The impact of supraventricular arrhythmias on the outcomes of guideline-compliant implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming.

INTRODUCTION: Several implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) programming strategies are applied to minimize ICD therapy, especially unnecessary therapies from supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). However, it remains unknown whether these optimal programming recommendations only benefit those with SVAs or have any detrimental effects from delayed therapy on those without SVAs. This study aims to assess the impact of SVA on the outcomes of ICD programming based on 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention were classified into four groups based on SVA status and ICD programming: (1) guideline-concordant group (GC) with SVA, (2) GC without SVA, (3) nonguideline concordant group (NGC) with SVA, and (4) NGC without SVA. Cox proportional hazard models were analyzed for freedom from ICD therapies, shock, and mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients (median age, 64 years) were enrolled. ICD therapies were the most frequent in NGC with SVA (24.0%), followed by NGC without SVA (19.9%), GC without SVA (11.6%), and GC with SVA (8.1%). Guideline concordant programming was associated with 68% ICD therapy reduction (HR 0.32, p = .007) and 67% ICD shock reduction (HR 0.33, p = .030) in SVA patients and 44% ICD therapy reduction in those without SVA (HR 0.56, p = .030). CONCLUSION: Programming ICDs in primary prevention patients based on current guidelines reduces therapy burden without increasing mortality in both SVA and non-SVA patients. A greater magnitude of reduced ICD therapy was found in those with supraventricular arrhythmias.

Programming of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention: outcomes at centers with high vs. low concordance with guidelines.

BACKGROUND: While ICD therapy reduction programming strategies are recommended in current multi-society guidelines, concerns remain about a possible trade-off between the benefits of ICD therapy reduction and failure to treat episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. The study is to evaluate the outcomes of primary prevention patients followed in centers with high and low concordance with the 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive patients with primary prevention ICD implantation from two centers between 2014 and 2016 were included. One center was classified as high guideline concordance center (HGC) with 47% (146/310) of patients with initial ICD concordant with the guidelines, and the other center was classified as low guideline concordance center (LGC) with only 1% (2/178) of patients with guideline-concordant initial ICD programming. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess risk of first ICD therapy (ATP or shock), first ICD shock, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were included (mean age, 66 ± 13 years). During a mean follow-up of 1.9 ± 0.9 years, patients followed at HGC were 63% less likely to receive any ICD therapy (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.42-0.99). There were no significant differences in the rate of first ICD shock (aHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34-1.52) or mortality (aHR 1.19, 95% CI, 0.47-3.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to primary prevention patients followed at LGC, primary prevention ICD patients followed at HGC received a significantly lower rate of ICD therapy, mainly from ATP reduction, without a difference in mortality during follow-up.

Outcomes in patients with electrocardiographic left ventricular dyssynchrony following transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular (AV) conduction abnormalities requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation occur frequently following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The resultant left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony may be associated with adverse clinical events. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the adverse outcomes associated with LV dyssynchrony due to high-burden right ventricular (RV) pacing or permanent LBBB following TAVR in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Consecutive TAVR patients at the University of Michigan from January 2012 to June 2017 were included. Pre-existing cardiac implantable electronic device, previous LBBB, LVEF <50%, or follow-up period <1 year were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiomyopathy (defined as LVEF ≤45%), a composite endpoint of cardiomyopathy or all-cause mortality, and the change in LVEF at 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients were analyzed (mean age 77 years). LV dyssynchrony group (n = 91 [25.1%]) included 56 permanent LBBB patients, 12 permanent LBBB patients with PPM, and 23 non-LBBB patients with PPM and high-burden RV pacing. Remaining patients served as control (n = 271 [74.9%]). After adjusted analysis, LV dyssynchrony had significantly higher all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-4.37) and cardiomyopathy (adjusted HR 14.80; 95% CI 6.31-14.69). The LV dyssynchrony group had mean LVEF decline of 10.5% ± 10.2% compared to a small increase (0.5% ± 7.7%) in control. CONCLUSION: Among TAVR patients with preserved LVEF and normal AV conduction, development of postprocedural LV dyssynchrony secondary to high-burden RV pacing or permanent LBBB was associated with significantly higher risk of death and cardiomyopathy at 1-year follow-up.

Arrhythmias after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in Patients with a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device: A Multicenter Study.

One of the most concerning adverse events related to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is arrhythmia. To ascertain the relationship between vaccination and arrhythmic events, we studied the occurrence of arrhythmia in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) before and after a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Patients with CIEDs aged ≥18 who visited the CIED clinic at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and Vajira hospital from August 2021 to February 2022 were included. Information about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and side effects was obtained. One hundred eighty patients were included in our study, which compared the incidence of arrhythmias in the 14 days post-vaccination to the 14 days before vaccination. The median age was 70 years. The number of patients who received one, two, and three doses of the vaccine was 180, 88, and 4, respectively. ChAdOx1 was the primary vaccine used in our institutes, accounting for 86% of vaccinations. The vaccination was significantly associated with a 73% increase incidence of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). In an adjusted model, factors associated with the incidence of SVT were the post-vaccination period, female sex, increasing BMI, chronic kidney disease, and a history of atrial fibrillation. Increased ventricular arrhythmia (VA) episodes were also associated with the post-vaccination period, female sex, decreasing BMI, and chronic kidney disease, but to a lesser degree than those with SVT episodes. No life-threatening arrhythmia was noted in this study. In conclusion, the incidence of arrhythmia in patients implanted with CIEDs was significantly increased after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.