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.).

Direct current cardioversion practices following percutaneous left atrial appendage closure.

INTRODUCTION: Among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) undergoing direct current cardioversion (DCCV), the need for and use of LAA imaging and oral anticoagulation (OAC) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the real-world use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) before DCCV and use of OAC pre- and post-DCCV in patients with AF status post percutaneous LAAC. METHODS: This retrospective single center study included all patients who underwent DCCV after percutaneous LAAC from 2016 to 2022. Key measures were completion of TEE or CCTA pre-DCCV, OAC use pre- and post-DCCV, incidence of left atrial thrombus (LAT) or device-related thrombus (DRT), incidence of peri-device leak (PDL), and DCCV-related complications (stroke, systemic embolism, device embolization, major bleeding, or death) within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients with AF and LAAC underwent 122 cases of DCCV. LAAC consisted of 47 (62%), 28 (37%), and 1 (1%) case of Watchman 2.5, Watchman FLX, and Lariat, respectively. Among the 122 DCCV cases, 31 (25%) cases were identified as "non-guideline based" due to: (1) no OAC for 3 weeks and no LAA imaging within 48 h before DCCV in 12 (10%) cases, (2) no OAC for 4 weeks following DCCV in 16 (13%) cases, or (3) both in 3 (2%) cases. Among the 70 (57%) cases that underwent TEE or CCTA before DCCV, 16 (23%) cases had a PDL with a mean size of 3.0 ± 1.1 mm, and 4 (6%) cases had a LAT/DRT on TEE resulting in cancellation. There were no DCCV-related complications within 30 days. DISCUSSION: There is a widely varied practice pattern of TEE, CCTA, and OAC use with DCCV after LAAC, with a 6% rate of LAT/DRT. LAA imaging before DCCV appears prudent in all cases, especially within 1 year of LAAC, to assess for device position, PDL, and LAT/DRT.

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for left atrial appendage closure planning.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA) are currently utilized for left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) planning. During the recent global iodine contrast media shortage in 2022, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) was utilized for the first time for LAAC planning. This study sought to assess the utility of CMR versus TEE for LAAC planning. METHODS: This single center retrospective study consisted of all patients who underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC with Watchman FLX or Amplatzer Amulet. Key measures were accuracy of LAA thrombus exclusion, ostial diameter, depth, lobe count, morphology, accuracy of predicted device size, and devices deployed per case. Bland-Altman Analysis was used to compare CMR versus TEE measurements of LAA ostial diameter and depth. RESULTS: 25 patients underwent preoperative CMR for LAAC planning. A total of 24 (96%) cases were successfully completed with 1.2 ± 0.5 devices deployed per case. Among the 18 patients who underwent intraoperative TEE, there was no significant difference between CMR versus TEE in LAA thrombus exclusion (CMR 83% vs. TEE 100% cases, p = .229), lobe count (CMR 1.7 ± 0.8 vs. TEE 1.4 ± 0.6, p = .177), morphology (p = .422), and accuracy of predicted device size (CMR 67% vs. TEE 72% cases, p = 1.000). When comparing the difference between CMR and TEE measurements, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated no significant difference in LAA ostial diameter (CMR-TEE bias 0.7 mm, 95% CI [-1.1, 2.4], p = .420), but LAA depth was significantly larger with CMR versus TEE (CMR-TEE bias 7.4 mm, 95% CI [1.6, 13.2], p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: CMR is a promising alternative for LAAC planning in cases where TEE or CCTA are contraindicated or unavailable.

Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation: setting up a clinical program.

BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a form of sleep-disordered breathing caused by a lack of the drive to breathe during sleep. Phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) was approved in 2017 for treatment of moderate to severe CSA. However, information on setting up a successful PNS program is lacking. We describe our institution's program to provide a framework to bridge the gap between clinical research and clinical application for PNS therapy. METHODS: The PNS program was created as a joint program between cardiology and sleep medicine. The program team included cardiologists, sleep medicine specialists, advanced practice providers, clinic managers, and staff who worked together in the evaluation, implantation, and management of patients. RESULTS: Thus far, 33 patients have been implanted at our institution. We have noted resolution of central apneas with PNS and improvement in patient sleep symptoms. The multidisciplinary clinic with cardiology and sleep medicine has led to high patient satisfaction and has facilitated a cohesive relationship between implant and management teams. CONCLUSIONS: PNS therapy is an effective treatment option for CSA. While the therapy treats central apneas, it will not affect upper airway obstruction. Proper patient identification is important and cooperative management between cardiology and sleep medicine enhances patient care and experience. Challenges of establishing a multidisciplinary program include identification of providers, clinic space, and scheduling. Once established, the program provides an important service to a vulnerable patient population.

Remede Systems: Transvenous Pacing of the Phrenic Nerve.

The remede System (ZOLL Medical, Minnetonka, MN; Fig 1), which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October of 2017, is a transvenous device that stimulates the phrenic nerve for the treatment of central sleep apnea, which is often associated with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Given the similarity in implantation procedure to pacemakers and implantable cardioverter/defibrillators, the remede System implantation often occurs in the electrophysiology laboratory. Despite the transvenous nature and close proximity to cardiac structures on radiographic imaging, the remede System does not have any cardiac pacing function/antiarrhythmia therapies, and it is important for an anesthesiologist to be able to recognize and manage such a device if they were to come across one preoperatively.

Percutaneous jugular leadless pacemaker implantation in a pediatric patient.

INTRODUCTION: Leadless cardiac pacing has not been widely utilized in pediatric patients, in part due to concerns regarding size of the delivery sheath and the potential for vascular injury. METHODS: We present a case of leadless pacemaker implantation via internal jugular vein without a surgical cutdown. RESULTS: A leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in the right ventricle via internal jugular approach in a pediatric patient with congenital heart disease. CONCLUSION: This is a novel approach to leadless pacemaker implantation that could broaden the utilization of this technology to the vulnerable population of children, especially those with congenital heart disease.

A 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm correlates with a 65 J defibrillation impedance during subcutaneous defibrillator implantation using an intermuscular technique.

INTRODUCTION: Defibrillation testing (DT) is recommended during the subcutaneous defibrillator (S-ICD) placement. We sought to compare 10 J shock impedance in sinus rhythm (SR) with 65 J defibrillation impedance and evaluate device position on a postimplant chest X-ray (CXR) using an intermuscular (IM) technique. METHODS: Consecutive S-ICD implantations between 12/2019 and 12/2020 at The Ohio State University were reviewed. All implantations were performed using a two-incision IM technique. Standard DT with 65 J shock and 10 J shock in SR were performed unless contraindicated. The PRAETORIAN score was calculated based on CXR. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients (age: 47.2 ± 15.8 years old, male: n = 26 [70.3%], body mass index: 30.1 ± 6.7 kg/m2 ) underwent IM S-ICD implantation, and of those, 27 (73%) underwent both 65 J shock and 10 J shock in SR. The coefficient of determination (R2 ) between 10 J shock impedance and 65 J shock impedance was 0.84. The mean of an impedance difference was 1.6 ± 4.8 Ω (minimum - 11 and maximum 8). Postimplant CXR was available for 33 out of 37 patients (89.2%). The PRAETORIAN score was less than 90 in all patients and the mean score was 32.7 ± 8.8. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that 10 J shock impedance in SR correlated well with 65 J defibrillation impedance during IM S-ICD implantation. An IM implantation technique provides excellent generator location on postimplant CXR. The IM technique combined with 10 J shock in SR may be sufficient to predict and ensure the defibrillation efficacy of the S-ICD.

Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in pacemaker-dependent patients is lower with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers.

INTRODUCTION: Frequent right AQ4ventricular pacing (≥40%) with a transvenous pacemaker (TVP) is associated with the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have distinct physical and mechanical differences from TVP. The risk of PICM with LP is not known. To identify incidence, predictors, and long-term outcomes of PICM in LP and TVP patients. METHODS: The study comprised all pacemaker-dependent patients with LP or TVP who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥50 from 2014 to 2019. The incidence of PICM (≥10% LVEF drop) was assessed with an echocardiogram. Predictors for PICM were identified using multivariate analysis. Long-term outcomes after cardiac resynchronization (CRT) were assessed in both groups. RESULTS: A total of 131 patients with TVP and 67 with LP comprised the study. All patients in the TVP group and the majority in the LP group underwent atrioventricular node ablation. The mean follow-up duration in TVP and LP groups was 592 ± 549 and 817 ± 600 days, respectively. A total of 18 (13.7%) patients in TVP and 2 (3%) in LP developed PICM after a median duration of 254 (interquartile range: 470) days. The incidence of PICM was significantly higher with TVP compared with LP (p = .02). TVP as pacing modality was a positive (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07) while age was negative (OR: 0.94) predictor for PICM on multivariable analysis. Both patients in LP and all except two in the TVP group responded to CRT. CONCLUSION: Incidence of PICM is significantly lower with LP compared with TVP in pacemaker-dependent patients. Age and TVP as pacing modality were predictors for PICM.

Leadless pacemaker implant with concomitant atrioventricular node ablation: Experience with the Micra transcatheter pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility and outcomes of concomitant atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and leadless pacemaker implant are not well studied. We report outcomes in patients undergoing Micra implant with concomitant AVNA. METHODS: Patients undergoing AVNA at the time of Micra implant from the Micra Transcatheter Pacing (IDE) Study, Continued Access (CA) study, and Post-Approval Registry (PAR) were included in the analysis and compared to Micra patients without AVNA. Baseline characteristics, acute and follow-up outcomes, and electrical performance were compared between patients with and without AVNA during the follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 192 patients (mean age 77.4 ± 8.9 years, 72% female) underwent AVNA at the time of Micra implant and were followed for 20.4 ± 15.6 months. AVNA patients were older, more frequently female, and tended to have more co-morbid conditions compared with non-AVNA patients (N = 2616). Implant was successful in 191 of 192 patients (99.5%). The mean pacing threshold at implant was 0.58 ± 0.35 V and remained stable during follow-up. Major complications within 30 days occurred more frequently in AVNA patients than non-AVNA patients (7.3% vs. 2.0%, p < .001). The risk of major complications through 36-months was higher in AVNA patients (hazard ratio: 3.81, 95% confidence interval: 2.33-6.23, p < .001). Intermittent loss of capture occurred in three AVNA patients (1.6%), all were within 30 days of implant and required system revision. There were no device macrodislodgements or unexpected device malfunctions. CONCLUSION: Concomitant AVN ablation and leadless pacemaker implant is feasible. Pacing thresholds are stable over time. However, patient comorbidities and the risk of major complications are higher in patients undergoing AVNA.

RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction and impact on major intraprocedural complications (RISE protocol).

BACKGROUND: An internal risk stratification algorithm was developed to decrease the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during lead extractions (LEs). OBJECTIVE: To report upon the impact of a risk stratification algorithm (RISE [RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction] protocol) on outcomes of LEs in a high-volume center. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained LEs database was performed to identify features associated with MACEs. On the basis of the retrospective data, the RISE protocol differentiated LEs procedures into "High" and "Low" risk for occurrence of MACEs. High-risk LEs included dual-coil defibrillator lead (≥3 years), pacemaker and single-coil lead (≥5 years), and any StarFix coronary sinus lead. During the prospective evaluation of the RISE protocol, "High-risk" LEs were performed in an operating room (OR) or hybrid laboratory with the cardiac anesthesiologist, OR nursing team, perfusionist in the room, and a cardiac surgeon on the premises. "Low-risk" LEs were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory with anesthesia provided by EP nursing team. The preintervention (pre-RISE) and postintervention (post-RISE) group spanned 19 and 40 months and consisted of 449 (632 leads) and 751 patients (1055 leads), respectively. The primary outcome of MACEs in the two groups was compared. RESULTS: Protocol compliance was 100%. The primary outcome of MACEs occurred in 15 patients (3.34%) before and 12 (1.6%) after implementation of the RISE protocol (P = .04). CONCLUSION: RISE identified a low-risk group where minimal resources are needed and allowed for rapid intervention in the high-risk group that reduced the consequences of MACEs.

How to implant a phrenic nerve stimulator for treatment of central sleep apnea?

BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a breathing disorder caused by the intermittent absence of central respiratory drive. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation is a new therapeutic option, recently approved by the FDA , for the treatment of CSA. OBJECTIVE: To describe the technique used to implant the transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation system (the remede System, Respicardia, Inc). METHODS: The remede System is placed in the pectoral region, typically on the right side. A single stimulation lead is placed in either the left pericardiophrenic vein (PPV) or the right brachiocephalic vein (RBC). A sensing lead is placed into the azygous vein to detect respiration. RESULTS: In the remede System Pivotal trial, 147 of 151 (97%) patients were successfully implanted with the system. Sixty-two percent of stimulation leads were placed in the PPV and 35% in the RBC. Mean procedure time was 2.7 ± 0.8 hours and 94% of patients were free from implant-related serious adverse events through 6 months. CONCLUSION: In patients with CSA, transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation is an effective and safe therapy with an implant procedure similar to that of cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Comprehensive strategy to reduce the incidence of lead dislodgement for cardiac implantable electronic devices.

BACKGROUND: Lead dislodgement (LD) is a well-recognized complication during implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). An intraprocedural protocol, referred to as reduction of LD protocol, was developed to reduce the risk of LD. METHODS: The protocol involved (1) inserting a straight stylet down the right atrial lead and applying forward pressure while monitoring for fluoroscopic stability, (2) visualizing all leads during deep inspiration to determine if there is adequate lead redundancy, and (3) having the patient take a deep breath and cough while pacing just at capture threshold to assess for loss of capture in each lead. Any intraprocedural change in the parameters fulfilling the predefined criteria for inadequate lead implantation prompted lead repositioning. Data regarding demographic factors, clinical characteristics, and incidence of LD in the first 30 days after implant was obtained from intramural CIED database. The preintervention (control) group spanned 27 months and consisted of a total of 4,294 leads while the postintervention (intervention) group spanned 17 months and consisted of 2,361 leads implanted. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the demographic factors and clinical characteristics in the two groups. Protocol compliance was > 90%. There were 44 occurrences of LD (1.02%) before and 10 (0.4%) after implementation of the protocol. The protocol significantly reduced the incidence of LD during the 30 days after implant (P = 0.014). No clinical characteristic predicted the risk of LD. CONCLUSION: Intraprocedural maneuvers performed to assess the adequacy of lead implantation results in reduced risk of LD.

Implantation of subcutaneous defibrillator is feasible and safe with monitored anesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: The perioperative anesthesia care during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation is still evolving. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of S-ICD implantation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general anesthesia (GA) in a tertiary care center. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing S-ICD implantation between October 2012 and May 2019. Patients were categorized into MAC and GA group based on the mode of anesthesia. Procedural success without escalation to GA was the primary endpoint of the study, whereas intraprocedural hemodynamics, need of pharmacological support for hypotension and bradycardia, length of the procedure, stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain were assessed as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The study comprises 287 patients with MAC in 111 and GA in 176 patients. Compared to MAC, patients in GA group were younger and had a higher body mass index. All patients had successful S-ICD implantation. Only one patient (0.9%) in the MAC group was converted to GA. Despite a similar baseline heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) in both groups, patients with GA had significantly lower HR and MAP during the procedure and more frequently required pharmacological hemodynamic support. Length of the procedure, stay in the postanesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: This retrospective experience suggests that implantation of S-ICD is feasible and safe with MAC. Use of GA is associated with more frequent administration of hemodynamic drugs during S-ICD implantation.

Feasibility of concomitant vacuum-assisted removal of lead-related vegetations and cardiac implantable electronic device extraction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections associated with large, mobile vegetation adds to the complexity of lead extraction and is associated with significant patient morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To show the feasibility of concomitant cardiovascular implantable electronic device extraction and vacuum-assisted removal of lead-related vegetations. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective case series of consecutive patients with persistent bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis despite medical therapy who have vegetations >2 cm and subsequently underwent immediate CIED lead extraction after debulking with vacuum-assisted suction. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent successful removal of 17 leads immediately after debulking of vegetations with vacuum-assisted device suction. Debulking procedure was not successful in 1 patient due to inability to direct the vacuum suction device into proper position. There were no intraprocedure complications related to the vacuum-assisted debulking. One patient required open sternotomy for tear of the coronary sinus ostium related to extraction of a left ventricular pacing electrode. There was no mortality within 30 days of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon these clinical results, it is feasible for patients with infected CIED systems that have large right-sided vegetations to undergo vacuum-assisted debulking then immediately followed by percutaneous CIED removal in whom surgical removal is considered high risk.

Clinical experience with wearable cardioverter defibrillators at a tertiary electrophysiology program.

BACKGROUND: A wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an alternative for patients who are not immediate candidates for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 242 patients prescribed a WCD from January 2014 through March 2015 with 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A WCD was prescribed to 242 patients during the 15-month period. Forty-one patients were excluded due to lack of complete follow-up. The remaining 201 patients received a WCD for primary or secondary prevention of SCD. Seventy-nine percent of WCDs were prescribed by nonelectrophysiologists. Underlying etiologies for the WCD prescription included: 38% nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 25% recent myocardial infarction, 16% newly diagnosed ischemic cardiomyopathy, 12% documented ventricular arrhythmia, 6% ICD lead extraction, and 3% had high risk conditions for sudden cardiac death. During 1-year follow-up, 96 patients (48%) received an ICD and five patients (2.5%) received appropriate shocks and one patient (0.5 %) received an inappropriate shock. Other 105 (52%) patients subsequently did not require an ICD due to either improvement in ejection fraction, refusal of ICD therapy, or death. CONCLUSIONS: About half of patients prescribed a WCD subsequently receive an ICD and the rate of appropriate shock therapy from the WCD is 2.5%.

Leadless pacemaker implantation and concurrent atrioventricular junction ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular junctional (AVJ) ablation and pacemaker implantation are indicated when pharmacotherapy fails to achieve adequate rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of concurrent Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker implantation and AVJ ablation. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed patients who underwent Micra implantation and concurrent AVJ ablation at three institutions between August 2014 and March 2016. All patients and devices were followed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postimplantion. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with permanent AF (median age 77 [range: 62-88], female 15 [71.4%]) underwent successful Micra implantation followed by concurrent AVJ ablation. There was no device dislodgement or malfunction during the 12-month follow-up. Complete 12-month electrical performance data were available in 14 patients (67%). Among patients with the complete data set, median pacing thresholds at implant and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 0.5 V (range: 0.25-0.88), 0.44 V (range: 0.25-2.0), 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.63), 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.13), and 0.5 V (range: 0.25-1.13) at a pulse width of 0.24 msec, respectively. Two patients died due to noncardiac causes during follow-up. There were no patients with major device-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent Micra implantation and AVJ ablation is feasible and appears safe. There was no device dislodgement, malfunction, or significant pacing threshold rise requiring device reimplantation during the 12-month follow-up. This combined approach can be considered for patients with AF with suboptimal rate control who have failed AF catheter ablation and/or pharmacotherapy.

Initiation and outcomes with Class Ic antiarrhythmic drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: Expert opinion recommends performing exercise testing with initiation of Class Ic antiarrhythmic medication. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate and reason for discontinuation of Ic agent within the first year of follow up, with particular attention to rate of proarrhythmia and the value of routine treadmill testing. METHODS: This is a single center retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with atrial arrhythmias who were initiated on a Class Ic agent from 2011 to 2016. Data was collated from chart review and pharmacy database. RESULTS: The study population included 300 patients (55% male, mean age 61; mean ejection fraction, 56%) started on flecainide (n = 153; 51%) and propafenone (n = 147; 49%). Drug initiation was completed while hospitalized on telemetry and the staff electrophysiologists directed dosing. There was one proarrhythmic event during initiation (0.3%). The primary reason for not being discharged on Ic agent was due to detection of proarrhythmia (n = 15) or ischemia (n = 1) with treadmill testing (5.3%). Exercise testing was the single significant variable to affect the decision to discontinue Ic drug, p < 0.0001 (95% CI: 1.89-6.08%). During follow up, the primary reason for discontinuation of Ic agent was lack of efficacy, 32%. CONCLUSIONS: With proper screening, initiation of Class Ic agent is associated with very low rate of proarrhythmia. Treadmill testing is of incremental value and should be completed in all patients after loading Class Ic antiarrhythmic.

Transvenous neurostimulation for central sleep apnoea: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnoea is a serious breathing disorder associated with poor outcomes. The remedé system (Respicardia Inc, Minnetonka, MN, USA) is an implantable device which transvenously stimulates a nerve causing diaphragmatic contraction similar to normal breathing. We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of unilateral neurostimulation in patients with central sleep apnoea. METHODS: We recruited patients from 31 hospital-based centres in Germany, Poland, and the USA in this prospective, multicentre, randomised trial. Participants had to have been medically stable for at least 30 days and have received appropriate guideline recommended therapy, be aged at least 18 years, be expected to tolerate study procedures, and willing and able to comply with study requirements. Eligible patients with an apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI) of at least 20 events per h, tested by a polysomnography, underwent device implantation and were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated method stratified by site to either stimulation (treatment) or no stimulation (control) for 6 months. The primary effectiveness endpoint in the intention-to-treat population was the comparison of the proportions of patients in the treatment versus control groups achieving a 50% or greater AHI reduction from baseline to 6 months, measured by a full-night polysomnography assessed by masked investigators in a core laboratory. The primary safety endpoint of 12-month freedom from serious adverse events related to the procedure, system, or therapy was evaluated in all patients. This trial is active, but not recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01816776). FINDINGS: Between April 17, 2013, and May 28, 2015, we randomly assigned 151 eligible patients to the treatment (n=73) or control (n=78) groups. In the analysis of the intention-to-treat population, significantly more patients in the treatment group (35 [51%] of 68) had an AHI reduction from baseline of 50% or greater at 6 months than had those in the control group (eight [11%] of 73; difference between groups 41%, 95% CI 25-54, p<0·0001). 138 (91%) of 151 patients had no serious-related adverse events at 12 months. Seven (9%) cases of related-serious adverse events occurred in the control group and six (8%) cases were reported in the treatment group. Seven patients died (unrelated to implant, system, or therapy), four deaths (two in treatment group and two in control group) during the 6-month randomisation period when neurostimulation was delivered to only the treatment group and was off in the control group, and three deaths between 6 months and 12 months of follow-up when all patients received neurostimulation. 27 (37%) of 73 patients in the treatment group reported non-serious therapy-related discomfort that was resolved with simple system reprogramming in 26 (36%) patients, but was unresolved in one (1%) patient. INTERPRETATION: Transvenous neurostimulation significantly reduced the severity of central sleep apnoea, including improvements in sleep metrics, and was well tolerated. The clinically meaningful effects of the therapy are supported by the concordant improvements in oxygenation and quality of life, making transvenous neurostimulation a promising therapeutic approach for central sleep apnoea. FUNDING: Respicardia Inc.