Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). OBJECTIVES: The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT. METHOD: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity. RESULT: Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23 ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

EsophAguS Deviation During RadiofrequencY Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: The EASY AF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Injury to the esophagus has been reported in a high percentage of patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the incidence of esophageal injury in patients undergoing ablation of AF with and without an esophageal deviating device. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, controlled Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial compared the incidence of ablation-related esophageal lesions, as assessed by endoscopy, in patients undergoing AF ablation assigned to a control group (luminal esophageal temperature [LET] monitoring alone) compared with patients randomized to a deviation group (esophagus deviation device + LET). This novel deviating device uses vacuum suction and mechanical deflection to deviate a segment of the esophagus, including the trailing edge. RESULTS: The data safety and monitoring board recommended stopping the study early after randomizing 120 patients due to deviating device efficacy. The primary study endpoint, ablation injury to the esophageal mucosa, was significantly less in the deviation group (5.7%) in comparison to the control group (35.4%; P < 0.0001). Control patients had a significantly higher severity and greater number of ablation lesions per patient. There was no adverse event assigned to the device. By multivariable analysis, the only feature associated with reduced esophageal lesions was randomization to deviating device (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.46; P = 0.001). Among control subjects, there was no difference in esophageal lesions with high power/short duration (31.8%) vs other radiofrequency techniques (37.2%; P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an esophageal deviating device resulted in a significant reduction in ablation-related esophageal lesions without any adverse events.

Impact of Age on Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in a Large Patient Cohort: Mid-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an accepted alternative to transvenous (TV) ICD to provide defibrillation therapy to treat life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias in high-risk patients. S-ICD outcomes by age group have not been reported. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to report S-ICD outcomes in different age groups in a multicenter S-ICD post-approval study (PAS) involving the largest cohort of patients ever reported. METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled in the S-ICD PAS and stratified based on age: young, aged 15-34 years; adult, aged 35-69 years; and elderly, aged ≥70 years. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes through 3 years of follow up after implantation were compared. RESULTS: The S-ICD PAS enrolled 1,637 patients. Elderly patients were more likely to receive an S-ICD as a replacement of a TV-ICD (15.1% elderly vs 12.3% adult vs 7.4% young). Secondary prevention indication decreased with age (32.7% young vs 22.2% adult vs 20.5% elderly). Mortality rate was significantly higher in the elderly group (24.0% elderly vs 13.0% adult vs 7.4% young; P < 0.0001), whereas the complication rate did not differ significantly (12.3% young vs 11.3% adult vs 8.1% elderly). Rates of appropriate shock (12.7% young vs 13.0% adult vs 13.8% elderly) and inappropriate shock (7.8% young vs 9.1% adult vs 8.8% elderly) rates did not differ between groups (P = 0.96 and P = 0.98, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implant complications and appropriate and inappropriate shock rates were similar among age groups. S-ICD for secondary prevention was more common in the young group. Replacing a TV-ICD for an S-ICD increases with age. (S-ICD System Post-Approval Study; NCT01736618).

Postapproval Study of a Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed to avoid complications related to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) leads. Device safety and efficacy were demonstrated previously with atypical clinical patients or limited follow-up. OBJECTIVES: The S-ICD PAS (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System Post Approval Study) is a real-world, multicenter, registry of U.S. centers that was designed to assess long-term S-ICD safety and efficacy in a diverse group of patients and implantation centers. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in 86 U.S. centers with standard S-ICD indications and were observed for up to 5 years. Efficacy endpoints were first and final shock efficacy. Safety endpoints were complications directly related to the S-ICD system or implantation procedure. Endpoints were assessed using prespecified performance goals. RESULTS: A total of 1,643 patients were prospectively enrolled, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years. All prespecified safety and efficacy endpoint goals were met. Shock efficacy rates for discrete episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were 98.4%, and they did not differ significantly across follow-up years (P = 0.68). S-ICD-related and electrode-related complication-free rates were 93.4% and 99.3%, respectively. Only 1.6% of patients had their devices replaced by a TV-ICD for a pacing need. Cumulative all-cause mortality was 21.7%. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest prospective study of the S-ICD to date, all study endpoints were met, despite a cohort with more comorbidities than in most previous trials. Complication rates were low and shock efficacy was high. These results demonstrate the 5-year S-ICD safety and efficacy for a large, diverse cohort of S-ICD recipients. (Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator [S-ICD] System Post Approval Study [PAS]; NCT01736618).

Quality of Life and Type of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device in Older Heart Failure Patients.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves quality of life (QOL) in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction. Clinicians may have difficulty choosing between CRT with a pacemaker (CRT-P) or a defibrillator (CRT-D) for older patients. CRT-P devices are smaller, have more battery longevity, are less prone to erosions or recalls, and do not deliver shocks. These factors may impact patients' QOL, but data on such comparisons are lacking. Objectives: We examined the impact of CRT-P versus CRT-D on the QOL of older (≥75 years) HF patients who qualified for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Settings/Subjects/Measurements: We enrolled 101 CRT recipients and assessed QOL at baseline and at six-month post-implant using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Minnesota living with heart failure (MLHF) questionnaires. Results: The average age of enrolled patients was 81 years, 27% were women, and 40 received a CRT-P device. After adjusting for baseline QOL score, age, sex, HF functional class, and the occurrence of adverse events, we found no significant differences in QOL outcomes between CRT-P and CRT-D recipients based on either the subscales or the composite scores for the SF-36 or MLHF questionnaires at six-months post-implantation. Conclusions: Older CRT-P and CRT-D recipients report comparable QOL scores six months after device implantation. Larger cohort studies with longer follow-up are needed to accurately assess potential QOL differences between CRT-D and CRT-P recipients to guide clinical decision making and ensure the right balance of risk versus benefit in these patients. Appropriate goals-of-care discussions are the corner stone of clinical decision making regarding defibrillator therapy. As such, even as the data stand at present, there is a need for more deliberate referral of older patients with HF to Palliative Care Specialists, or to Cardiologists trained in Palliative Care Medicine. clinicaltrials.gov listing: NCT03031847.

Three-dimensional functional anatomy of the human sinoatrial node for epicardial and endocardial mapping and ablation.

The sinoatrial node (SAN) is the primary pacemaker of the human heart. It is a single, elongated, 3-dimensional (3D) intramural fibrotic structure located at the junction of the superior vena cava intercaval region bordering the crista terminalis (CT). SAN activation originates in the intranodal pacemakers and is conducted to the atria through 1 or more discrete sinoatrial conduction pathways. The complexity of the 3D SAN pacemaker structure and intramural conduction are underappreciated during clinical multielectrode mapping and ablation procedures of SAN and atrial arrhythmias. In fact, defining and targeting SAN is extremely challenging because, even during sinus rhythm, surface-only multielectrode mapping may not define the leading pacemaker sites in intramural SAN but instead misinterpret them as epicardial or endocardial exit sites through sinoatrial conduction pathways. These SAN exit sites may be distributed up to 50 mm along the CT beyond the ∼20-mm-long anatomic SAN structure. Moreover, because SAN reentrant tachycardia beats may exit through the same sinoatrial conduction pathway as during sinus rhythm, many SAN arrhythmias are underdiagnosed. Misinterpretation of arrhythmia sources and/or mechanisms (eg, enhanced automaticity, intranodal vs CT reentry) limits diagnosis and success of catheter ablation treatments for poorly understood SAN arrhythmias. The aim of this review is to provide a state-of-the-art overview of the 3D structure and function of the human SAN complex, mechanisms of SAN arrhythmias and available approaches for electrophysiological mapping, 3D structural imaging, pharmacologic interventions, and ablation to improve diagnosis and mechanistic treatment of SAN and atrial arrhythmias.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Infection in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Results of the S-ICD Post Approval Study.

BACKGROUND: Early subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) studies included atypical cohorts of patients who were younger with fewer comorbidities. Recent S-ICD studies included patient populations with more comorbidities. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to determine the incidence and predictors of S-ICD-related infection over a 3-year follow-up period and to use these results to develop an infection risk score. METHODS: The S-ICD Post Approval Study is a US prospective registry of 1637 patients. Baseline demographic characteristics and outcomes with 3-year postimplantation follow-up were compared between patients with and without device-related infection. A risk score was derived from multivariable proportional hazards analysis of 22 variables. RESULTS: Infection was observed in 55 patients (3.3%), with 69% of infections occurring within 90 days and a vast majority (92.7%) within 1 year of implantation. Late infections more likely involved device erosion; no infections occurred after year 2. The annual mortality rate postinfection was 0.6%/y. No lead extraction complications or bacteremia related to infection were observed. An infection risk score was created with diabetes, age, prior transvenous ICD implant, and ejection fraction as predictors. Patients with a risk score of ≥3 had an 8.8 hazard ratio (95% confidence interval 2.8-16.3) of infection compared with a 0 risk score. CONCLUSION: Infection rates in the S-ICD Post Approval Study were similar to other S-ICD populations and not associated with systemic blood-borne infections. Late infection (>1 year) is uncommon and associated with system erosion. A high-risk infection cohort can be identified that may facilitate preventive measures.

Process mapping strategies to prevent subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infections.

BACKGROUND: Infection remains a major complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices and can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Implantable devices that avoid transvenous leads, such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD), can reduce the risk of serious infection-related complications, such as bloodstream infection and infective endocarditis. While the 2017 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines include recommendations for S-ICD use for patients at high risk of infection, currently, there are no clinical trial data that address best practices for the prevention of S-ICD infections. Therefore, an expert panel was convened to develop a consensus on these topics. METHODS: An expert process mapping methodology was used to achieve consensus on the appropriate steps to minimize or prevent S-ICD infections. Two face-to-face meetings of high-volume S-ICD implanters and an infectious diseases specialist, with expertise in cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections, were conducted to develop consensus on useful strategies pre-, peri-, and postimplant to reduce S-ICD infection risk. RESULTS: Expert panel consensus on recommended steps for patient preparation, S-ICD implantation, and postoperative management was developed to provide guidance in individual patient management. CONCLUSION: Achieving expert panel consensus by process mapping methodology for S-ICD infection prevention was attainable, and the results should be helpful to clinicians in adopting interventions to minimize risks of S-ICD infection.

Device-related infection associated with increased mortality risk in de novo transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator medicare patients.

INTRODUCTION: Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (TV-ICD) infection is a serious complication that frequently requires complete device removal for attempted cure, which can be associated with patient morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study is to assess mortality risk associated with TV-ICD infection in a large Medicare population with de novo TV-ICD implants. METHODS: A survival analysis was conducted using 100% fee-for-service Medicare facility-level claims data to identify patients who underwent de novo TV-ICD implantation between 7/2016 and 1/2018. TV-ICD infection within 2 years of implantation was identified using International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition and current procedural terminology codes. Baseline patient risk factors associated with mortality were identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index categories. Infection was treated as a time-dependent variable in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to account for immortal time bias. RESULTS: Among 26,742 Medicare patients with de novo TV-ICD, 518 (1.9%) had a device-related infection. The overall number of decedents was 4721 (17.7%) over 2 years, with 4555 (17%) in the noninfection group and 166 (32%) in the infection group. After adjusting for baseline patient demographic characteristics and various comorbidities, the presence of TV-ICD infection was associated with an increase of 2.4 (95% CI: 2.08-2.85) times in the mortality hazard ratio. CONCLUSION: The rate of TV-ICD infection and associated mortality in a large, real-world Medicare population is noteworthy. The positive association between device-related infection and risk of mortality further highlights the need to reduce infections.

Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

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.

Device-related infection in de novo transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator Medicare patients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac device infection is a serious complication of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement and requires complete device removal with accompanying antimicrobial therapy for durable cure. Recent guidelines have highlighted the need to better identify patients at high risk of infection to assist in device selection. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of infection in de novo transvenous (TV) ICD implants and assess factors associated with infection risk in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using 100% Medicare administrative and claims data to identify patients who underwent de novo TV-ICD implantation (July 2016-December 2017). Infection within 720 days of implantation was identified using ICD-10 codes. Baseline factors associated with infection were identified by univariable logistic regression analysis of all variables of interest, including conditions in Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices, followed by stepwise selection criteria with a P ≤ .25 for inclusion in a multivariable model and a backwards, stepwise elimination process with P ≤ .1 to remain in the model. A time-to-event analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Among 26,742 patients with de novo TV-ICD, 519 (1.9%) developed an infection within 720 days post implant. While more than half (54%) of infections occurred during the first 90 days, 16% of infections occurred after 365 days. Multivariable analysis revealed several significant predictors of infection: age <70 years, renal disease with dialysis, and complicated diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: The rate of de novo TV-ICD infection was 1.9%, and identified risk factors associated with infection may be useful in device selection.

Outcomes of two versus three incision techniques: Results from the subcutaneous ICD post-approval study.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, implantation of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) requires incisions near the lateral chest wall, the xyphoid, and the superior sternal region (three-incision technique [3IT]). A two-incision technique (2IT) avoids the superior incision and has been shown to be a viable alternative in small studies with limited follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To report on the long-term safety and efficacy of the 2IT compared to the 3IT procedure in a large patient cohort. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the S-ICD post approval study (PAS) were stratified by procedural technique (2IT vs. 3IT). Baseline demographics, comorbidities and procedural outcomes were collected. Complications and S-ICD effectiveness in treating ventricular arrhythmias through an average 3-year follow-up period were compared. RESULTS: Of 1637 patients enrolled in the S-ICD PAS, 854 pts (52.2%) were implanted using the 2IT and 782 were implanted using the 3IT (47.8%). The 2IT became more prevalent over time, increasing from 40% to 69% of implants (Q1-Q4). Mean procedure time was shorter with 2IT (69.0 vs. 86.3 min, p < .0001). No other differences in outcomes were observed between the two groups, including rates of infection, electrode migration, inappropriate shocks and first shock efficacy for treating ventricular arrhythmias. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients implanted with an S-ICD and followed for 3 years the 2IT was as safe and effective as the 3IT while significantly reducing procedure time.

Resource Use and Economic Implications of Remote Monitoring With Subcutaneous Cardiac Rhythm Monitors.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports resource use and economic implications of rhythm monitoring with subcutaneous cardiac rhythm monitors (SCRMs). BACKGROUND: SCRMs generate a substantial amount of data that requires timely adjudication for appropriate clinical care. Resource use for SCRM monitoring is not known. METHODS: The study included consecutive transmissions during 4 weeks from 1,811 SCRMs. Resource use was quantified by assessment of time commitment of device clinic personnel and electrophysiologists for data adjudication. Incidence and characteristics of false positive (FP) episodes were assessed. Impact of custom programming for arrhythmia detection on incidence of FP episodes and resource use was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1,457 transmissions (alerts = 462; full downloads = 995) were received during study period. Average device clinic personnel time for adjudication of 1 transmission was 15 ± 6 min. This totaled to 364 h spent (2.3 full-time staff) over the 4-week period, which translated into a salary cost of $12,000 U.S. dollars (USD). Average time spent by an electrophysiologist for 1 transmission was 1.5 ± 1 min and totaled to 37 h for 4 weeks, which translated into an estimated cost of $9,600 USD. Of 1,457 total transmissions, 512 (35%) represented multiple transmissions from the same patients, which resulted in no additional reimbursement. Incidence of FP episodes in the entire cohort was 50% and was variable in alert (60%) and full download (49%) (p = 0.04) transmissions. When SCRMs with manufacturer suggested nominal programming and institutional custom programming were compared, there was a reduction in FP episodes (55% vs. 16%; p = 0.01), which translated to a 34% reduction in resource use for data adjudication. CONCLUSIONS: SCRM data adjudication requires significant resources. Custom programming for SCRMs may overcome the data deluge.

Risk Versus Benefit of Combined Aspirin and Warfarin Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

PURPOSE: Guidelines have differing recommendations for aspirin use in patients with an indication for anticoagulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of major bleeding and thromboembolic events (TEs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving warfarin alone (monotherapy group) versus warfarin plus aspirin (combination therapy group). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study including patients from a pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinic. Inclusion criteria were patients with AF receiving anticoagulation between January 2013 and January 2014 observed over 5 years. RESULTS: One hundred forty-two patients were included in the combination group versus 89 in monotherapy group. In the combination group, 60 (42.3%) patients were on aspirin for no apparent indication, 19 (13.4%) had stable coronary artery disease and diabetes, and 26 (18.3%) had diabetes alone. Major bleeding occurred in 21 (14.9%) patients in the combination group versus 7 (7.9%) patients in the monotherapy group (odds ratio [OR] = 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-5.91; P = .17). TE occurred in 10 (7%) patients in the combination group versus 4 (4.5%) in the monotherapy group (OR = 1.61, 95% CI: 0.44-7.24; P = .57). There was no significant difference in bleeding (P = .85) or TE (P = .37) rates between aspirin indications in the combination group. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy versus monotherapy may increase bleeding risk with little benefit in decreasing AF-related stroke or cardiovascular events.