Effectiveness of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in preventing acute hemodynamic decompensation during catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in advanced heart failure patients: A retrospective single-center analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Acute hemodynamic decompensation during catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia is associated with increased mortality. We assessed the effectiveness of mechanical circulatory support using a micro-axial percutaneous assist device in preventing acute hemodynamic decompensation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-six consecutive patients with structural heart disease undergoing 28 ventricular tachycardia ablations between May 2013 and October 2017 were included. All patients presenting with left ventricular ejection fraction <25%, symptomatic heart failure and arrhythmia associated hemodynamic decompensation underwent catheter ablation with mechanical circulatory support (Impella 2.5; Impella CP, Abiomed, Danvers, MA). Electro-anatomic mapping was performed using Ensite NavX (Abbott, Chicago, IL) or Rhythmia (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) mapping systems. Mapping/ablation strategy included a substrate and activation mapping/ablation. Of the 26 patients, 80% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, the mean age was 68 ± 9 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 19.6% ± 3%, mean PAAINESD score was 21 ± 3. Mean tachycardia cycle length was 348 ± 76 ms (range 280-500 ms). The assist device was used pre-emptively in 25 patients and as rescue therapy in one patient. All ventricular tachycardias occurring during substrate ablation were activation mapped and ablated. The ablation procedure was accomplished in 25 of 26 patients, acute decompensation occurred only in one patient receiving circulatory support as bail-out therapy. CONCLUSION: In patients with advanced heart failure and a high probability of acute hemodynamic decompensation during catheter ablation, mechanical circulatory support prevented acute decompensation in 25 of 26 patients. Thus, mechanical circulatory support facilitates catheter ablation of unstable ventricular tachycardia in a critically ill patient population.

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study.

INTRODUCTION: Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates. CONCLUSION: In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study.

Aims: No standard practice exists with respect to anaesthesiologist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. sedation by proceduralist (PDS) for defibrillation threshold (DT) testing. We aimed to evaluate adverse events and safety outcomes with ADS vs. PDS for DT testing. Methods and results: A post hoc analysis of the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) study was performed among the 1242 patients who had DT testing (624 ADS and 618 PDS). We evaluated both intraoperative and in-hospital adverse composite events and two safety composite outcomes at 30-days of the main trial. Propensity score adjusted models were used to compute odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the association between adverse and safety outcomes with method of sedation and independent predictors for use of ADS. Compared to PDS, patients who received ADS were younger (62 ± 12 years vs. 64 ± 12 years, P = 0.01), had lower ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction 0.31 ± 13 vs. 0.33 ± 13, P = 0.03), were more likely to receive inhalational anaesthesia, propofol, or narcotics (P < 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = <0.0001). Independent predictors for ADS sedation were presence of coronary artery disease (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0-2.72; P = 0.03) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.19-5.85; P = 0.02). Anaesthesiologist directed sedation had higher intraoperative adverse events (2.2% vs. 0.5%; OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.25-16.0; P = 0.02) and higher primary safety outcomes at 30 days (8.2% vs. 4.9%; OR 1.72 95% CI 1.06-2.80; P = 0.03) and no difference in other outcomes compared to PDS. Conclusion: Proceduralist-directed sedation is safe, however, this could be result of selection bias. Further research is needed.

Wound haematoma following defibrillator implantation: incidence and predictors in the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial.

AIMS: Pocket haematoma is a common complication after defibrillator [implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)] implantation, which is not only painful, but also increases the risk of device-related infection, and possibly embolic events. The present study seeks to evaluate the rate and predictors of clinically significant pocket haematoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 2500 patients receiving an ICD in the SIMPLE trial. A clinically significant pocket haematoma was defined as a haematoma that required re-operation or interruption of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy. Clinically significant pocket haematoma occurred in 56 of 2500 patients (2.2%) of which 6 (10.7%) developed device-related infection. Patients who developed pocket haematoma were older (mean age 67.6 ± 8.8 years vs. 62.7 ± 11.6 years, P < 0.001), were more likely to have permanent atrial fibrillation (30.4 vs. 6.7%, P < 0.001) and a history of stroke (17.9 vs. 6.7%, P = 0.004), or were more likely to receive peri-operative OAC (50.0 vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001), unfractionated heparin (16.1 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.003), or low-molecular-weight heparin (37.5 vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001). Independent predictors of wound haematoma on multivariable analysis included the use of heparin bridging (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.48-4.73, P = 0.001), sub-pectoral location of ICD (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12-3.57, P =0.020), previous stroke (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.20-5.10, P = 0.015), an upgrade from permanent pacemaker (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.07-5.94, P = 0.035), and older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Pocket haematoma remains an important complication of ICD implantation and is associated with a high risk of infection. Independent predictors of pocket haematoma include heparin bridging, prior stroke, sub-pectoral placement of ICD, older age, and upgrade from a pacemaker.

Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE).

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation is widely done at the time of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing. METHODS: In this single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]), we recruited patients aged older than 18 years receiving their first ICD for standard indications at 85 hospitals in 18 countries worldwide. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, awaiting transplantation, particpation in another randomised trial, unavailability for follow-up, or if it was expected that the ICD would have to be implanted on the right-hand side of the chest. Patients undergoing initial implantation of a Boston Scientific ICD were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testing group). We used random block sizes to conceal treatment allocation from the patients, and randomisation was stratified by clinical centre. Our primary efficacy analysis tested the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a composite outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (ie, a shock that did not terminate a spontaneous episode of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5 calculated from a proportional hazards model with no-testing versus testing as the only covariate; if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 1·5, we concluded that ICD insertion without testing was non-inferior to ICD with testing. We examined safety with two, 30 day, adverse event outcome clusters. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00800384. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2009, and April 4, 2011, of 2500 eligible patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and followed up for a mean of 3·1 years (SD 1·0). The primary outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock occurred in fewer patients (90 [7% per year]) in the no-testing group than patients who did receive it (104 [8% per year]; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). The first safety composite outcome occurred in 69 (5·6%) of 1236 patients with no-testing and in 81 (6·5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0·33. The second, pre-specified safety composite outcome, which included only events most likely to be directly caused by testing, occurred in 3·2% of patients with no-testing and in 4·5% with defibrillation testing, p=0·08. Heart failure needing intravenous treatment with inotropes or diuretics was the most common adverse event (in 20 [2%] of 1236 patients in the no-testing group vs 28 [2%] of 1242 patients in the testing group, p=0·25). INTERPRETATION: Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death. FUNDING: Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office).

An entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden death from cardiac causes in selected patients but require the use of transvenous lead systems. To eliminate the need for venous access, we designed and tested an entirely subcutaneous ICD system. METHODS: First, we conducted two short-term clinical trials to identify a suitable device configuration and assess energy requirements. We evaluated four subcutaneous ICD configurations in 78 patients who were candidates for ICD implantation and subsequently tested the best configuration in 49 additional patients to determine the subcutaneous defibrillation threshold in comparison with that of the standard transvenous ICD. Then we evaluated the long-term use of subcutaneous ICDs in a pilot study, involving 6 patients, which was followed by a trial involving 55 patients. RESULTS: The best device configuration consisted of a parasternal electrode and a left lateral thoracic pulse generator. This configuration was as effective as a transvenous ICD for terminating induced ventricular fibrillation, albeit with a significantly higher mean (+/-SD) energy requirement (36.6+/-19.8 J vs. 11.1+/-8.5 J). Among patients who received a permanent subcutaneous ICD, ventricular fibrillation was successfully detected in 100% of 137 induced episodes. Induced ventricular fibrillation was converted twice in 58 of 59 patients (98%) with the delivery of 65-J shocks in two consecutive tests. Clinically significant adverse events included two pocket infections and four lead revisions. After a mean of 10+/-1 months, the device had successfully detected and treated all 12 episodes of spontaneous, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia. CONCLUSIONS: In small, nonrandomized studies, an entirely subcutaneous ICD consistently detected and converted ventricular fibrillation induced during electrophysiological testing. The device also successfully detected and treated all 12 episodes of spontaneous, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00399217 and NCT00853645.)

Efficacy of everolimus eluting stent implantation in patients with calcified coronary culprit lesions: two-year angiographic and three-year clinical results from the SPIRIT II study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of treatment with drug-eluting stents (DES) on calcified coronary lesions. This analysis sought to assess the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with calcified or noncalcified culprit lesions. METHODS: The study population consisted of 212 patients with 247 lesions, who were treated with EES alone. Target lesions were angiographically classified as none/mild, moderate, or severe grades of calcification. The population was divided into two groups: those with at least one target lesion moderately or severely calcified (the calcified group: 68 patients with 75 calcified lesions) and those with all target lesions having mild or no calcification (the noncalcified group: 144 patients). Six-month and 2-year angiographic follow-up and clinical follow-up up to 3 years were completed. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were not significantly different between both groups. When compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group had significantly higher rates of 6-month in-stent angiographic binary restenosis (ABR, 4.3% vs. 0%, P = 0.03) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR, 5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), resulting in numerically higher major cardiac adverse events (MACE, 5.9% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.09). At 2 years, when compared with the noncalcified group, the calcified group presented higher in-stent ABR (7.4% vs. 0%, P = 0.08) and ID-TLR (7.8% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.03), resulting in numerically higher MACE (10.9% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.12). At 3 years, ID-TLR tended to be higher in the calcified group than in the noncalcified group (8.6% vs. 2.4%, P = 0.11), resulting in numerically higher MACE (12.1% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The MACE rates in patients treated with EES for calcified lesions were higher than in those for noncalcified lesions, but remained lower than the results of previously reported stent studies. EES implantation in patients with calcified culprit lesions was safe and associated with favorable reduction of restenosis and repeat revascularization. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

[Interruption of cardiac resynchronization therapy after a ventricular premature beat : What is the mechanism?] / Unterbrechung der kardialen Resynchronisationstherapie nach ventrikulärer Extrasystolie : Was ist der Mechanismus?

The present case report illustrates a mechanism that can interrupt cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and lead to recurrence of dyspnea during exercise. It points out that CRT requires a regular cardiac history, analysis of device-stored data and profound knowledge about function and especially timing intervals of these systems in order to utilize the full potential of this therapy.

Rate, Time Course, and Predictors of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Infections: An Analysis From the SIMPLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) infections is increasing due to an increased number of ICD implants, higher-risk patients, and more frequent replacement procedures, which carry a higher risk of infection. Reducing the morbidity, mortality, and cost of ICD-related infections requires an understanding of the current rate of this complication and its predictors. METHODS: The Shock Implant Evaluation Trial (SIMPLE) trial randomized 2500 ICD recipients to defibrillation testing or not. Over an average of 3.1 years, patients were seen every 6 months and examined for evidence of ICD infection, which was defined as requiring device removal and/or intravenous antibiotics. RESULTS: Within 24 months, 21 patients (0.8%) developed infection. Fourteen patients (67%) with infection presented within 30 days, 20 patients by 12 months, and only 1 patient beyond 12 months. Univariate analysis demonstrated that patients with primary electrical disorders (3 patients, P = 0.009) and those with a secondary prevention indication (13 patients, P = 0.0009) were more likely to develop infection. Among the 2.2% of patients who developed an ICD wound hematoma, 10.4% developed an infection. Among the 8.3% of patients requiring an ICD reintervention, 1.9% developed an infection. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of ICD recipients at high-volume centres have a low risk of device-related infection. However; strategies to reduce wound hematoma and the need for ICD reintervention could further reduce the rate of infection.

CONTEXTE: L'incidence des cas d'infection du défibrillateur cardioverteur implantable (DCI) augmente en raison du nombre accru d'implantations, de l'emploi de ces dispositifs chez des patients exposés à un risque très élevé et de l'augmentation de la fréquence des interventions de remplacement, qui sont associées à un plus grand risque d'infections. Pour parvenir à réduire la morbidité, la mortalité et les coûts associés aux infections liées à un DCI, il faut connaître la fréquence de cette complication et les facteurs qui permettent de la prédire. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Lors de l'essai S hock Impl ant E valuation Trial (SIMPLE), 2 500 patients ayant reçu un DCI ont été répartis aléatoirement en deux groupes, l'un subissant des tests de défibrillation et l'autre, non. Sur une période de 3,1 ans en moyenne, les patients ont été vus en consultation tous les 6 mois et examinés à la recherche de signes d'infection du DCI, définie comme étant une infection exigeant le retrait du dispositif et/ou l'administration d'antibiotiques par voie intraveineuse. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 21 patients (0,8 %) ont présenté une infection dans les 24 mois suivant l'implantation. Quatorze patients (67 %) ont présenté une infection dans les 30 jours suivant l'intervention; à 12 mois, 20 patients avaient présenté une infection. Un seul patient a présenté une infection plus de 12 mois après l'intervention. Les résultats d'une analyse univariée ont démontré qu'une infection était plus probable chez les patients qui présentaient un trouble électrique primaire (3 patients, p = 0,009) et chez ceux qui avaient reçu un dispositif en prévention secondaire (13 patients, p = 0,0009). Parmi les patients qui présentaient un hématome après l'implantation du DCI (2,2 %), 10,4 % ont présenté une infection. Parmi les patients qui ont eu besoin d'une nouvelle intervention relative au DCI (8,3 %), 1,9 % ont présenté une infection. CONCLUSIONS: Les patients de cette cohorte ayant reçu un DCI dans des établissements à haut volume étaient exposés à un faible risque d'infection du défibrillateur. Des stratégies visant à réduire les hématomes et la nécessité d'une nouvelle intervention sur les DCI pourraient toutefois contribuer à réduire encore plus la fréquence des infections.

Systemic exposure of everolimus after stent implantation: a pharmacokinetic study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of the eluted everolimus by assessing systemic drug release and distribution of everolimus-eluting stents. BACKGROUND: Drugs eluted by a coronary stent might cause adverse events such as tumors, infections, or noncardiac death. The systemic exposure of the drugs is unknown because there are only limited data about pharmacokinetics of drug-eluting stents in humans. METHODS: Venous blood samples in a subset of 39 patients were drawn just before implantation of the first stent (baseline, 0-minute time point) and at 10 and 30 minutes and 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, 168, and 720 hours (30 days) after completion of implantation of the last stent. Whole blood concentrations of everolimus were determined using a sensitive validated high-performance liquid chromatography mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry method. RESULTS: The total dose of everolimus received by the patients ranged from 53 to 588 microg. The last time point up to which whole blood concentrations could be quantified ranged per patient from 4 to 720 hours after implantation of the last stent. Across all dose levels, individual T(max) values ranged from 0.13 and 2.17 hours; individual C(max) ranged from 0.14 to 2.79 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the limited exposure to the systemic circulation of the eluted drug with the use of the XIENCE V Everolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA). Therefore, a systemic cause of adverse events is unlikely.

[Latest proceedings: remote medicine - ready for clinical practice?!]. / Telemedizin in der Kardiologie - Relevanz für die Praxis?!

Changes in the demographic structure, increasing multimorbidity in connection with a rise in the number of chronic illnesses and the absence of an effective coordination of the different levels of healthcare services with its discontinuous processes and redundancies will increase the economic burdens in the German health-care system. Recent developments and appropriate logistic premises nowadays offer a realistic basis for implementing remote medicine as a central service and information tool as well as an instrument controlling the information and data flow between patient, hospital and medical practitioner. This article highlights current and future strategies including diagnostic and therapeutic options. The focus will concentrate on patients with heart rhythm disturbances, advanced congestive heart failure, and patients with implantable devices, i.e., pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

[ECG telemonitoring]. / EKG-Telemonitoring : Nucleus der Arbeitsgruppe "Telemonitoring" der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie - Herz- und Kreislaufforschung.

ECG telemonitoring is the application of single- or multichannel ECGs transmitted by telephone to the physician or an expert center. This enables the control of the health status despite the spatial separation of patient and physician. Cardiac arrhythmias, palpitations of unknown causes, the outcome of antiarrhythmic drug therapy or interventional ablation therapy can be diagnosed using ECG telemonitoring. Even asymptomatic arrhythmias, e.g. paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, may be detected. The use of a multichannel ECG facilitates the early prehospital diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome and thus helps to optimize the chain of rescue. The telemonitoring of the ECG and additional physiological data enables the tele-care of patients with chronic heart failure. New types of implanted pacemaker or cardioverter/defibrillator devices allow telemonitoring of device data or ECG data for close control.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: A SIMPLE substudy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are considered to be at high risk for elevated defibrillation thresholds, periprocedural complications, and failed appropriate shocks. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of defibrillation testing (DT) in HCM patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion. METHODS: Defibrillation thresholds, perioperative complications, and long-term outcomes were compared between patients with HCM and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) enrolled in the SIMPLE (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation) trial (Clinialtrials.gov Identifier: NCT00800384). In patients with HCM, outcomes were also compared between those randomized to DT vs no DT. RESULTS: Adequate defibrillation safety margin without system change was achieved in 46 of 52 (88.5%) HCM and 948 of 1047 (90.5%) ICM/DCM patients (P = .63). Perioperative complications occurred in 1 of 52 (1.9%) HCM patients with DT compared to 67 of 1047 (6.4%) ICM/DCM patients with DT (P = .37) or 3 of 42 (7.1%) HCM patients without DT (P = .32). During follow-up, there was no significant difference between HCM vs ICM/DCM patients in terms of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-2.34), composite of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (adjusted HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-2.42), inappropriate shocks (adjusted HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.69-3.89), or system complications (adjusted HR 1.93, 95% CI 0.88-4.27). All-cause mortality (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.03-2.20), appropriate (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03-2.05), and inappropriate shocks (HR 2.13, 95% CI 0.51-8.94) were similar in HCM patients without or those with DT. CONCLUSION: We did not find any difference in intraoperative defibrillation efficacy, perioperative complications, and long-term outcomes between patients with HCM and those with ICM/DCM. DT did not improve intraoperative or clinical shock efficacy in HCM patients.

Device malfunction caused by "auto-oversensing" of transthoracic impedance measurement test pulses in a modern minute ventilation dual-chamber pacemaker.

Oversensing of physiologic and non-physiologic electrical signals is a relevant cause of malfunctions in subjects with CIED. Physicians taking care of CIED patients must be aware of the potential causes of oversensing and their pattern in EGMs. The present case describes an uncommon source and unique underlying root cause for oversensing in a modern dual-chamber MV rate-adaptive pacemaker.

Troponin levels after ICD implantation with and without defibrillation testing and their predictive value for outcomes: Insights from the SIMPLE trial.

BACKGROUND: The Shockless IMPLant Evaluation trial randomized 2500 patients receiving a first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device to have either defibrillation testing (DT) or no DT. It demonstrated that DT did not improve shock efficacy or reduce mortality. OBJECTIVE: This prospective substudy evaluated the effect of DT on postoperative troponin levels and their predictive value for total and arrhythmic mortality. METHODS: Troponin levels were measured between 6 and 24 hours after ICD implantation in 2200 of 2500 patients. RESULTS: A postoperative serum troponin level above the upper limit of normal (ULN) was more common in patients undergoing DT (n = 509 [46.4%]) than in those not subjected to DT (n = 456 [41.3%]; P = .02). After excluding patients with known preoperative troponin levels above the ULN, consistent findings were observed (42.1% vs 37.5%; P = .04). During a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 1.0 years, the annual mortality rate was increased in patients with postoperative troponin levels above the ULN (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.76; P = .001) irrespective of DT or no DT. Likewise, patients with elevated troponin levels had a significantly higher risk of arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.23-2.63; P = .002). The rate of first appropriate ICD shock (adjusted HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.71-1.12; P = .32) or failed appropriate shock (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.59-1.76; P = .95) was similar in patients with or without troponin elevation. CONCLUSION: DT at the time of ICD implantation is associated with increased troponin levels, indicating subclinical myocardial injury caused by the procedure. Elevated troponin levels but not DT seem to predict clinical outcomes in ICD recipients.

The mismatch between patient life expectancy and the service life of implantable devices in current cardioverter-defibrillator therapy: a call for larger device batteries.

In 2005, Bob Hauser published a paper in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology entitled "The growing mismatch between patient longevity and the service life of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators". Now, nearly a decade later, I would like to perform a second look on the problem of a mismatching between ICD device service life and the survival of ICD recipients. Since 2005, the demographics of the ICD population has changed significantly. Primary prevention has become the dominant indication in defibrillator therapy and device implantation is indicated more and more in earlier stages of cardiac diseases. In former larger scale ICD trials, the patient average 5-year survival probability was in a range of 68-71%; in newer CRT-D trials in a range of 72-88%. Due to a progressively widened ICD indication and implantation preferentially performed in patients with better life expectancy, the problem of inadequate device service life is of growing importance. The early days of defibrillator therapy started with a generator volume of 145 ccm and a device service life <18 months. In this early period, the device miniaturization and extension of service life were similar challenges for the technicians. Today, we have reached a formerly unexpected extent of device miniaturization. However, technologic improvements were often preferentially translated in further device miniaturization and not in prolonging device service life. In his analysis, Bob Hauser reported a prolonged device service life of 2.3 years in ICD models with a larger battery capacity of 0.54 up to 0.69 Ah. Between 2008 and 2014, several studies had been published on the problem of ICD longevity in clinical scenarios. These analyses included "older" and currently used single chamber, dual chamber and CRT devices. The reported average 5-year device service life ranged from 0 to 75%. Assuming today technology, larger battery capacities will only result in minimal increase in device volume. Selected ICD patients may further benefit from device miniaturization-but the vast majority may much more benefit from a significant prolongation in device service life. All published cost-effectiveness analyses in ICD therapy show that device costs and device service life are the dominant determinants of the results. The performed "second look-nearly a decade later" revealed that there are still relevant limitations regarding the device service life in current defibrillator therapy. Technical improvements were preferentially transformed into device miniaturization but not into prolonging device service life. But this optimization is strongly enforced. The most feasible solution might be the use of device batteries with larger capacities. The economic burden, mainly caused by non-adequate device service life, may limit the future realization of ICD therapy in a progressively growing patient population. In the former years, physicians and device manufacturers have ignored the patient perspective in defibrillator therapy. However, it is the patient viewpoint that prolonged device service life is much more important than smaller generator size.

Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale in adult patients using the Amplatzer occlusion device: no evidence for thrombus deposition with antiplatelet agents.

Transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect (ASD) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) using the Amplatzer septal occluder (AGA Medical, Minneapolis, Minn) is an alternative to surgical closure. There are only limited data on the thrombogenic potential of the device. Thirty-seven patients (14 men, 23 women) underwent device closure of their ASD (n = 21) or PFO (n = 16) at a mean age of 47 +/- 14 years (range, 18-72). The device was successfully deployed in all patients. Thirty-three of 37 patients received antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel bisulfate and aspirin for a total of 6 months. Four patients in atrial fibrillation were also anticoagulated (international normalized ratio 2.0 to 3.0). No thrombus was detected in any patient on either side of the device by transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography and there were no cases of symptomatic thromboembolism. Right-to-left interatrial shunting was diagnosed by contrast transesophageal echocardiography with the Valsalva's maneuver. At 1-month follow-up, minimal right-to-left shunting was detected in 6 patients (2 PFO, 4 ASD). Two patients (PFO) had minimal shunting at 1 month but not at 6 months. In 3 patients (ASD), inducible right-to-left shunting persisted at 6 months. In conclusion, our results obtained from a modest number of patients indicate that antiplatelet therapy is safe and effective in preventing thrombus formation on the septal occluder surface.

Emergent surgical pulmonary embolectomy in a pregnant woman: case report and literature review.

Acute pulmonary embolism is a leading cause of death during pregnancy and delivery in the United States. We describe the case of a 25-year-old woman who presented in cardiogenic shock in week 38 of her first pregnancy. After the emergent cesarean delivery of a healthy male neonate, the mother underwent immediate surgical pulmonary embolectomy. We confirmed the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism intraoperatively by means of transesophageal echocardiography and removed large clots from the patient's pulmonary arteries. Mother and child were doing well, 27 months later. In addition to presenting our patient's case, we discuss the other relevant reports and the options for treating massive pulmonary embolism during pregnancy.