Detection of atrial fibrillation in persons aged 65 years and above using a mobile electrocardiogram device.

BACKGROUND: Untreated atrial fibrillation (AF) often results in increased morbidity and mortality. Opportunistic AF screening in persons aged ≥ 65 years is recommended to identify patients with AF in order to prevent AF-related complications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of screening persons for AF with the Kardia mobile electrocardiogram device (MED) and to determine the percentage of newly detected AF cases by selective population screening in the Netherlands. METHODS: Persons aged ≥ 65 years, without a medical history of AF, in nursing homes, at public events or visiting the general practitioner (GP) were approached to participate. A Kardia MED smartphone ECG (sECG) was recorded and the CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated. An automated AF algorithm classified the sECGs as 'sinus rhythm', 'AF' or 'unclassified'. In the case of AF, participants were referred to their GP. All sECGs were assessed by blinded experts. RESULTS: A total of 2168 participants were screened for AF. According to the expert's interpretation, 2.5% had newly detected AF, of whom 76.4% never experienced palpitations and 89.1% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. The algorithm result was unclassified in 12.2% of cases, of which 95.5% were interpretable by experts. With expert opinion as the gold standard and excluding unclassified sECGs, the Kardia MED's negative and positive predictive value for detecting AF was 99.8% and 60.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Screening for AF using the Kardia MED is feasible and results in 2.5% newly detected AF cases. Expert interpretation of algorithm outcomes AF and unclassified is recommended.

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.).

Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder to responder conversion rate in the MORE-CRT MPP trial.

AIMS: To assess the impact of MultiPoint™ Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) non-responders after 6 months of standard biventricular pacing (BiVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: The trial enrolled 5850 patients who planned to receive a CRT device. The echocardiography core laboratory assessed CRT response before implant and after 6 months of BiVP; non-response to BiVP was defined as <15% relative reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Echocardiographic non-responders were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive MPP (541 patients) or continued BiVP (570 patients) for an additional 6 months and evaluated the conversion rate to the echocardiographic response. The characteristics of both groups at randomization were comparable. The percentage of non-responder patients who became responders to CRT therapy was 29.4% in the MPP arm and 30.4% in the BIVP arm (P = 0.743). In patients with ≥30 mm spacing between the two left ventricular pacing sites (MPP-AS), identified during the first phase as a potential beneficial subgroup, no significant difference in the conversion rate was observed. CONCLUSION: Our trial shows that ∼30% of patients, who do not respond to CRT in the first 6 months, experience significant reverse remodelling in the following 6 months. This finding suggests that CRT benefit may be delayed or slowly incremental in a relevant proportion of patients and that the percentage of CRT responders may be higher than what has been described in short-/middle-term studies. MultiPoint™ Pacing does not improve CRT response in non-responders to BiVP, even with MPP-AS.

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.

Lead extractions: dissecting adhesions up to the lead-tip of the right ventricle: safety and success-rates.

AIMS: Goal of Transvenous Lead Extraction (TLE) is complete removal of all targeted leads, without complications. Despite counter traction manoeuvres, efficacy rates are often hampered by broken right ventricle lead (RV-lead) tips. Mechanically powered lead extraction (Evolution sheath) is effective, however safety of dissection up to the lead tip is unclear. Therefore, we examined the feasibility and safety of RV-lead extraction requiring dissection up to the myocardium. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2009 to 2018, all TLE in the Isala Heart Centre (Zwolle, The Netherlands) requiring the hand-powered mechanical Evolution system to extract RV-leads (n = 185) were examined from a prospective registry. We assessed 4 groups: TLE with the first generation Evolution (n = 43) with (A1,n = 18) and without (A2,n = 25) adhesions up to the myocardium and TLE with the Novel R/L type (n = 142) of sheath with (B1, n = 59) and without (B2, n = 83) adhesions up to the myocardium. Complete success rate in Group B was significantly higher than group A (96.5 vs 76.7%, p = 0.0354). When comparing the patients with adhesions up to the myocardium, total complete success is higher in the R/L group (61.1% vs 90.5%, p = 0.0067). There were no deaths. Overall major complication rates were low (2/185; 1.1%) and there was no statistically significant difference in major and minor complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Extraction strategy with the bidirectional Evolution R/L sheath for right ventricular leads with adhesions up to the myocardium is safe and feasible.

Patient related outcomes of mechanical lead extraction techniques (PROMET) study: A comparison of two professions.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), there has been a paralleled increase in demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Cardiac surgeons (CS) and cardiologists perform TLE; however, data comparing the two groups of operators is scarce. OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of TLE performed by cardiologists and CS from six European lead extraction units. METHOD: Data was collected retrospectively of 2205 patients who had 3849 leads extracted (PROMET) between 2005 and 2018. Patient demographics and procedural outcomes were compared between the CS and cardiologist groups, using propensity score matching. A multivariate regression analysis was also performed for variables associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: CS performed the majority of extractions (59.8%), of leads with longer dwell times (90 [57-129 interquartile range (IQR)] vs. 62 [31-102 IQR] months, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001) and with pre-dominantly non-infectious indications (57.4% vs. 50.2%, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001). CS achieved a higher complete success per lead than the cardiologists (98.1% vs. 95.7%, respectively, p < .01), with a higher number of minor complications (5.51% vs. 2.1%, p < .01) and similar number of major complications (0.47% vs. 1.3%, p = .12). Thirty-day mortality was similarly low in the CS and cardiologist groups (1.76% vs. 0.94%, p = .21). Unmatched data multivariate analysis revealed infection indication (OR 6.12 [1.9-20.3], p < .01), procedure duration (OR 1.01 [1.01-1.02], p < .01) and CS operator (OR 2.67, [1.12-6.37], p = .027) were associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE by CS was performed with similar safety and higher efficacy compared to cardiologists in high and medium-volume lead extraction centers.

Modified design of stimulation of the left ventricular endocardium for cardiac resynchronization therapy in nonresponders, previously untreatable and high-risk upgrade patients (SOLVE-CRT) trial.

The WiSE system is a novel, leadless endocardial system that can provide cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients who cannot be treated with a conventional epicardial left ventricular lead. Safety and efficacy were being evaluated in the pivotal, randomized, double-blind SOLVE-CRT Trial (Stimulation of the Left Ventricular Endocardium for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.) The trial was initiated in 2018; however, patient enrollment was significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic necessitating a change in design. This article describes the revised trial and the scientific rationale for the specific changes in the protocol.

Complications in pulmonary vein isolation in the Netherlands Heart Registration differ with sex and ablation technique.

AIMS: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become a cornerstone of the invasive treatment of atrial fibrillation. Severe complications are reported in 1-3% of patients. This study aims to compare complications and follow-up outcome of PVI in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The data were extracted from the Netherlands Heart Registration. Procedural and follow-up outcomes in patients treated with conventional radiofrequency (C-RF), multielectrode phased RF (Ph-RF), or cryoballoon (CB) ablation from 2012 to 2017 were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify variables associated with complications and repeat ablations. In total, 13 823 patients (69% male) were included. The reported complication incidence was 3.6%. Patients treated with C-RF developed more cardiac tamponades (C-RF 0.8% vs. Ph-RF 0.3% vs. CB 0.3%, P ≤ 0.001) and vascular complications (C-RF 1.7% vs. Ph-RF 1.2% vs. CB 1.3%, P ≤ 0.001). Ph-RF was associated with fewer bleeding complications (C-RF: 1.0% vs. Ph-RF: 0.4% vs. CB: 0.7%, P = 0.020). Phrenic nerve palsy mainly occurred in patients treated with CB (C-RF: 0.1% vs. Ph-RF: 0.2% vs. CB: 1.5%, P ≤ 0.001). In total, 18.4% of patients were referred for repeat ablation within 1 year. Female sex, age, and CHA2DS2-VASc were independent risk factors for cardiac tamponade and bleeding complications, with an adjusted OR for female patients of 2.97 (95% CI 1.98-4.45) and 2.02 (95% CI 1.03-4.00) respectively. CONCLUSION: The reported complication rate during PVI was low. Patients treated with C-RF ablation were more likely to develop cardiac tamponades and vascular complications. Female sex was associated with more cardiac tamponade and bleeding complications.

Development and external validation of prediction models to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death.

AIMS: This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed.

Significantly less inappropriate shocks in ischemic patients compared to non-ischemic patients: The S-ICD experience of a high volume single-center.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) continues to be preferentially used in relatively young patients, with less advanced heart disease. OBJECTIVE: We, therefore, studied the short and long-term efficacy and safety of the S-ICD in subgroups of patients, which are underreported at present. METHODS: A total of 218 patients between November 2010 and February 2019 undergoing S-ICD with a follow up of at least 6 months implantation were included in a prospective registry. Mean follow up was 38 months. RESULTS: The most common indication for S-ICD implantation was ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 106, 49%). Complication rate needing invasive intervention was 9% (n = 21). Appropriate shock rate in patients with an S-ICD was 3.5%/year. A total of 30 inappropriate shocks (IAS) occurred in 19 patients (8.7%; 2.7%/year). The proportion of appropriate and inappropriate shock rates in patients with different cardiomyopathies shows remarkable variances. There were significant more IAS (3.6%/year vs. 1.7%/year, p = .048) in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy versus patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Multivariate analysis identified, besides type of cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation (AF) as predictor for IAS. CONCLUSION: In this real-world prospective registry we analyzed S-ICD performance in the more traditional ICD patient. Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy had significantly less inappropriate therapy compared to patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and appear to be appropriate patients for this type of device.

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.

Hemodynamic monitoring by intracardiac impedance measured by cardiac resynchronization defibrillators: Evaluation in a controlled clinical setting (BIO.Detect HF II study).

BACKGROUND: In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), intracardiac impedance measured by dedicated CRT-D software may be used to monitor hemodynamic changes. We investigated the relationship of hemodynamic parameters assessed by intracardiac impedance and by echocardiography in a controlled clinical setting. METHODS: The study enrolled 68 patients (mean age, 66 ± 9 years; 74% males) at 12 investigational sites. The patients had an indication for CRT-D implantation, New York Heart Association class II/III symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction 15%-35%, and a QRS duration ≥150 ms. Two months after a CRT-D implantation, hemodynamic changes were provoked by overdrive pacing. Intracardiac impedance was recorded at rest and at four pacing rates ranging from 10 to 40 beats/min above the resting rate. In parallel, echocardiography measurements were performed. We hypothesized that a mean intra-individual correlation coefficient (rmean) between stroke impedance (difference between end-systolic and end-diastolic intracardiac impedance) measured by CRT-D and the aortic velocity time integral (i.e., stroke volume) determined by echocardiography would be significantly larger than 0.65. RESULTS: The hypothesis was evaluated in 40 patients with complete data sets. The rmean was 0.797, with a lower confidence interval bound of 0.709. The study hypothesis was met (p = 0.007). A stepwise reduction of stroke impedance and stroke volume was observed with increasing heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Intracardiac impedance measured by implanted CRT-Ds correlated well with the aortic velocity time integral (stroke volume) determined by echocardiography. The impedance measurements bear potential and are readily available technically, not requiring implantation of additional material beyond standard CRT-D system.

Results of the Patient-Related Outcomes of Mechanical lead Extraction Techniques (PROMET) study: a multicentre retrospective study on advanced mechanical lead extraction techniques.

AIMS: Several large studies have documented the outcome of transvenous lead extraction (TLE), focusing on laser and mechanical methods. To date there has been no large series addressing the results obtained with rotational lead extraction tools. This retrospective multicentre study was designed to investigate the outcomes of mechanical and rotational techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were collected on a total of 2205 patients (age 66.0 ± 15.7 years) with 3849 leads targeted for extraction in six European lead extraction centres. The commonest indication was infection (46%). The targeted leads included 2879 pacemaker leads (74.8%), 949 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads (24.6%), and 21 leads for which details were unknown; 46.6% of leads were passive fixation leads. The median lead dwell time was 74 months [interquartile range (IQR) 41-112]. Clinical success was obtained in 97.0% of procedures, and complete extraction was achieved for 96.5% of leads. Major complications occurred in 22/2205 procedures (1%), with a peri-operative or procedure-related mortality rate of 4/2205 (0.18%). Minor complications occurred in 3.1% of procedures. A total of 1552 leads (in 992 patients) with a median dwell time of 106 months (IQR 66-145) were extracted using the Evolution rotational TLE tool. In this subgroup, complete success was obtained for 95.2% of leads with a procedural mortality rate of 0.4%. CONCLUSION: Patient outcomes in the PROMET study compare favourably with other large TLE trials, underlining the capability of rotational TLE tools and techniques to match laser methods in efficacy and surpass them in safety.

Hybrid Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation after Failed Percutaneous Endocardial and Epicardial Ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) after percutaneous ablation is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. We assessed the feasibility of open chest extracorporeal circulation (ECC)-supported 3D multielectrode mapping and targeted VT substrate ablation in patients with previously failed percutaneous endocardial and epicardial VT ablations. METHODS: In patients with previously failed percutaneous endocardial and epicardial VT ablations and a high risk of hemodynamic collapse during the procedure, open chest ECC-supported mapping and ablation were performed in a hybrid EP lab setting. Electro-anatomic maps (3D) were acquired during sinus rhythm and VT using a multielectrode mapping catheter (HD grid; Abbott or Pentaray, Biosense Webster). Irrigated radiofrequency ablations of all inducible VT were performed with a contact force ablation catheter. RESULTS: Hybrid VT ablation was performed in 5 patients with structural heart disease (i.e., 3 with previous old myocardial infarction and 2 with nonischemic cardiomy-opathy) and recurrent VT. Acute procedural success was achieved in all patients. Four patients were successfully weaned off the ECC. In 1 patient with a severely reduced LVEF (16%), damage to the venous graft occurred after sternotomy and that patient died after 1 month. Four patients (80%) remained VT free after a median follow-up of 6 (IQR 4-10) months. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with previously failed percutaneous endocardial and epicardial VT ablations, open chest ECC-supported multielectrode epicardial mapping revealed a VT substrate in all of the patients, and targeted epicardial ablation abolished VT substrate in these patients.

Elimination of Benign Ventricular Premature Beats or Ventricular Tachycardia with Catheter Ablation versus Two Different Optimal Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment Regimens (Sotalol or Verapamil/Flecainide).

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VA), including premature beats (VPB) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) are commonly encountered arrhythmias. Although these VA are usually benign, their treatment can be a challenge to primary and secondary health care providers. Mainstay treatment is comprised of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) and, in case of drug intolerance or failure, patients are referred for catheter ablation to tertiary health care centers. These patients require extensive medical attention and drug regimens usually have disappointing results. A direct comparison between the efficacy of the most potent AAD and primary catheter ablation in these patients is lacking. The ECTOPIA trial will evaluate the efficacy of 2 pharmacological strategies and 1 interventional approach to: suppress the VA burden, improve the quality of life (QoL), and safety. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that flecainide/verapamil combination and catheter ablation are both superior to sotalol in suppressing VA in patients with symptomatic idiopathic VA. STUDY DESIGN: The Elimination of Ventricular Premature Beats with Catheter Ablation versus Optimal Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment (ECTOPIA) trial is a randomized, multicenter, prospective clinical trial to compare the efficacy of catheter ablation versus optimal AAD treatment with sotalol or flecainide/verapamil. One hundred eighty patients with frequent symptomatic VA in the absence of structural heart disease or underlying cardiac ischemia who are eligible for catheter ablation with an identifiable monomorphic VA origin with a burden ≥5% on 24-h ambulatory rhythm monitoring will be included. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion. The primary endpoint is defined as >80% reduction of the VA burden on 24-h ambulatory Holter monitoring. After reaching the primary endpoint, patients randomized to one of the 2 AAD arms will undergo a cross-over to the other AAD treatment arm to explore differences in drug efficacy and QoL in individual patients. Due to the use of different AAD (with and without ß-blocking characteristics) we will be able to explore the influence of alterations in sympathetic tone on VA burden reduction in different subgroups. Finally, this study will assess the safety of treatment with 2 different AAD and ablation of VA.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder to responder conversion rate in the more response to cardiac resynchronization therapy with MultiPoint Pacing (MORE-CRT MPP) study: results from Phase I.

AIMS: To assess the impact of MultiPoint™ Pacing (MPP)-programmed according to the physician's discretion-in non-responders to standard biventricular pacing after 6 months. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled 1921 patients receiving a quadripolar cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) system capable of MPP™ therapy. A core laboratory assessed echocardiography at baseline and 6 months and defined volumetric non-response to biventricular pacing as <15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Clinical sites randomized patients classified as non-responders in a 1:1 ratio to receive MPP (236 patients) or continued biventricular pacing (231 patients) for an additional 6 months and evaluated rate of conversion to echocardiographic response. Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable. No difference was observed in non-responder to responder conversion rate between MPP and biventricular pacing (31.8% and 33.8%, P = 0.72). In the MPP arm, 68 (29%) patients received MPP programmed with a wide LV electrode anatomical separation (≥30 mm) and shortest LV1-LV2 and LV2-RV timing delays (MPP-AS); 168 (71%) patients received MPP programmed with other settings (MPP-Other). MPP-AS elicited a significantly higher non-responder conversion rate compared to MPP-Other (45.6% vs. 26.2%, P = 0.006) and a trend in a higher conversion rate compared to biventricular pacing (45.6% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 months, investigator-discretionary MPP programming did not significantly increase echocardiographic response compared to biventricular pacing in CRT non-responders.

Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of multipoint pacing therapy: MOre REsponse on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with MultiPoint Pacing (MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE II).

BACKGROUND: Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is beneficial in most heart failure patients, up to 40% do not respond to CRT. Data from the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) IDE trial and MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE I study suggest improved response in subjects in the MPP arm-programmed with wide left ventricular (LV) electrode anatomical separation (≥30 mm) and shortest timing delays of 5 milliseconds (MPP-AS)-compared with quadripolar biventricular (BiV) pacing. STUDY DESIGN: The MORE-CRT MPP-PHASE II trial is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study to assess the 6-month impact of MPP programmed to mandated MPP-AS settings in subjects who do not respond to 6 months of BiV pacing (MPP OFF). Approximately 5,000 subjects with a standard CRT indication will be enrolled and implanted with a quadripolar CRT system (Abbott) capable of delivering MPP. Only BiV pacing is activated at implant. At 6 months, subjects classified as CRT nonresponders (<15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume) are randomized (1:1) to MPP or continued BiV pacing. The mandated MPP parameters (eg, MPP-AS) are programmed to subjects randomized to the MPP arm. At 12 months, the 2 groups will be compared to determine if there is a difference in CRT response rate. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will evaluate whether MPP programmed to mandated MPP-AS settings improves LV reverse remodeling and clinical response to CRT in patients who fail to respond to 6 months of BiV pacing (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02006069).

Design and rationale for the Stimulation Of the Left Ventricular Endocardium for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in non-responders and previously untreatable patients (SOLVE-CRT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes, functional capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure. Despite two decades of experience with CRT, the rate of non-response remains approximately 30%. CRT efficacy is impacted by pacing location, which is anatomically limited in conventional systems. A new wireless endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing system allows CRT without such limitations and has shown promise in open-label studies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate its use in a patient population with poor therapeutic alternatives. METHODS: The SOLVE CRT study is an international, multi-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of patients with Class I and IIa indications for CRT who have either failed to respond to or have been unable to receive conventional CRT. Enrollment will comprise 350 patients implanted with the wireless CRT system randomized 1:1 to therapy on (Treatment) or therapy off (Control) for the six-month period over which trial primary endpoints will be evaluated. The primary safety endpoint will measure the proportion of patients free from system- and procedure-related complications. Primary efficacy endpoints will assess absolute change in LV end-systolic volume LVESV, proportion of patients reducing LVESV by ≥15% and clinical composite score for Treatment versus Control patients. Primary endpoints will be evaluated on an intention-to-treat basis, though per-protocol and as-treated analysis will also be performed. CONCLUSION: SOLVE-CRT will quantify the safety and effectiveness of wireless CRT in non-responders to conventional CRT and indicated patients who have been unable to receive CRT via the usual transvenous approach.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial: A prospective randomized CompArative trial of SubcutanEous ImplanTable CardiOverter-DefibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation testing.

In transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) implants, routine defibrillation testing (DFT) does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death but patients are exposed to the risk of complications related to DFT. The conversion rate of DFT in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is high and first shock efficacy is similar to TV-ICD efficacy rates. STUDY DESIGN: The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective two-arm trial designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of omitting DFT in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation in which the S-ICD system components are optimally positioned. Positioning of the S-ICD will be assessed with the PRAETORIAN score. The PRAETORIAN score is developed to systematically evaluate implant position of the S-ICD system components which determine the defibrillation threshold on post-operative chest X-ray. A total of 965 patients, scheduled to undergo a de novo S-ICD implantation without contra-indications for either DFT strategy, will be randomized to either standard of care S-ICD implantation with DFT, or S-ICD implantation without DFT but with evaluation of the implant position using the PRAETORIAN score. The study is powered to claim non-inferiority of S-ICD implantation without DFT in de novo S-ICD patients in respect to the primary endpoint of first shock efficacy in spontaneous arrhythmia episodes. Patients with a high PRAETORIAN score (≥90) in the interventional arm of this study will undergo DFT according to the same DFT protocol as in the control arm. CONCLUSION: The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial is a randomized trial that aims to gain scientific evidence to safely omit a routine DFT after S-ICD implantation in patients with correct device positioning.