DREAM-ICD-II Study.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory authorities of most industrialized countries recommend 6 months of private driving restriction after implantation of a secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). These driving restrictions result in significant inconvenience and social implications. This study aimed to assess the incidence rate of appropriate device therapies in contemporary recipients of a secondary prevention ICD. METHODS: This retrospective study at 3 Canadian tertiary care centers enrolled consecutive patients with new secondary prevention ICD implants between 2016 and 2020. RESULTS: For a median of 760 days (324, 1190 days), 721 patients were followed up. The risk of recurrent ventricular arrhythmia was highest during the first 3 months after device insertion (34.4%) and decreased over time (10.6% between 3 and 6 months, 11.7% between 6 and 12 months). The corresponding incidence rate per 100 patient-days was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35-0.64) at 90 days, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.17-0.45) at 180 days, and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33) between 181 and 365 days after ICD insertion (P<0.001). The cumulative incidence of arrhythmic syncope resulting in sudden cardiac incapacitation was 1.8% within the first 90 days and subsequently dropped to 0.4% between 91 and 180 days (P<0.001) after ICD insertion. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rate of appropriate therapies resulting in sudden cardiac incapacitation in contemporary recipients of a secondary prevention ICD is much lower than previously reported and declines significantly after the first 3 months. Lowering driving restrictions to 3 months after the index cardiac event seems safe, and revision of existing guidelines should be considered in countries still adhering to a 6-month period. Existing restrictions for private driving after implantation of a secondary prevention ICD should be reconsidered.

Acute pacing threshold elevation during simultaneous Micra leadless pacemaker implantation and AV node ablation: Clinical cases, computer model and practical recommendations.

BACKGROUND: In patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF), atrioventricular nodal (AVN) ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation is recommended. The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (Micra) is a single chamber leadless pacemaker (LPM) and thus offers the possibility of AV node (AVN) ablation in the same procedure. Pacing threshold (PT) elevation after radiofrequency (RF) ablation is a potential complication. METHODS: We conducted a single center retrospective cohort study. Patients implanted with a Micra (n = 84) and concomitant or delayed AVN ablation (n = 12) from 2014 to 2022 were included. Two cases of acute Micra PT elevation immediately following RF AVN ablation required device retrieval and implantation of a new Micra. Procedural characteristics and electrophysiological parameters were analyzed, and a computer model was performed to determine factors responsible for acute PT elevations. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients were included. Mean age was 74 ± 10 and 48% were women. Twelve patients (14%) underwent AVN ablation. Two patients had acute PT elevation requiring device retrieval despite no direct contact of the ablation catheter with the Micra. Computer modeling shows that significant dissipated power due to electrical field coupling can occur at the tip or ring electrode if the catheter is not kept at a safe distance (≥35 mm) from the Micra when a maximum power of 100 W is delivered. CONCLUSION: Concurrent AVN ablation and Micra implantation is safe in most patients. To prevent acute PT elevation, keeping a safe distance of ≥35 mm from the tip and ring electrodes of the Micra and using lower power output may prevent this complication.

Survival, ventricular arrhythmia, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator usefulness in toxic cardiomyopathy due to substance abuse.

BACKGROUND: Toxic dilated cardiomyopathy (T-DCM) due to substance abuse is now recognized as a potential cause of severe left ventricular dysfunction. The burden of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and the role of a prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are not well documented in this population. We aim to assess the usefulness of ICD implantation in a T-DCM cohort. METHODS: Patients younger than 65 years with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% followed at a tertiary center heart failure (HF) clinic between January 2003 and August 2019 were screened for inclusion. The diagnosis of T-DCM was confirmed after excluding other etiologies, and substance abuse was established according to the DSM-5 criteria. The composite primary endpoints were arrhythmic syncope, sudden cardiac death (SCD), or death of unknown cause. The secondary endpoints were the occurrence of sustained VA and/or appropriate therapies in ICD carriers. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were identified, and an ICD was implanted in 19 (50%) of these patients, only one for secondary prevention. The primary outcome was similar between the two groups (ICD vs. non-ICD; p = 1.00). After a mean follow-up of 33 ± 36 months, only two VA episodes were reported in the ICD group. Three patients received inappropriate ICD therapies. One ICD implantation was complicated with cardiac tamponade. Twenty-three patients (61%) had an LVEF ≥35% at 12 months. CONCLUSION: VA are infrequent in the T-DCM population. The prophylactic ICD benefit was not observed in our cohort. The ideal timing for potential prophylactic ICD implantation in this population needs further studies.

Lead extraction of an unintentional pacemaker lead implantation in the left ventricle from the left subclavian artery.

INTRODUCTION: Inadvertent implantation from the subclavian/axillary arteries is uncommon and has been rarely reported. Complications are frequent, mainly driven by thromboembolic events. Lead extraction, depending on the dwell time may be challenging and associated with thromboembolic events Case Report: We report the case of an 87-year-old man who had involuntarily pacemaker lead implanted into the left ventricle through the left subclavian artery. An extraction procedure was performed with surgical dissection to the artery and simple traction of the probe without complication. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous lead extraction using surgical dissection is a therapeutic option for less than one year old left ventricle inadvertent lead implantation.

Alternating morphology ventricular tachycardia associated with stable coronary artery disease: A case report.

Bidirectional ventricular tachycardia (BVT) is part of the spectrum of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT). This is a case report of a 59-year-old male with stable coronary artery disease and baseline normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who was followed for high burden symptomatic monomorphic premature ventricular complexes (PVC). He was admitted for syncope. The ECG showed recurrent non-sustained alternating morphology and double cycle length VT runs associated with deterioration in LVEF but without coronary artery disease progression. The patient had a successful catheter ablation of two distinct left ventricular PVC focus. This is a rare ECG pattern of alternating morphology VT similar to a bidirectional VT.

Pan pneumo: an unusual complication following pacemaker implantation.

Implantation of cardiac devices is usually considered to be a safe procedure. Rare complications, such as pneumothorax, may occur after the procedure. The association with pneumopericardium or pneumomediastinum is even more uncommon. We present the case of a patient in his 70s, on haemodialysis, admitted for complete atrioventricular block. He underwent implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker. He presented with chest pain the day after implantation. Chest CT scan revealed a pneumothorax associated with a pneumopericardium and pneumomediastinum 'pan pneumo', due to an atrial perforation. We opted for a conservative management strategy. Repeat CT scan of the chest 8 days after the procedure showed a complete resorption of the 'pan pneumo'. The objective of this case report is to describe this rare complication and provide further insight into its management, particularly in the absence of specific guidelines.

Severity of Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients With Tachycardia-Induced Cardiomyopathy: Impacts on Remodeling After Atrial Flutter Ablation.

Tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy is defined as a reversible left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (SeD) resulting from a sustained fast heart rate. LV remodeling in patients with severe LV dysfunction at diagnosis remains poorly understood. In this retrospective cohort study, we described LV remodeling in 50 patients who underwent atrial flutter ablation. These patients were divided into severe LV SeD (LV ejection fraction [EF] ≤30%) and LV nonsevere SeD (LVEF 31% to 50%) at baseline. All continuous variables are expressed as median and interquartile range. LVEF was 18% (13 to 25) and 38% (34 to 41) in the SeD (n = 29) and LV nonsevere SeD (n = 21) groups, respectively. At baseline, patients with SeD had higher LV end-diastolic diameter (56 [54 to 59] vs 49 mm [47 to 52], p <0.01), LV end-systolic diameter (48 [43 to 51] vs 36 mm [34 to 41], p <0.01), LV end-diastolic volume (71 [64 to 85] vs 56 ml/m2 [46 to 68], p <0.01), LV end-systolic volume (56 [53 to 70] vs 36 ml/m2 [27 to 42], p <0.01), and lower tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (12 [10 to 13] vs 16 mm [13 to 19], p <0.01). At last follow-up, LVEF was not statistically significantly different between groups. However, LV end-systolic diameter (36 [34 to 39] vs 32 mm [32 to 34], p = 0.01) and LV end-systolic volume (29 [26 to 35] vs 25 ml/m2 [20 to 29], p = 0.02) remained larger in the SeD group. Seven patients (14%), all from the SeD group, had a LVEF ≤35% 2 months after rhythm control, and reverse remodeling was observed up to 9 months. In conclusion, more than half of patients with tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and atrial flutter had LVEF ≤30% at baseline. LVEF recovery and LV remodeling were observed beyond 2 months, highlighting the importance of rhythm control and early guideline-directed medical therapy in these patients.

Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with primary hemostasis disorders and atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE: We report our single-center experience with percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and primary hemostasis disorders (HD). METHODS: Consecutive patients with primary HD who underwent a percutaneous LAAC were included. Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected and compared with the overall LAAC cohort without HD. RESULTS: Since 2013, among 229 LAAC, 17 patients (7%) had a primary HD: thrombocytopenia (n = 5), myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 6), von Willebrand syndrome (n = 4), type A hemophilia (n = 1), and dysfibrinogenemia (n = 1). The HD population's age ranged from 61 to 87 years, and the median CHA2DS2VASc was 5. Periprocedural plasmatic management was required in 47% of patients. The immediate LAAC implantation success rate was 100%. Patients received a direct oral anticoagulant (DOA) (n = 9), dual antiplatelet (n = 6), aspirin (n = 1), or no therapy (n = 1) during the first six postoperative weeks, followed with single antiplatelet (n = 16) or no therapy (n = 1) during lifelong. After 20 months, the technical success rate and procedural success rate were 100% and 94%. Zero device-/procedure-related complication and only one life-threatening bleeding occurred. Compared to patients without HD (n = 212), a baseline history of bleeding was less frequent (53% vs 91%, p < 0.001), and more patients received a perioperative blood transfusion (47% vs 4%, p < 0.001) in the HD group. The efficacy and safety outcomes did not differ between HD and non-HD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous LAAC in primary HD carriers appeared as safe and as effective as in overall LAAC population for stroke and bleeding prevention at midterm follow-up. Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with atrial fibrillation and primary hemostasis disorders. The percutaneous LAAC in primary hemostasis disorders and AF carriers requires a multidisciplinary approach. Cardiologist, anesthesiologist, and hematologist discussion is a cornerstone to assess anticoagulant contraindication, LAAC feasibility, periprocedural management, and follow-up (high). This multidisciplinary care is illustrated by the case of a 61-year-old male with hemophilia type A and recurrent hemarthrosis. Pre-LAAC assessment confirmed procedural indication and cactus LAA anatomy (left). After plasmatic management with factor VIII infusion, a WATCHMAN™ no. 21 was successfully implanted (middle). During follow-up, without antithrombotic regime, no ischemic or hemorrhagic complication occurred (right). LAA, left atrial appendage; LAAC, left atrial appendage closure; TEE, transesophageal echocardiography. Percutaneous LAAC in primary HD carriers appeared as safe and as effective as in overall LAAC population for stroke and bleeding prevention at midterm follow-up.

Experience of Combined Procedure during Percutaneous LAA Closure.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedures has emerged as an alternative to a staged strategy. AIM: To describe our experience with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. METHODS: All patients with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016 to 2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during the follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: From 2016, among 160 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 19 underwent a combined strategy: 7 transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEMVR) (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (31%), 2 leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation (10%) and 4 AF ablation (22%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% of cases for single and combined LAAC procedures, respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24). Device-related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/19) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p = ns). The procedural-related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs. 10%, respectively, in the single and combined group, p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: Combined procedure using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure appears safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.

Advantages and disadvantages of drug challenge during electrophysiological study in patients with new left bundle branch block after transaortic valve implantation.

AIMS: Electrophysiological study (EPS) is recommended in case of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (NOP-LBBB) after transaortic valve implantation (TAVI) to identify patients at high risk of delayed atrioventricular block (D-AVB). We evaluated the added value of drug challenge, after normal baseline EPS, to predict D-AVB in such patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative single-centre study of two successive periods, during which we used baseline EPS alone (first period) or drug challenge in case of normal baseline EPS (second period), for patients with NOP-LBBB after TAVI. The primary endpoint was a composite of pacemaker use, documented D-AVB, cardiac syncope, sudden death, or delayed pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: Among 736 patients with TAVI implantation between January 2016 and September 2019, 64 with NOP-LBBB were included. During the first period, 4/22 (18.2%) presented with a positive baseline EPS. After a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 15.6 (8.3) months, 7/22 (31.8%) reached the primary endpoint. During the second period, 19/42 (45.2%) presented with a positive EPS. After a mean (SD) of 12.8 (3.5) months, 8/42 (19.0%) reached the primary endpoint. There was a tendency to increased sensitivity (42.9-87.5%; P = 0.12) and negative predictive value (77.8-95.7%; P = 0.15) of the EPS, respectively during the first to the second period. However, the specificity decreased (93.3-64.7%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic yield improved with drug challenge in case of normal baseline EPS. However, the decrease in specificity led to a high rate of unnecessary pacemaker implantation.

Left atrial appendage perforation during appendage angiography treated by percutaneous left atrial appendage closure: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pericardial effusion is a common complication of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure. Acute management is the cornerstone of pericardial effusion treatment and interrupting the intervention is often required. CASE SUMMARY: A 65-year-old man presented an acute 10 mm pericardial effusion following pigtail contrast appendage injection. A rapid Watchman Flex 24 mm (Boston Scientific) deployment permitted bleeding interruption. A needle pericardiocentesis was achieved in order to prevent any haemodynamical instability. DISCUSSION: This case report describes an atypical cause of pericardial effusion and a technique for bleeding control with LAA closure device deployment.

Twiddler Syndrome without Lead Dislodgment Discovered by Remote Monitoring.

Twiddler syndrome is an uncommon yet dangerous phenomenon usually resulting in lead displacement with loss of capture of cardiac implantable electronic devices. In this case report, we present an interesting case of Twiddler syndrome without lead dislodgment which was detected by an alert triggered by an increase in impedance on remote monitoring.