Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for central sleep apnea is safe and effective in patients with concomitant cardiac devices.

BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnea is common in heart failure patients. Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (TPNS) requires placing a lead to stimulate the phrenic nerve and activate the diaphragm. Data are lacking concerning the safety and efficacy of TPNS in patients with concomitant cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). OBJECTIVE: To report the safety and efficacy of TPNS in patients with concomitant CIEDs. METHODS: In the remede System Pivotal Trial, 151 patients underwent TPNS device implant. This analysis compared patients with concomitant CIEDs to those without with respect to safety, implant metrics, and efficacy of TPNS. Safety was assessed using incidence of adverse events and device-device interactions. A detailed interaction protocol was followed. Implant metrics included overall TPNS implantation success. Efficacy endpoints included changes in the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 151 patients, 64 (42%) had a concomitant CIED. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to safety. There were 4 CIED oversensing events in 3 patients leading to 1 inappropriate defibrillator shock and delivery of antitachycardia pacing. There was no difference in efficacy between the CIED and non-CIED subgroups receiving TPNS, with both having similar percentages of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction in AHI and quality-of-life improvement. CONCLUSION: Concomitant CIED and TPNS therapy is safe. The presence of a concomitant CIED did not seem to impact implant metrics, implantation success, and TPNS efficacy. A detailed interaction protocol should be followed to minimize the incidence of device-device interaction.

Phrenic Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Central Sleep Apnea: A Pooled Cohort Analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Early evidence with transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) demonstrates improved disease severity and quality of life (QOL) in patients with central sleep apnea (CSA). The goal of this analysis is to evaluate the complete prospective experience with PNS in order to better characterize its efficacy and safety, including in patients with concomitant heart failure (HF). METHODS: Using pooled individual data from the pilot (n = 57) and pivotal (n = 151) studies of the remede System in patients with predominant moderate to severe CSA, we evaluated 12-month safety and 6- and 12-month effectiveness based on polysomnography data, QOL, and cardiac function. RESULTS: Among 208 combined patients (June 2010 to May 2015), a remede device implant was successful in 197 patients (95%), 50/57 pilot study patients (88%) and 147/151 pivotal trial patients (97%). The pooled cohort included patients with CSA of various etiologies, and 141 (68%) had concomitant HF. PNS reduced apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) at 6 months by a median of -22.6 episodes/h (25th and 75th percentile; -38.6 and -8.4, respectively) (median 58% reduction from baseline, P < .001). Improvement in sleep variables was maintained through 12 months of follow-up. In patients with HF and ejection fraction ≤ 45%, PNS was associated with improvement in systolic function from 27.0% (23.3, 36.0) to 31.1% (24.0, 41.5) at 12 months (P = .003). In the entire cohort, improvement in QOL was concordant with amelioration of sleep measures. CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous PNS significantly improves CSA severity, sleep quality, ventricular function, and QOL regardless of HF status. Improvements, which are independent of patient compliance, are sustained at 1 year and are associated with acceptable safety.

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.

Long-term efficacy and safety of phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term efficacy and safety of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) in patients with moderate-to-severe central sleep apnea (CSA) through 3 years of therapy. METHODS: Patients in the remede System Pivotal Trial were observed every 3 months after implant until US Food and Drug Administration approval. At the time of approval and study closure, all patients completed 24 months of follow-up; 33 patients had not reached the 36-month visit. Sleep metrics (polysomnography) and echocardiographic parameters are reported at baseline, 12, 18, and 24 months, in addition to available 36-month sleep results from polygraphy. Safety was assessed through 36 months; however, analysis focused through 24 months and available 36-month results are provided. RESULTS: Patients were assessed at 24 (n = 109) and 36 (n = 60) months. Baseline characteristics included mean age 64 years, 91% male, and mean apnea-hypopnea index 47 events per hour. Sleep metrics (apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), central apnea index, arousal index, oxygen desaturation index, rapid eye movement sleep) remained improved through 24 and 36 months with continuous use of PNS therapy. At least 60% of patients in the treatment group achieved at least 50% reduction in AHI through 24 months. Serious adverse events (SAEs) related to the remede System implant procedure, device, or therapy through 24 months were reported by 10% of patients, no unanticipated adverse device effects or deaths, and all events resolved. No additional related SAEs were reported between 24 and 36 months. CONCLUSION: These data suggest beneficial effects of long-term PNS in patients with CSA appear to sustain through 36 months with no new safety concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01816776.

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.

Phrenic nerve stimulation to treat patients with central sleep apnoea and heart failure.

AIMS: The presence of central sleep apnoea (CSA) is associated with poor prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF). The aim of this analysis was to evaluate if using phrenic nerve stimulation to treat CSA in patients with CSA and HF was associated with changes in HF-specific metrics. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients randomized in the remede System Pivotal Trial and identified at baseline with HF were included (n = 96). Effectiveness data from treatment and former control groups were pooled based on months since therapy activation. Changes from baseline to 6 and 12 months in sleep metrics, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, patient global assessment health-related quality of life, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and echocardiographic parameters are reported. HF hospitalization, cardiovascular death, and the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death within 6 months are reported by the original randomized group assignment for safety assessment. Sleep metrics and quality of life improved from baseline to 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, MLHFQ scores changed by -6.8 ± 20.0 (P = 0.005). The 6-month rate of HF hospitalization was 4.7% in treatment patients (standard error = 3.3) and 17.0% in control patients (standard error = 5.5) (P = 0.065). Reported adverse events were as expected for a transvenous implantable system. CONCLUSIONS: Phrenic nerve stimulation reduces CSA severity in patients with HF. In parallel, this CSA treatment was associated with benefits on HF quality of life.

Sustained 12 Month Benefit of Phrenic Nerve Stimulation for Central Sleep Apnea.

Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation improved sleep metrics and quality of life after 6 months versus control in the remede System Pivotal Trial. This analysis explored the effectiveness of phrenic nerve stimulation in patients with central sleep apnea after 12 months of therapy. Reproducibility of treatment effect was assessed in the former control group in whom the implanted device was initially inactive for the sixth month and subsequently activated when the randomized control assessments were complete. Patients with moderate-to-severe central sleep apnea implanted with the remede System were randomized to therapy activation at 1 month (treatment) or after 6 months (control). Sleep indices were assessed from baseline to 12 months in the treatment group and from 6 to 12 months in former controls. In the treatment group, a ≥50% reduction in apnea-hypopnea index occurred in 60% of patients at 6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 47% to 64%) and 67% (95% CI 53% to 78%) at 12 months. After 6 months of therapy, 55% of former controls (95% CI 43% to 67%) achieved ≥50%reduction in apnea-hypopnea index. Patient Global Assessment was markedly ormoderately improved at 6 and 12 months in 60% of treatment patients.Improvements persisted at 12 months. A serious adverse event within 12 months occurred in 13 patients (9%). Phrenic nerve stimulation produced sustained improvements in sleep indices and quality of life to at least 12 months in patients with central sleep apnea. The similar improvement of former controls after 6 months of active therapy confirms benefits are reproducible and reliable.

Identification of Repetitive Activation Patterns Using Novel Computational Analysis of Multielectrode Recordings During Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter in Humans.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess computational analysis of 64-electrode basket catheter (BC) recordings of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter using novel software, CARTOFINDER (CF). BACKGROUND: Repetitive patterns have been recorded during AF and reported to be an important mechanism of AF. CF was used to identify rotational repetitive activation patterns (RAPs) in the right (RA) and left atrium (LA). METHODS: To assess for presence of RAPs, multiple 1-min BC maps of the RA and LA were obtained before and after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) around the pulmonary veins in 14 patients undergoing AF ablation. Validation of the CF algorithm was based on analysis of BC recordings of the cavotricuspid isthmus flutter. RESULTS: There were 2.9 rotational RAPs per patient (1.3 RA; 1.6 LA). No RAPs were noted in 2 patients. RFA was delivered on top of (n = 10), within 5 mm (n = 5), or distant (n = 10) from any RAP. Reproducibility of the BC to identify the same RAP was 82%. Post-pulmonary vein (PV) isolation, there was a 45% reduction in RAP versus pre-RFA. CF was validated by 4 electrophysiologists blindly reviewing 32 RA CF maps. Electrophysiologists correctly categorized presence/absence of RAP in 122 of 128 maps (95%). CONCLUSIONS: CF is novel software incorporated into CARTO that identifies rotational RAP in the RA and LA with 82% reproducibility. PV RFA results in 45% reduction of RAP, suggesting that RFA beyond PV isolation is required to eliminate the bulk of RAP. Electrophysiologists who were first-time users of CF could readily identify RAPs.

Transvenous stimulation of the phrenic nerve for the treatment of central sleep apnoea: 12 months' experience with the remede® System.

AIMS: Patients with central sleep apnoea (CSA) often have poor quality of life and are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. This study sought to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes of patients with CSA treated with unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation in the prospective, multicentre, non-randomized remede® System pilot study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with CSA were treated with the remede® System (Respicardia Inc., Minnetonka, MN, USA) for a minimum of 3 months. Sleep-disordered breathing parameters were evaluated by polysomnography (PSG) at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up. Sleep symptoms and quality of life were also evaluated. Forty-one patients completed all follow-up PSGs and were included in the analysis. At 12 months, there was sustained improvement compared with baseline in the apnoea-hypopnoea index (49.9 ± 15.1 vs. 27.5 ± 18.3 events/h, P < 0.001) and central apnoea index (28.2 ± 15.0 vs. 6.0 ± 9.2 events/h, P < 0.001). Sustained improvement in the oxygen desaturation index (46.1 ± 19.1 vs. 26.9 ± 18.0 events/h, P < 0.001), rapid eye movement sleep (11.4 ± 6.1% vs. 17.1 ± 8.0%, P < 0.001), and sleep efficiency (69.3 ± 16.9% vs. 75.6 ± 17.1%, P = 0.024) were also observed. There were also continued favourable effects on sleepiness and quality of life. Three deaths unrelated to remede® System therapy and five serious adverse events occurred over 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that in patients with CSA, unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation is associated with sustained improvement in key sleep parameters, sleep symptoms, and quality of life over 12 months of follow-up.

Design of the remede System Pivotal Trial: A Prospective, Randomized Study in the Use of Respiratory Rhythm Management to Treat Central Sleep Apnea.

BACKGROUND: Central sleep apnea is common in patients with cardiovascular disease and worsens outcomes. There is a lack of established therapies for central sleep apnea, and those available are limited by poor patient adherence and potentially adverse cardiovascular effects, at least in a subset of patients. The remede System (Respicardia, Minnetonka, Minnesota) is a new physiologic treatment that uses transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation to contract the diaphragm, thereby stabilizing gas exchange and restoring normal breathing throughout the sleep period. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter randomized trial with blinded end points evaluating the safety and efficacy of the remede System. Up to 173 patients with central sleep apnea will be randomized 1:1 to remede System therapy initiated at 1 month after implantation (treatment) or to an implanted remede System that will remain inactive for 6 months (control). Primary efficacy end point is the percentage of patients who experience a reduction in apnea-hypopnea index by a ≥ 50% at 6 months (responder analysis). Primary safety end point is freedom from serious adverse events through 12 months. Secondary end points include sleep-disordered breathing parameters, sleep architecture, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and Patient Global Assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This is the 1st randomized controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of the remede System for the treatment of central sleep apnea.

Phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnea.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate chronic, transvenous, unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation to treat central sleep apnea (CSA) in a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study. BACKGROUND: CSA occurs predominantly in patients with heart failure and increases the risk for morbidity and mortality. Established therapies for CSA are lacking, and those available are limited by poor patient adherence. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with CSA underwent baseline polysomnography followed by transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation system implantation and follow-up. Feasibility was assessed by implantation success rate and therapy delivery. Safety was evaluated by monitoring of device- and procedure-related adverse events. Efficacy was evaluated by changes in the apnea-hypopnea index at 3 months. Quality of life at 6 months was evaluated using a sleepiness questionnaire, patient global assessment, and, in patients with heart failure at baseline, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire. RESULTS: The study met its primary end point, demonstrating a 55% reduction in apnea-hypopnea index from baseline to 3 months (49.5 ± 14.6 episodes/h vs. 22.4 ± 13.6 episodes/h of sleep; p < 0.0001; 95% confidence interval for change: -32.3 to -21.9). Central apnea index, oxygenation, and arousals significantly improved. Favorable effects on quality of life and sleepiness were noted. In patients with heart failure, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire score significantly improved. Device- or procedure-related serious adverse events occurred in 26% of patients through 6 months post therapy initiation, predominantly due to lead repositioning early in the study. Therapy was well tolerated. Efficacy was maintained at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous, unilateral phrenic nerve stimulation appears safe and effective for treating CSA. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. (Chronic Evaluation of Respicardia Therapy; NCT01124370).

Mechanisms and clinical consequences of untreated central sleep apnea in heart failure.

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a highly prevalent, though often unrecognized, comorbidity in patients with heart failure (HF). Data from HF population studies suggest that it may present in 30% to 50% of HF patients. CSA is recognized as an important contributor to the progression of HF and to HF-related morbidity and mortality. Over the past 2 decades, an expanding body of research has begun to shed light on the pathophysiologic mechanisms of CSA. Armed with this growing knowledge base, the sleep, respiratory, and cardiovascular research communities have been working to identify ways to treat CSA in HF with the ultimate goal of improving patient quality of life and clinical outcomes. In this paper, we examine the current state of knowledge about the mechanisms of CSA in HF and review emerging therapies for this disorder.

Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation in patients with Cheyne-Stokes respiration and congestive heart failure: a safety and proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Cheyne-Stokes respiration (CSR), which often occurs in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), may be a predictor for poor outcome. Phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) may interrupt CSR in patients with CHF. We report the clinical use of transvenous PNS in patients with CHF and CSR. METHODS: Nineteen patients with CHF and CSR were enrolled. A single stimulation lead was placed at the junction between the superior vena cava and brachiocephalic vein or in the left-side pericardiophrenic vein. PNS stimulation was performed using Eupnea System device (RespiCardia Inc). Respiratory properties were assessed before and during PNS. PNS was assessed at a maximum of 10 mA. RESULTS: Successful stimulation capture was achieved in 16 patients. Failure to capture occurred in three patients because of dislocation of leads. No adverse events were seen under maximum normal stimulation parameters for an overnight study. When PNS was applied following a series of central sleep apneic events, a trend toward stabilization of breathing and heart rate as well as improvement in oxygen saturation was seen. Compared with pre-PNS, during PNS there was a significant decrease in apnea-hypopnea index (33.8 ± 9.3 vs 8.1 ± 2.3, P = .00), an increase in mean and minimal oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (89.7% ± 1.6% vs 94.3% ± 0.9% and 80.3% ± 3.7% vs 88.5% ± 3.3%, respectively, all P = .00) and end-tidal CO2 (38.0 ± 4.3 mm Hg vs 40.3 ± 3.1 mm Hg, P = .02), but no significant difference in sleep efficiency (74.6% ± 4.1% vs 73.7% ± 5.4%, P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary results showed that in a small group of patients with CHF and CSR, 1 night of unilateral transvenous PNS improved indices of CSR and was not associated with adverse events.

Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnoea in heart failure.

AIMS: Periodic breathing with central sleep apnoea (CSA) is common in heart failure patients and is associated with poor quality of life and increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, acute study to determine the feasibility of using unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of CSA in heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-one patients from six centres underwent attempted transvenous lead placement. Of these, 16 qualified to undergo two successive nights of polysomnography-one night with and one night without phrenic nerve stimulation. Comparisons were made between the two nights using the following indices: apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI), central apnoea index (CAI), obstructive apnoea index (OAI), hypopnoea index, arousal index, and 4% oxygen desaturation index (ODI4%). Patients underwent phrenic nerve stimulation from either the right brachiocephalic vein (n = 8) or the left brachiocephalic or pericardiophrenic vein (n = 8). Therapy period was (mean ± SD) 251 ± 71 min. Stimulation resulted in significant improvement in the AHI [median (inter-quartile range); 45 (39-59) vs. 23 (12-27) events/h, P = 0.002], CAI [27 (11-38) vs. 1 (0-5) events/h, P≤ 0.001], arousal index [32 (20-42) vs. 12 (9-27) events/h, P = 0.001], and ODI4% [31 (22-36) vs. 14 (7-20) events/h, P = 0.002]. No significant changes occurred in the OAI or hypopnoea index. Two adverse events occurred (lead thrombus and episode of ventricular tachycardia), though neither was directly related to phrenic nerve stimulation therapy. CONCLUSION: Unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation significantly reduces episodes of CSA and restores a more natural breathing pattern in patients with heart failure. This approach may represent a novel therapy for CSA and warrants further study.