Fluoroscopic screening of asymptomatic patients implanted with the recalled Riata lead family.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration recently issued a class I recall of the St. Jude Medical Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead presumably because of increased risk of electric failure and mechanical separation via inside-out abrasion. We sought to examine the incidence and time dependence of inside-out abrasion in asymptomatic patients implanted with the Riata lead. METHODS AND RESULTS: Asymptomatic patients implanted with the Riata lead at our institution were offered voluntary fluoroscopic screening in 3 views. Electric testing of the Riata lead with provocative isometric muscle contraction was performed at the time of fluoroscopic screening. Of the 245 patients undergoing fluoroscopic screening, 53 (21.6%) patients showed clear evidence of lead separation. Of these externalized leads, 0%, 13%, and 26% had a dwell time of <3 years, 3 to 5 years, and >5 years, respectively (P=0.037). Externalized leads had a significantly pronounced decrease in R-wave amplitude (-1.7±2.9 mV versus +0.35±2.5 mV; P<0.001), and more patients with externalized leads had ≥25% decrease in R-wave amplitude from baseline (28.0% versus 8.1%; P=0.018). One patient with externalization exhibited new noise on near-field electrogram. CONCLUSIONS: The Riata lead exhibits time-dependent high rates of cable externalization exceeding 20% at >5 years of dwell time. Externalized leads are associated with a more pronounced decrease in R-wave amplitude, which may be an early marker of future electric failure. The use of fluoroscopic and electric screening of asymptomatic patients with the Riata lead remains controversial in the management of patients affected by the recent Food and Drug Administration recall.

A novel manoeuvre for discerning supraventricular tachycardia mechanism.

AIMS: Discerning supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) mechanism during catheter ablation procedures can be difficult and time-consuming, which, when combined with diagnostic error, places patients at risk of unnecessary complications. Distinguishing atrial tachycardia (AT) from AV nodal re-entry tachycardia (AVNRT) may be particularly vexatious. Value-added techniques are thus always welcome, particularly if they are not time-consuming nor require complex intracardiac lead configurations. In this study, we assessed whether a new technique, simultaneous right atrial and right ventricular pacing (RA + RV) during ongoing SVT, met these criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a simple intracardiac lead configuration (right atrial appendage, His bundle, right ventricular apex), the response to RA + RV delivered at 80-90% of the SVT cycle length, was examined in 80 patients referred for catheter ablation. In each patient, the actual tachycardia mechanism was adjudicated by standard electrophysiologic criteria ± successful catheter ablation. Mechanisms of SVT included, non-exclusively, AVNRT (24 patients), accessory pathway-mediated (orthodromic) re-entry (AVRT; 23 patients), AT (10 patients), and sinus tachycardia (ST induced with isoproterenol; 49 patients). Immediately after cessation of RA + RV pacing during persistent SVT, the first intracardiac electrogram observed was right atrial in all AT whereas it was His bundle in all AVNRT. The response during AVRT was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary evaluation, RA + RV pacing appears to add value to the existing armamentarium of electrophysiologic indices to discern SVT mechanism, in particular with respect to discriminating between AVNRT and AT.