Poorer outcomes associated with more invasive lead management strategies for Abbott Riata® leads: a large, multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Over 100,000 Abbott Riata® were implanted in the United States before they were recalled in 2010. There are still a significant number of Abbott Riata® leads in use, and it is unclear how these leads should be managed at the time of generator change or lead malfunction. Although data comparing both Sprint Fidelis® and Abbott Riata® leads in this setting is available, there are no multicenter comparative studies of outcomes for various lead management strategies, including lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment/revision (LA), and generator change (GC) only at the time of device at elective replacement interval (ERI) for Abbott Riata® leads. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter study was undertaken to compare short-term outcomes (major complications-MC, death, extended or re-hospitalizations within 60 days-RH, lead malfunction-LM) and total outcomes (short-term outcomes & lead malfunction during follow-up) of patients with Riata® leads undergoing LE, LA, or GC. RESULTS: 152 patients (65 ± 13 years, 68% male) were followed for a mean 33 ± 30 months following intervention. Out of 166 procedures, 13 patients underwent LE, 16 patients underwent LA, and 137 patients underwent GC. There was 1 major complication in each group, yielding an event rate of 7.7% for LE, 6.3% for LA, and 0.7% for GC cohorts. There were significantly more short-term and total adverse outcomes in the group of patients getting LE and LA versus GC only (38.5% & 31.3% vs 7.3%, P < 0.001). Total Riata® lead dwell time follow-up was 17,067 months. A total of 3 Riata® lead malfunctions were noted during long-term follow-up. Inappropriate shocks were similar between LE 7.7% (1/13), LA 6.3% (1/16). and GC 11.0% (4/136); P = 0.57. CONCLUSIONS: There were more short-term and total adverse outcomes in more invasive management strategies (LE and LA) versus GC alone. The failure rate of Riata® leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. Therefore, we recommend only performing battery exchange when a device with an active Riata® lead is at ERI, unless there is malfunction of the Riata® lead noted on testing. There were significantly more short-term adverse outcomes in the lead extraction (5/13) and lead abandonment/revision (5/16) groups than the generator only (8/137) group (P < 0.001). GIB - Gastrointestinal bleed, CHF - congestive heart failure, NSTEMI - non-ST elevation MI.

2022 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation and management of arrhythmic risk in neuromuscular disorders.

This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide electrophysiologists, cardiologists, other clinicians, and health care professionals in caring for patients with arrhythmic complications of neuromuscular disorders (NMDs). The document presents an overview of arrhythmias in NMDs followed by detailed sections on specific disorders: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Becker muscular dystrophy, and limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2; myotonic dystrophy type 1 and type 2; Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy and limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 1B; facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy; and mitochondrial myopathies, including Friedreich ataxia and Kearns-Sayre syndrome, with an emphasis on managing arrhythmic cardiac manifestations. End-of-life management of arrhythmias in patients with NMDs is also covered. The document sections were drafted by the writing committee members according to their area of expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the expert writing group, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence utilizing defined criteria. The recommendations were made available for public comment; the document underwent review by the Heart Rhythm Society Scientific and Clinical Documents Committee and external review and endorsement by the partner and collaborating societies. Changes were incorporated based on these reviews. By using a breadth of accumulated available evidence, the document is designed to provide practical and actionable clinical information and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of arrhythmias and thus improve the care of patients with NMDs.

Burnout and Well-Being Among Cardiology Fellowship Program Directors.

OBJECTIVES: The third annual Cardiovascular Diseases (CV) Fellowship Program Directors (PDs) Survey sought to understand burnout and well-being among CV fellowship PDs. BACKGROUND: Physician burnout is a common phenomenon. Data on burnout among cardiologists, specifically CV PDs, remain limited. METHODS: The survey contained 8 questions examining satisfaction, stress, and burnout among CV fellowship PDs. Burnout was defined based on the self-reported presence of ≥1 symptom of burnout, constant feelings of burnout, or complete burnout. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 57%. Most respondents were men (78%) and 54% represented university-based programs. Eighty percent reported satisfaction with their current job as PD, and 96% identified interactions with fellows as a driver of their satisfaction. Forty-five percent reported feeling a great deal of stress from their job. Stress was higher among women PDs, early-career PDs, and PDs of larger and university-based programs. Twenty-one percent reported some symptoms of burnout, and only 36% reported enjoyment without stress or burnout. Rates of enjoyment without stress or burnout were higher among men and late-career PDs, PDs of smaller programs, and PDs of community-based programs. Seventeen percent of PDs reported a high likelihood of resigning in the next year, of which the most common reason was the tasks of PDs were becoming overwhelming. CONCLUSIONS: Most CV fellowship PDs are satisfied with their position, but stress and burnout remain common. Women PDs, early-career PDs, and PDs of larger, university-based programs demonstrate more adverse markers of well-being. Opportunities exist to support CV fellowship PDs in their critical role.

Program Directors Survey on Diversity in Cardiovascular Training Programs.

BACKGROUND: Women and minorities are under-represented in cardiovascular disease (CVD) specialties. It remains unknown how characteristics of the CVD learning environment affect diversity and how program directors (PDs) approach these critical issues. OBJECTIVES: The second annual Cardiovascular PD Survey aimed to investigate characteristics of the CVD learning environment that may affect diversity and strategies PDs use to approach these issues. METHODS: The survey contained 20 questions examining U.S.-based CVD PD perceptions of diversity in CVD and related characteristics of the CVD fellowship learning environment. RESULTS: In total, 58% of PDs completed the survey. Responding programs demonstrated geographic diversity. The majority were university-based or -affiliated. A total of 86% of PDs felt diversity in CVD as a field needs to increase, and 70% agreed that training programs could play a significant role in this. In total, 89% of PDs have attempted to increase diversity in fellowship recruitment. The specific strategies used were associated with PD sex and the presence of under-represented minority trainees in the program. PDs identified lack of qualified candidates and overall culture of cardiology as the 2 most significant barriers to augmenting diversity. A majority of programs have support systems in place for minority fellows or specific gender groups, including procedures to report issues of harassment or an unsafe learning environment. PDs identified shared best practices for recruitment and implicit bias training, among others, as important resources in their efforts to support diversity in CVD training. CONCLUSIONS: Diversity is important to CVD PDs. They are striving to increase it in their programs through recruitment and strategies directed toward the fellowship learning environment. The CVD community has opportunities to standardize strategies and provide national resources to support PDs in these critical efforts.

Management and long-term outcomes associated with recalled implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: No comparative study of outcomes in Riata and Sprint Fidelis leads undergoing lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment (LA), and generator change only (GC) has been published. OBJECTIVES: Determine outcomes (major complications [MC]; death, extended hospitalization, or rehospitalization within 60 days [RH]; lead malfunction) of LE, LA, and GC for recalled leads. METHODS: Retrospective, multicenter, comparative study. RESULTS: A total of 298 LE, 85 LA, and 310 GC were performed. In the clinical setting of a lead intervention, there was no difference in a composite of MC, death, RH, lead revision, inappropriate shocks, or device infection between LE and LA groups (15% vs 22%, P = .140). In the clinical setting of a device at elective replacement interval (ERI), there were significantly more acute events at 60 days (MC, death, and RH) in the LE and LA groups at 15.4% (4) and 15.4% (4), and this was significantly (P = .017) higher than the GC group at 5.1% (16). There was no difference (P = 1.000) in the composite of MC, death, RH, lead malfunction, lead revisions, device infections, or inappropriate shocks between LE, LA, and GC groups at 15.4% (4), 15.4% (4), and 17.4% (54), respectively. Following generator change, 14 of 175 Fidelis leads and 3 of 135 Riata leads failed over a total of 12,714 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of recalled leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. It may be prudent to perform generator change only when the device is at ERI, especially when the recalled lead has historical performance that likely outweighs the risks of extraction/abandonment.