A Modular Communicative Leadless Pacing-Defibrillator System.

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.).

Efficacy and Safety of an Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has a single lead implanted substernally to enable pause-prevention pacing, antitachycardia pacing, and defibrillation energy similar to that of transvenous ICDs. The safety and efficacy of extravascular ICDs are not yet known. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-group, nonrandomized, premarket global clinical study involving patients with a class I or IIa indication for an ICD, all of whom received an extravascular ICD system. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation. The efficacy objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was greater than 88%. The primary safety end point was freedom from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months. The safety objective would be met if the lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the percentage of patients free from such complications was greater than 79%. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were enrolled, 316 of whom had an implantation attempt. Among the 302 patients in whom ventricular arrhythmia could be induced and who completed the defibrillation testing protocol, the percentage of patients with successful defibrillation was 98.7% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 96.6%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 88%); 299 of 316 patients (94.6%) were discharged with a working ICD system. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the percentage of patients free from major system- or procedure-related complications at 6 months was 92.6% (lower boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 89.0%; P<0.001 for the comparison with the performance goal of 79%). No major intraprocedural complications were reported. At 6 months, 25 major complications were observed, in 23 of 316 patients (7.3%). The success rate of antitachycardia pacing, as assessed with generalized estimating equations, was 50.8% (95% CI, 23.3 to 77.8). A total of 29 patients received 118 inappropriate shocks for 81 arrhythmic episodes. Eight systems were explanted without extravascular ICD replacement over the 10.6-month mean follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective global study, we found that extravascular ICDs were implanted safely and were able to detect and terminate induced ventricular arrhythmias at the time of implantation. (Funded by Medtronic; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04060680.).

Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: PULSED AF Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation uses electrical pulses to cause nonthermal irreversible electroporation and induce cardiac cell death. Pulsed field ablation may have effectiveness comparable to traditional catheter ablation while preventing thermally mediated complications. METHODS: The PULSED AF pivotal study (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF) was a prospective, global, multicenter, nonrandomized, paired single-arm study in which patients with paroxysmal (n=150) or persistent (n=150) symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were treated with pulsed field ablation. All patients were monitored for 1 year using weekly and symptomatic transtelephonic monitoring; 3-, 6-, and 12-month ECGs; and 6- and 12-month 24-hour Holter monitoring. The primary effectiveness end point was freedom from a composite of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic escalation through 12 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period to allow recovery from the procedure. The primary safety end point was freedom from a composite of serious procedure- and device-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the primary end points. RESULTS: Pulsed field ablation was shown to be effective at 1 year in 66.2% (95% CI, 57.9 to 73.2) of patients with paroxysmal AF and 55.1% (95% CI, 46.7 to 62.7) of patients with persistent AF. The primary safety end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 4.6) in both the paroxysmal and persistent AF cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: PULSED AF demonstrated a low rate of primary safety adverse events (0.7%) and provided effectiveness consistent with established ablation technologies using a novel irreversible electroporation energy to treat patients with AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04198701.

Patient-reported quality of life and acceptance of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results from pivotal study.

INTRODUCTION: The pivotal study of the extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) recently demonstrated primary efficacy and safety endpoints comparable to previous ICD systems. Patient experience with this novel device has not been reported. The current study examined the standardized patient-reported outcome (PRO) metrics of quality of life (QOL) and patient acceptance of the device. METHODS: The EV ICD Pivotal Study was a prospective, single-arm, nonrandomized, global, premarket approval trial. Patients completed the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) QOL surveys at baseline and at 6 months following implant. Additionally, patients completed the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) QOL survey at 6 months. RESULTS: From baseline to 6 months, patients within the EV ICD Pivotal Study (n = 247) reported statistically significant SF-12 improvements in physical QOL (45.4 ± 9.4 vs. 46.8 ± 9.1 respectively, p = .020) and no changes in mental QOL (49.3 ± 10.4 vs. 50.5 ± 9.7, p = .061). No differences were noted by sex, atrial fibrillation, or the experience of ICD shock. EV ICD patients reported better total FPAS patient acceptance of their ICD than TV-ICD or S-ICD patients using historical norms comparisons (80.4 ± 15.7 vs. 70.2 ± 17.8, p < .0001 for S-ICD and 73.0 ± 17.4, p = .004 for TV-ICD). CONCLUSION: The initial PROs for EV ICD patients indicated that patients had improvements in physical QOL from baseline to 6-month follow-up and markedly better overall acceptance of their ICD compared to a previous study with S-ICD and TV-ICD data. These initial results suggest that the EV ICD is evaluated positively by patients.

Cryocure-VT: the safety and effectiveness of ultra-low-temperature cryoablation of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies.

AIMS: The ultra-low-temperature cryoablation (ULTC) ablation system using -196°C N2 cryogen has been reported to create lesions with freeze duration-dependent depth titratable to over 10 mm with minimum attenuation by scar. Cryocure-VT (NCT04893317) was a first-in-human clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of a novel, purpose-built ULTC catheter in endocardial ablation of scar-dependent ventricular tachycardias (VTs). METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, multi-centre study enrolled patients referred for de novo or second ablations of recurrent monomorphic VT of both ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiologies. Primary safety and efficacy endpoints of the study were freedom from device- or procedure-related major adverse events (MAEs) up to 30 days post-ablation, acute non-inducibility of clinical VTs at the end of the procedure, and freedom from sustained VT or implantable defibrillator intervention at 6 months. Ultra-low-temperature cryoablation was performed in 64 patients (age 67 ± 11 years, 78% ischaemic, ejection fraction = 35 ± 10%) at 9 centres. The primary acute effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 94% (51/54) of patients in whom post-ablation induction was attempted. There were no protocol-defined MAEs; four procedure-related serious adverse events resolved without clinical sequelae. At 6-month follow-up, 38 patients (60.3%) remained VT-free, and freedom from defibrillator shock was 81.0%, with no significant difference between ischaemic and non-ischaemic cohorts. In 47 patients with defibrillator for at least 6 months prior to the ablation, the VT burden was reduced from median of 4, inter-quartile range (IQR, 1-9) to 0, IQR (0-2). CONCLUSION: In this first-in-human multi-centre experience, endocardial ULTC ablation of monomorphic VT appears safe and effective in patients with both ischaemic-cardiomyopathy and non-ischaemic-cardiomyopathy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04893317.

Practical guide on left atrial appendage closure for the non-implanting physician: an international consensus paper.

A significant proportion of patients who suffer from atrial fibrillation (AF) and are in need of thromboembolic protection are not treated with oral anticoagulation or discontinue this treatment shortly after its initiation. This undertreatment has not improved sufficiently despite the availability of direct oral anticoagulants which are associated with less major bleeding than vitamin K antagonists. Multiple reasons account for this, including bleeding events or ischaemic strokes whilst on anticoagulation, a serious risk of bleeding events, poor treatment compliance despite best educational attempts, or aversion to drug therapy. An alternative interventional therapy, which is not associated with long-term bleeding and is as effective as vitamin K anticoagulation, was introduced over 20 years ago. Because of significant improvements in procedural safety over the years, left atrial appendage closure, predominantly achieved using a catheter-based, device implantation approach, is increasingly favoured for the prevention of thromboembolic events in patients who cannot achieve effective anticoagulation. This management strategy is well known to the interventional cardiologist/electrophysiologist but is not more widely appreciated within cardiology or internal medicine. This article introduces the devices and briefly explains the implantation technique. The indications and device follow-up are more comprehensively described. Almost all physicians who care for adult patients will have many with AF. This practical guide, written within guideline/guidance boundaries, is aimed at those non-implanting physicians who may need to refer patients for consideration of this new therapy, which is becoming increasingly popular.

Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

Subcutaneous or Transvenous Defibrillator Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTS: A total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.).

Progress in atrial fibrillation ablation during 25 years of Europace journal.

The first edition of Europace journal in 1999 came right around the time of the landmark publication of the electrophysiologists from Bordeaux, establishing how elimination of ectopic activity from the pulmonary veins (PVs) resulted in a marked reduction of atrial fibrillation (AF). The past 25 years have seen an incredible surge in scientific interest to develop new catheters and energy sources to optimize durability and safety of ablation, as well as study the mechanisms for AF and devise ablation strategies. While ablation in the beginning was performed with classic 4 mm tip catheters that emitted radiofrequency (RF) energy to create tissue lesions, this evolved to using irrigation and contact force (CF) measurement while increasing power. Also, so-called single-shot devices were developed with balloons and arrays to create larger contiguous lesions, and energy sources changed from RF current to cryogenic ablation and more recently pulsed field ablation with electrical current. Although PV ablation has remained the basis for every AF ablation, it was soon recognized that this was not enough to cure all patients, especially those with non-paroxysmal AF. Standardized approaches for additional ablation targets have been used but have not been satisfactory in all patients so far. This led to highly technical mapping systems that are meant to unravel the drivers for the maintenance of AF. In the following sections, the development of energies, strategies, and tools is described with a focus on the contribution of Europace to publish the outcomes of studies that were done during the past 25 years.

Treatment of pathophysiologic propagation outside of the pulmonary veins in retreatment of atrial fibrillation patients: RECOVER AF study.

AIMS: RECOVER AF evaluated the performance of whole-chamber non-contact charge-density mapping to guide the ablation of non-pulmonary vein (PV) targets in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients following either a first or second failed procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: RECOVER AF was a prospective, non-randomized trial that enrolled patients scheduled for a first or second ablation retreatment for recurrent AF. The PVs were assessed and re-isolated if necessary. The AF maps were used to guide the ablation of non-PV targets through elimination of pathologic conduction patterns (PCPs). Primary endpoint was freedom from AF on or off antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) at 12 months. Patients undergoing retreatment with the AcQMap System (n = 103) were 76% AF-free at 12 months [67% after single procedure (SP)] on or off AADs (80% free from AF on AADs). Patients who had only received a pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) prior to study treatment of non-PV targets with the AcQMap System were 91% AF-free at 12 months (83% SP). No major adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Non-contact mapping can be used to target and guide the ablation of PCPs beyond the PVs in persistent AF patients returning for a first or second retreatment with 76% freedom from AF at 12 months. The AF freedom was particularly high, 91% (43/47), for patients enrolled having only a prior de novo PVI, and freedom from all atrial arrhythmias for this cohort was 74% (35/47). These early results are encouraging and suggest that guiding individualized targeted ablation of PCPs may therefore be advantageous to target at the earliest opportunity in patients with persistent AF.

Long-term success of a multi-electrode substrate mapping and ablation strategy versus a classic single tip mapping and ablation strategy for ventricular tachycardia ablation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past years, mapping and ablation techniques for the treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) have evolved rapidly. High Density (HD) substrate mapping is now routine and pre-procedural imaging is increasingly used. The additional value of these techniques for long-term VT-free survival is not clear. METHODS: We compared baseline and procedural characteristics, procedural success, safety and outcome of mapping and ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with ischemic heart disease between two groups. (1) Low Density (LD) group: VT mapping and ablation with a 4 mm single tip catheter (2) HD group: HD substrate mapping with the Pentaray (Biosense Webster, USA) or HD Grid (Abbott, USA) catheter and ablation with a 4 mm single tip catheter. RESULTS: VT ablation was performed in 133 patients (71 patients in LD group and 62 patients in HD group). The median follow-up was 5.0 years in LD group and 2.0 years in HD group. One-, two-, and five-year VT recurrence rates were 47%, 56%, and 65% in the LD group versus 39%, 50%, and 55% in the HD group (log-rank test for VT recurrence p = .70). One-, two-, and five-year ICD shock recurrence rates were 14%, 18%, and 24% in the LD group versus 8%, 15%, and 19% in the HD group (log-rank test for ICD-shock p = .79). All-cause mortality, cardiac (non-arrhythmic), and arrhythmic death, were similar in both groups. Severe procedural complications (tamponade, stroke, or procedural death) occurred in four patients (5%, 1 vascular, 3 tamponade) in the LD group versus two patients (3%, both tamponade) in the HD group (NS). In univariate and multivariable analysis, only a higher LVEF was significantly associated with VT-free survival. HD mapping was not significantly associated with VT-free survival. Anterior infarct location and age were significantly associated with ICD recurrent shock in both univariate and multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, a HD substrate mapping, and ablation strategy did not lead to higher VT-free survival and shock-free survival compared to a single tip mapping and ablation strategy. In this study, only LVF is an independent predictor for VT recurrence. Anterior infarct location and age predict recurrent ICD shocks.

High-density mapping for ablation of atypical atrial flutters - procedural characteristics related to outcome.

BACKGROUND: High-density (HD) mapping is increasingly used to characterize arrhythmic substrate for ablation of atypical atrial flutters (AAFl). However, results on clinical outcomes and factors that are associated with arrhythmia recurrence are scarce. METHODS: Single-center, prospective, observational cohort study that enrolled patients with catheter ablation for AAFl using a HD mapping system and a grid-shaped mapping catheter. Procedural characteristics, rates of atrial flutter recurrence, and factors that were associated with atrial flutter recurrence were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients with a total of 94 AAFl were included in the cohort. HD mapping was used to successfully identify the flutter circuit of 80/94 AAFl. The circuit was not identified for 14/94 AAFl in 11 patients. Critical isthmuses were identified and ablated in 29 patients (48%). Acute procedural success was achieved in 52 patients (85%), and 37 patients (61%) remained free from atrial flutter recurrence during a follow up of 1.3 [1.0-2.1] years. Atrial flutter recurrence was univariably associated with presence of a non-identified flutter circuit (HR:2.6 95% CI [1.1-6.3], p = .04) and critical isthmus-targeted ablation (HR:0.4 [0.15-0.90], p = .03). In multivariable regression analyses, critical isthmus ablation remained significant (HR:0.4 [0.16-0.97], p = .04), whereas presence of a non-identified flutter did not (HR:2.4 [0.96-5.8], p = .06). CONCLUSION: HD mapping was successfully used to identify the majority of AAFl circuits. Ablation resulted in freedom from atrial flutter recurrence in 61% of the cohort. Successful identification of all flutter circuits and critical isthmuses appears to be beneficial for long-term outcomes.

Feasibility of concomitant left atrial appendage closure and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation: a randomized pilot study.

The optimal approach for prevention of cardiovascular events and reduction of bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and atrial fibrillation (AF) is still controversial. The aim of our study is to asses our single-center experience with concomitant left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 50 patients with ACS without ST elevation and history of AF were randomized after successful PCI to LAAO or conventional medical therapy. The primary endpoints were safety and length of hospitalization. The follow-up period was 30 days. The mean procedural times were 113 ± 23 min PCI + LAAO implantation and 39 ± 19 min of PCI only (p < 0.001), while mean fluoroscopy times were 18 ± 8 min and 12 ± 8 min (p < 0.001), respectively. No procedure-related complications were observed. There was no difference observed for length of hospitalization between two groups. LAAO in patients with ACS and AF undergoing PCI appears safe.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: long-term results of the EFFORTLESS study.

AIMS: To report 5-year outcomes of EFFORTLESS registry patients with early generation subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier, trend and multivariable analyses were performed for mortality and late (years 2-5) complications, appropriate shock (AS) and inappropriate shock (IAS) rates. Nine hundred and eighty-four of 994 enrolled patients with diverse diagnoses (28% female, 48 ± 17 years, body mass index 27 ± 6 kg/m2, ejection fraction 43 ± 18%) underwent S-ICD implantation. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range 4.7-5.5 years). All-cause mortality was 9.3% (95% confidence interval 7.2-11.3%) at 5 years; 703 patients remained in follow-up on study completion, 171 withdrew including 87 (8.8%) with device explanted, and 65 (6.6%) lost to follow-up. Of the explants, only 20 (2.0%) patients needed a transvenous device for pacing indications. First and final shock efficacy for discrete ventricular arrhythmias was consistent at 90% and 98%, respectively, with storm episode final shock efficacy at 95.2%. Time to therapy remained unaltered. Overall 1- and 5-year complication rates were 8.9% and 15.2%, respectively. Early complications did not predict later complications. There were no structural lead failures. Inappropriate shock rates at 1 and 5 years were 8.7% and 16.9%, respectively. Self-terminating inappropriately sensed episodes predicted late IAS. Predictors of late AS included self-terminating appropriately sensed episodes and earlier AS. CONCLUSION: In this diverse S-ICD registry population, spontaneous shock efficacy was consistently high over 5 years. Very few patients underwent S-ICD replacement with a transvenous device for pacing indications. Treated and self-terminating arrhythmic episodes predict future shock events, which should encourage more personalized device optimization.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

NL-EVDR: Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is an essential element in treating cardiac arrhythmias. Despite their benefits, conventional transvenous CIEDs are associated with a significant risk of mainly pocket- and lead-related complications. To overcome these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs), such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and intracardiac leadless pacemaker, have been developed. In the near future, several other innovative EVDs will become available. However, it is difficult to evaluate EVDs in large studies because of high costs, lack of long-term follow-up, imprecise data or selected patient populations. To improve evaluation of these technologies, real-world, large-scale, long-term data are of utmost importance. A Dutch registry-based study seems to be a unique possibility for this goal due to early involvement of Dutch hospitals in novel CIEDs and an existing quality control infrastructure, the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Therefore, we will soon start the Netherlands-ExtraVascular Device Registry (NL-EVDR), a Dutch nationwide registry with long-term follow-up of EVDs. The NL-EVDR will be incorporated in NHR's device registry. Additional EVD-specific variables will be collected both retrospectively and prospectively. Hence, combining Dutch EVD data will provide highly relevant information on safety and efficacy. As a first step, a pilot project has started in selected centres in October 2022 to optimise data collection.

Outcomes in Dutch DPP6 risk haplotype for familial idiopathic ventricular fibrillation: a focused update.

BACKGROUND: The genetic risk haplotype DPP6 has been linked to familial idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF), but the associated long-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: DPP6 risk haplotype-positive family members (DPP6 cases) and their risk haplotype-negative relatives (DPP6 controls) were included. Clinical follow-up data were collected through March 2023. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indication was divided in primary or secondary prevention. Cumulative survival and event rates were calculated. RESULTS: We included 327 DPP6 cases and 315 DPP6 controls. Median follow-up time was 9 years (interquartile range: 4-12). Of the DPP6 cases, 129 (39%) reached the composite endpoint of appropriate ICD shock, sudden cardiac arrest or death, at a median age of 45 years (range: 15-97). Median overall survival was 83 years and 87 years for DPP6 cases and DPP6 controls, respectively (p < 0.001). In DPP6 cases, median overall survival was shorter for males (74 years) than females (85 years) (p < 0.001). Of the DPP6 cases, 97 (30%) died, at a median age of 50 years. With a prophylactic ICD implantation advise based on risk haplotype, sex and age, 137 (42%) of DPP6 cases received an ICD, for primary prevention (n = 109) or secondary prevention (n = 28). In the primary prevention subgroup, 10 patients experienced a total of 34 appropriate ICD shocks, and there were no deaths during follow-up. DPP6 cases with a secondary prevention ICD experienced a total of 231 appropriate ICD shocks. CONCLUSION: Patients with the DPP6 risk haplotype, particularly males, are at an increased risk of IVF and sudden cardiac death. Using a risk stratification approach based on risk haplotype, sex and age, a substantial proportion of patients with a primary prevention ICD experienced appropriate ICD shocks, showing the benefit of prophylactic ICD implantation with this strategy.

Primary Results From the Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction (UNTOUCHED) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous (S) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is safe and effective for sudden cardiac death prevention. However, patients in previous S-ICD studies had fewer comorbidities, had less left ventricular dysfunction, and received more inappropriate shocks (IAS) than in typical transvenous ICD trials. The UNTOUCHED trial (Understanding Outcomes With the S-ICD in Primary Prevention Patients With Low Ejection Fraction) was designed to evaluate the IAS rate in a more typical, contemporary ICD patient population implanted with the S-ICD using standardized programming and enhanced discrimination algorithms. METHODS: Primary prevention patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and no pacing indications were included. Generation 2 or 3 S-ICD devices were implanted and programmed with rate-based therapy delivery for rates ≥250 beats per minute and morphology discrimination for rates ≥200 and <250 beats per minute. Patients were followed for 18 months. The primary end point was the IAS-free rate compared with a 91.6% performance goal, derived from the results for the ICD-only patients in the MADIT-RIT study (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduce Inappropriate Therapy). Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to evaluate event-free rates for IAS, all-cause shock, and complications. Multivariable proportional hazard analysis was performed to determine predictors of end points. RESULTS: S-ICD implant was attempted in 1116 patients, and 1111 patients were included in postimplant follow-up analysis. The cohort had a mean age of 55.8±12.4 years, 25.6% were women, 23.4% were Black, 53.5% had ischemic heart disease, 87.7% had symptomatic heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4±5.8%. Eighteen-month freedom from IAS was 95.9% (lower confidence limit, 94.8%). Predictors of reduced incidence of IAS were implanting the most recent generation of device, using the 3-incision technique, no history of atrial fibrillation, and ischemic cause. The 18-month all-cause shock-free rate was 90.6% (lower confidence limit, 89.0%), meeting the prespecified performance goal of 85.8%. Conversion success rate for appropriate, discrete episodes was 98.4%. Complication-free rate at 18 months was 92.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates high efficacy and safety with contemporary S-ICD devices and programming despite the relatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials. The inappropriate shock rate (3.1% at 1 year) is the lowest reported for the S-ICD and lower than many transvenous ICD studies using contemporary programming to reduce IAS. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02433379.

Comparison of anticoagulation with left atrial appendage closure after atrial fibrillation ablation: Rationale and design of the OPTION randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), physicians typically offer AF ablation for symptom relief; however, patients often anticipate/expect a life free from anticoagulation. This belief puts patients at increased risk of stroke due to the potential for asymptomatic AF postablation if anticoagulation is ceased contrary to clinical guidelines. Although the WATCHMAN device has been FDA-approved to decrease the risk of thromboembolism from the left atrial appendage (LAA) in patients with an appropriate rationale to avoid oral anticoagulation, it has not been well-studied following AF ablation. Additionally, there are limited data comparing the WATCHMAN device to direct oral anticoagulants. The OPTION study will investigate whether LAA closure with the WATCHMAN FLX device is a reasonable alternative to oral anticoagulation following percutaneous catheter ablation for nonvalvular AF. TRIAL DESIGN: OPTION is a multinational, multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial. Patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc of ≥2 in men or ≥3 in women and who underwent a AF catheter ablation procedure between 90 and 180 days prior to randomization (sequential) or are planning to have catheter ablation within 10 days of randomization (concomitant) will be randomized in a 1:1 allocation of WATCHMAN FLX vs control. Control patients will start or continue market-approved oral anticoagulation for the duration of the trial. A total of 1600 patients were randomized from 130 global investigational sites. Follow-up for both device and control patients will occur at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months. The primary effectiveness noninferiority endpoint is stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), all-cause death, or systemic embolism at 36 months. The primary safety superiority endpoint is nonprocedural bleeding through 36 months (International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH] major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding). The secondary noninferiority endpoint is ISTH major bleeding through 36 months (including procedural bleeding). CONCLUSIONS: This trial will assess the safety and efficacy of WATCHMAN FLX in a postablation contemporary clinical AF patient population at risk of stroke.

COMPARE LAAO: Rationale and design of the randomized controlled trial "COMPARing Effectiveness and safety of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion to standard of care for atrial fibrillation patients at high stroke risk and ineligible to use oral anticoagulation therapy".

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) provides an alternative to oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). In patients with a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC randomized controlled trial (RCT) data is lacking. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of LAAO in AF patients who are ineligible to use OAC. The co-primary efficacy endpoint is (1) time to first occurrence of stroke (ischemic, hemorrhagic, or undetermined) and (2) time to first occurrence of the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and systemic embolism (SE). The primary safety endpoint is the 30-day rate of peri-procedural complications. STUDY DESIGN: This is a multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE), superiority-driven RCT. Patients with AF, a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women and a long-term or permanent contraindication for OAC will be randomized in a 2:1 fashion to the device- or control arm. Patients in the device arm will undergo percutaneous LAAO and will receive post-procedural dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) per protocol, while those in the control arm will continue their current treatment consisting of no antithrombotic therapy or (D)APT as deemed appropriate by the primary responsible physician. In this endpoint-driven trial design, assuming a 50% lower stroke risk of LAAO compared to conservative treatment, 609 patients will be followed for a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 5 years. Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analyses will be performed to allow decision-making on reimbursement of LAAO for the target population in the Netherlands. SUMMARY: The COMPARE LAAO trial will investigate the clinical superiority in preventing thromboembolic events and cost-effectiveness of LAAO in AF patients with a high thromboembolic risk and a contraindication for OAC use. NCT TRIAL NUMBER: NCT04676880.