anterior base and VLPs primarily at the mid-to-apical right ventricular septum. From implant to 1 month, pacing capture thresholds (0.4-ms pulse width) improved in both ALPs (2.4 ± 1.5 V to 0.8 ± 0.8 V; P <.001) and VLPs (0.8 ± 0.6 V to 0.6 ± 0.4 V; P <.001). Sensed amplitudes improved in both ALPs (1.8 ± 1.3 mV to 3.4 ± 1.9 mV; P <.001) and VLPs (8.8 ± 4.0 mV to 11.7 ± 4.2 mV; P <.001). Impedances were stable in ALPs (334 ± 68 Ω to 329 ± 52 Ω; P = .17) and reduced in VLPs (789 ± 351 Ω to 646 ± 190 Ω; P <.001). Electrical measurements remained relatively stable from 1-6 months postimplant. No differences in electrical metrics were observed among ALP or VLP implant locations. CONCLUSION: This first in-human evaluation of the new dual-chamber leadless pacemaker system demonstrated reliable electrical performance throughout the initial 6-month evaluation period.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Risk for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been associated with ischemic disease/scar, sex, and possibly left ventricular mass (LVM). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sex differences and baseline/post-implant change [Δ] of LVM on VA risk after CRT implant among patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and left bundle branch block. METHODS: Among patients meeting the criteria, baseline and follow-up echocardiographic images were obtained for LVM assessment. VA events were reported from device diagnostics and therapies. VA risk was stratified by ROC (Youden-index cut-point) for baseline LVM and ΔLVM, and baseline patient characteristics using a multivariable Cox regression model. RESULTS: 118 patients (71[60.2%] female, age 60.5 ±11.3 years, LVEF 19.2 ±7.0%, QRS 165.6 ±20 ms, LVM 313.9 ±108.8 g) were enrolled and followed for median 90 (IQR 44-158) months. Thirty-five (29.6%) patients received appropriate shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing at a median of 73.5 (IQR 25-130) months post-implant. Males had a higher VA incidence (male 18/47 [38.3%] vs. female 17/71 [23.9%], P=0.02). Baseline LVM >308.9g separated patients with higher VA risk (P=0.001). Less than a 20% decrease in LVM increased VA risk (P<0.001). Baseline LVM was the only baseline characteristic predicting VA events in the Cox regression model (Hazard ratio 1.01 [95%CI, 1.001-1.009], Log-rank P=0.003). Sex differences in VA risk were eliminated by the baseline LVM parameters. CONCLUSION: VA risk after CRT in NICM was associated with baseline LV >308.9g and a decrease in LVM ≤ 20%, without sex differences.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Current therapies for pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) or pulmonary vein total occlusion (PVTO) involving angioplasty and stenting are hindered by high rates of restenosis. OBJECTIVES: This study compares a novel approach of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and stenting with the current standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS: A retrospective single-center study analyzed patients with PVS or PVTO due to PVI who underwent either angioplasty and stenting (NoDCB group; December 2012-December 2016) or DCB angioplasty and stenting (DCB group; January 2018-January 2021). Multivariable Andersen-Gill regression analysis assessed the risk of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: The NoDCB group comprised 58 patients and 89 veins, with a longer median follow-up of 35 months, whereas the DCB group included 26 patients and 33 veins, with a median follow-up of 11 months. The DCB group exhibited more PVTO (NoDCB: 12.3%; DCB: 42.4%; P = 0.0001), with a smaller reference vessel size (NoDCB: 10.2 mm; DCB: 8.4 mm; P = 0.0004). Follow-up computed tomography was performed in 82% of NoDCB and 85% of DCB, revealing lower unadjusted rates of restenosis (NoDCB: 26%; DCB: 14.3%) and TLR (NoDCB: 34.2%; DCB: 10.7%) in the DCB group. DCB use was associated with a significantly lower risk of restenosis and TLR (HR: 0.003: CI: 0.00009-0.118; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The novel approach of DCB angioplasty followed by stenting is effective and safe and significantly reduces the risk of restenosis and reintervention compared with the standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to PVI.