The indications and safety of prolonged temporary pacing using active-fixation leads and externalized pulse generator.

BACKGROUND: Temporary cardiac pacing, conventionally achieved using a passive transvenous pacing wire, can be life-saving for unstable arrhythmias. However, they run the risk of complications, the longer they remain in-situ. Externalized prolonged temporary pacing (EPTP), using active-fixation lead and an externalized pulse generator; may be an alternative for transient pacing indications, concurrent illness or sepsis that precludes permanent pacing. METHODS: Sixty-seven patients (mean age 69 ± 14 years; 82% male) underwent EPTP between November 2011 and April 2019. EPTP was performed in a sterile facility, under fluoroscopy, using active-fixation leads anchored to the right ventricle septum. Externalized lead was connected to a re-sterilized pulse generator and secured to anterior chest wall with transparent dressings. EPTP indications and patient outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Pacing indications were high-grade atrio-ventricular (AV) block (73.2%), sinus arrest (14.9%), overdrive suppression of VT (5.9%) and pause-dependent VT (4.5%). Reasons for ETPT rather than permanent pacing included: sepsis (38.8%), CIED-related infection (8.9%), transient pacing indication (25%), to allow further investigations prior to decision on CIED type (22%), and over-drive arrhythmia suppression (6%). Sixty three percent patients were severely ill in an ICU. Mean duration of pacing was 16 ± 12 days. Sixty seven percent patients subsequently received a CIED and had no evidence of device-related infection at 1-year post-implant. There were three non-fatal complications during EPTP while no deaths were attributed to EPTP. CONCLUSION: EPTP is a safe and useful method of prolonged temporary pacing for patients who require chronotropic support, but in whom immediate permanent pacemaker implantation is contraindicated.

Upgrading to cardiac resynchronisation therapy: Concordance of real-world experience with clinical guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Revision to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in patients with existing pacemakers with worsening heart failure (HF) can improve symptoms and cardiac function. We identify factors that predict improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) within a year of CRT revision. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 146 consecutive patients (16% female, mean age 73 ± 11 years, mean LVEF 27 ± 8%) undergoing revision to CRT (January 2012 to May 2018) in a single tertiary centre. LVEF was measured pre-revision and 3, 6 and 12 months post-upgrade. RESULTS: At 6 months, 68% of patients demonstrated improvement in LVEF (mean ΔLVEF + 6.7% ± 9.6). Compared to patients in atrial fibrillation (AF), patients with sinus rhythm had a greater improvement in LVEF at 6 months (sinus 8.4 ± 10.3% vs. AF 4.2 ± 8.0%, p = 0.02). Compared to ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM), patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) had a greater improvement in LVEF at 6 months (NICM 8.4 ± 9.8% vs ICM 4.8 ± 9.2%, p = 0.05). Patients with RV pacing ≥40% at baseline had a greater improvement in LVEF at 6 months (≥40% RV pacing 9.3 ± 10.2 vs. < 40% RV pacing 4.0 ± 7.4%, p = 0.01). All improvements were sustained over 12 months post-revision. There was no significant difference between genders, years between initial implant and revision, or previous device type. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world experience supports current guidelines on CRT revision. NICM, ≥40% RV pacing and sinus rhythm are the main predictors of improvement in LVEF in patients who underwent CRT revision.

Real-world treatment switching to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is an effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on clinical trial data. However, little is known about its use or impact in real-world practice. The aim of this study was to describe our routine clinical experience of switching otherwise optimally treated patients with HFrEF to sacubitril/valsartan with respect to patient outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) and echocardiographic variables. METHODS AND RESULTS: From June 2017 to May 2019, 80 consecutive stable patients with HFrEF on established and maximally tolerated guideline-directed HF therapies were initiated on sacubitril/valsartan with bimonthly uptitration. Clinical assessment, biochemistry, echocardiography and QoL were compared pretreatment and post-treatment switching. We were able to successfully switch 89% of patients from renin-angiotensin axis inhibitors to sacubitril/valsartan (71 of 80 patients). After 3 months of switch therapy, we observed clinically significant and incremental improvements in blood pressure (systolic blood pressure 123 vs 112 mm Hg, p<0.001; diastolic blood pressure 72 vs 68 mm Hg, p=0.004), New York Heart Association functional classification score (2.3 vs 1.9, p<0.001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (46 vs 38, p=0.016), left ventricular ejection fraction (26% vs 33%, p<0.001) and left ventricular end systolic diameter (5.2 vs 4.9 cm, p=0.013) compared with baseline. There were no significant changes in renal function or serum potassium. CONCLUSION: This study provides real-world clinical practice data demonstrating incremental improvements in functional and echocardiographic outcomes in optimally treated patients with HFrEF switched to sacubitril/valsartan. The data provide evidence beyond that observed in clinical trial settings of the potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan when used as part of a multidisciplinary heart failure programme.