Apixaban vs Aspirin According to CHA2DS2-VASc Score in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From ARTESiA.

BACKGROUND: ARTESiA (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation) demonstrated that apixaban, compared with aspirin, significantly reduced stroke and systemic embolism (SE) but increased major bleeding in patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVES: To help inform decision making, the authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of apixaban according to baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score. METHODS: We performed a subgroup analysis according to baseline CHA2DS2-VASc score and assessed both the relative and absolute differences in stroke/SE and major bleeding. RESULTS: Baseline CHA2DS2-VASc scores were <4 in 1,578 (39.4%) patients, 4 in 1,349 (33.6%), and >4 in 1,085 (27.0%). For patients with CHA2DS2-VASc >4, the rate of stroke was 0.98%/year with apixaban and 2.25%/year with aspirin; compared with aspirin, apixaban prevented 1.28 (95% CI: 0.43-2.12) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.68 (95% CI: -0.23 to 1.57) major bleeds. For CHA2DS2-VASc <4, the stroke/SE rate was 0.85%/year with apixaban and 0.97%/year with aspirin. Apixaban prevented 0.12 (95% CI: -0.38 to 0.62) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.33 (95% CI: -0.27 to 0.92) major bleeds. For patients with CHA2DS2-VASc =4, apixaban prevented 0.32 (95% CI: -0.16 to 0.79) strokes/SE per 100 patient-years and caused 0.28 (95% CI: -0.30 to 0.86) major bleeds. CONCLUSIONS: One in 4 patients in ARTESiA with subclinical atrial fibrillation had a CHA2DS2-VASc score >4 and a stroke/SE risk of 2.2% per year. For these patients, the benefits of treatment with apixaban in preventing stroke/SE are greater than the risks. The opposite is true for patients with CHA2DS2-VASc score <4. A substantial intermediate group (CHA2DS2-VASc =4) exists in which patient preferences will inform treatment decisions. (Apixaban for the Reduction of Thrombo-Embolism in Patients With Device-Detected Sub-Clinical Atrial Fibrillation; NCT01938248).

Predictors of Shock-Reduction Programming and Its Impact on Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies and Mortality: The CERTITUDE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Shock-reduction implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming (SRP) was associated with fewer therapies and improved survival in randomized controlled trials, but real-world studies investigating SRP and associated outcomes are limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIOTRONIK CERTITUDE registry was linked with the Medicare database. We included all patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted between August 22, 2012 and September 30, 2021 in the United States. SRP was defined as programming to either a therapy rate cutoff ≥188 beats per minute or number of intervals to detection ≥30/40 for treatment. Among 6781 patients (mean 74±9 years; 27% women), 3393 (50%) had SRP. Older age, secondary prevention indication, and device implantation in the southern or western United States were associated with lower use of SRP. The cumulative incidence rate of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks was lower in the SRP group (5.1% shocks/patient year) compared with the non-SRP group (7.2% shocks/patient year) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73-0.96]; P=0.005). Over a median follow-up of 2.9 years, 739 deaths occurred in the SRP group and 822 deaths occurred in the non-SRP group (adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88-1.07]; P=0.569). SRP was associated with a lower all-cause mortality among patients without ischemic heart disease compared with patients with ischemic heart disease (adjusted HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48-0.87] versus adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92-1.14]; Pinteraction=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of SRP is low in real-world clinical practice. Age, clinical variables, and geographic factors are associated with use of SRP. In this study, SRP-associated decrease in mortality was limited to patients without ischemic heart disease.

Association between COVID-19 vaccination and atrial arrhythmias in individuals with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of mRNA-based coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown. METHODS: BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub-analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID-19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID-19 vaccine and non-vaccinated patients was also performed. RESULTS: First and second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre- and postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Though we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED-detected AAs following vaccination for COVID-19 over a 3-month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high-risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.

Benefits of upgrading right ventricular to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Recommendations on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) are based on less robust evidence than those in sinus rhythm (SR). We aimed to assess the efficacy of CRT upgrade in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial population by their baseline rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and previously implanted pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ≥20% right ventricular (RV) pacing burden were randomized to CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145). Primary [HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume] and secondary outcomes were investigated. At enrolment, 131 (36%) patients had AF, who had an increased risk for HFH as compared with those with SR [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-7.13; P = 0.013]. The effect of CRT-D upgrade was similar in patients with AF as in those with SR [AF adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.06; 95% CI 0.02-0.17; P < 0.001; SR aOR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07-0.27; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.29] during the mean follow-up time of 12.4 months. Also, it decreased the risk of HFH or all-cause mortality (aHR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.70; P = 0.003; interaction P = 0.17) and improved the echocardiographic response (left ventricular end-diastolic volume difference -49.21 mL; 95% CI -69.10 to -29.32; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: In HFrEF patients with AF and PM/ICD with high RV pacing burden, CRT-D upgrade decreased the risk of HFH and improved reverse remodelling when compared with ICD, similar to that seen in patients in SR.

Benefits of upgrading right ventricular to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Recommendations on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) are based on less robust evidence than those in sinus rhythm (SR). We aimed to assess the efficacy of CRT upgrade in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial population by their baseline rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and previously implanted pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ≥20% right ventricular (RV) pacing burden were randomized to CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145). Primary [HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume] and secondary outcomes were investigated. At enrolment, 131 (36%) patients had AF, who had an increased risk for HFH as compared with those with SR [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-7.13; P = 0.013]. The effect of CRT-D upgrade was similar in patients with AF as in those with SR [AF adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.06; 95% CI 0.02-0.17; P < 0.001; SR aOR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07-0.27; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.29] during the mean follow-up time of 12.4 months. Also, it decreased the risk of HFH or all-cause mortality (aHR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.70; P = 0.003; interaction P = 0.17) and improved the echocardiographic response (left ventricular end-diastolic volume difference -49.21 mL; 95% CI -69.10 to -29.32; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: In HFrEF patients with AF and PM/ICD with high RV pacing burden, CRT-D upgrade decreased the risk of HFH and improved reverse remodelling when compared with ICD, similar to that seen in patients in SR.

Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by New York Heart Association Class: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with severe heart failure symptoms are limited. We investigated the relative effects of CRT in patients with ambulatory New York Heart Association (NYHA) IV versus III functional class at the time of device implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, we pooled patient-level data from the MIRACLE (Multicenter InSync Randomized Clinical Evaluation), MIRACLE-ICD (Multicenter InSync Implantable Cardioversion Defibrillation Randomized Clinical Evaluation), and COMPANION (Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Heart Failure) trials. Outcomes evaluated were time to the composite end point of the first heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality, and time to all-cause mortality alone. The association between CRT and outcomes was evaluated using a Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression model. We assessed if this association differed between NYHA III and IV groups by adding an interaction term between CRT and NYHA class as a random effect. A sensitivity analysis was performed by including data from RAFT (Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure). Our pooled analysis included 2309 patients. Overall, CRT was associated with a longer time to heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79 [95% credible interval [CI], 0.64-0.99]; posterior probability or P=0.044), with a similar association with time to all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.03]; P=0.083). Associations of CRT with outcomes were not significantly different for those in NYHA III and IV classes (ratio of aHR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.30-1.27]; P=0.23 for heart failure hospitalization/mortality; ratio of aHR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.35-1.34]; P=0.27 for all-cause mortality alone). The sensitivity analysis, including RAFT data, did not show a significant relative CRT benefit between NYHA III and IV classes. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no significant difference in the association of CRT with either outcome for patients in NYHA functional class III compared with functional class IV.

Sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended heart rate control among a large sample of patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest.

Background: Despite known clinical benefits, guideline-recommended heart rate (HR) control is not achieved for a significant proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) provides continuous HR monitoring and alerts that could aid medication titration. Objective: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended HR control during a period of WCD use. Methods: Data from patients fitted with a WCD from 2015 to 2018 were obtained from the manufacturer's database (ZOLL). The proportion of patients with adequate nighttime resting HR control at the beginning of use (BOU) and at the end of use (EOU) were compared by sex. Adequate HR control was defined as having a nighttime median HR <70 beats/min. Results: A total of 21,440 women and a comparative sample of 17,328 men (median 90 [IQR 59-116] days of WCD wear) were included in the final dataset. Among patients who did not receive a shock, over half had insufficient HR control at BOU (59% of women, 53% of men). Although the proportion of patients with resting HR ≥70 beats/min improved by EOU, 43% of women and 36% of men did not achieve guideline-recommended HR control. Conclusion: A significant proportion of women and men did not achieve adequate HR control during a period of medical therapy optimization. Compared with men, a greater proportion of women receiving WCD shocks had insufficiently controlled HR in the week preceding ventricular tachyarrhythmia/ventricular fibrillation and 43% of nonshocked women, compared with 36% of men, did not reach adequate HR control during the study period. The WCD can be utilized as a remote monitoring tool to record HR and inform adequate uptitration of beta-blockers, with particular focus on reducing the treatment gap in women.

Digoxin and Risk of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia and Death in ICD Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Some studies have shown digoxin use to be associated with adverse outcomes, including increased mortality. There are limited data on whether digoxin use is associated with increased risk of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether digoxin use is associated with increased risk of VT/VF in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with a primary prevention ICD in landmark clinical trials. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of patients with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator who were enrolled in 4 landmark MADIT trials (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trials). We employed propensity score quintile stratification for treatment with digoxin as well as additional multivariable adjustment to assess the risk of digoxin vs no-digoxin therapy for the endpoints of first and recurrent VT/VF and all-cause mortality. The proportional hazards regression models for arrhythmia-specific endpoints incorporated adjustments for the competing risk of death. RESULTS: At baseline, 1,155 of 4,499 patients were on digoxin (26%). After propensity score quintile stratification, patients prescribed digoxin were shown to exhibit a statistically significant 48% increased risk of VT/VF (P < 0.001), 42% increased risk of the composite of VT/VF or death (P < 0.001), and a 37% increased risk of all-cause mortality (P = 0.006). Digoxin use was also associated with increased risk of appropriate ICD shocks (HR: 1.91; P < 0.001) and with increased burden of VT/VF events (HR: 1.46; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggests that digoxin use is associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmia and death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with an ICD.

Pre- and post-procedural cardiac imaging (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) in electrophysiology: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging of the European Society of Cardiology.

Imaging using cardiac computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has become an important option for anatomic and substrate delineation in complex atrial fibrillation (AF) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation procedures. Computed tomography more common than MR has been used to detect procedure-associated complications such as oesophageal, cerebral, and vascular injury. This clinical consensus statement summarizes the current knowledge of CT and MR to facilitate electrophysiological procedures, the current value of real-time integration of imaging-derived anatomy, and substrate information during the procedure and the current role of CT and MR in diagnosing relevant procedure-related complications. Practical advice on potential advantages of one imaging modality over the other is discussed for patients with implanted cardiac rhythm devices as well as for planning, intraprocedural integration, and post-interventional management in AF and VT ablation patients. Establishing a team of electrophysiologists and cardiac imaging specialists working on specific details of imaging for complex ablation procedures is key. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can safely be performed in most patients with implanted active cardiac devices. Standard procedures for pre- and post-scanning management of the device and potential CMR-associated device malfunctions need to be in place. In VT patients, imaging-specifically MR-may help to determine scar location and mural distribution in patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy beyond evaluating the underlying structural heart disease. Future directions in imaging may include the ability to register multiple imaging modalities and novel high-resolution modalities, but also refinements of imaging-guided ablation strategies are expected.

Relationship between sex, body size, and cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit: A patient-level meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Women might benefit more than men from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and do so at shorter QRS durations. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis was performed to determine whether sex-based differences in CRT effects are better accounted for by height, body surface area (BSA), or left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD). METHODS: We analyzed patient-level data from CRT trials (MIRACLE, MIRACLE ICD, MIRACLE ICD II, REVERSE, RAFT, COMPANION, and MADIT-CRT) using bayesian hierarchical Weibull regression models. Relationships between QRS duration and CRT effects were examined overall and in sex-stratified cohorts; additional analyses indexed QRS duration by height, BSA, or LVEDD. End points were heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or death and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Compared with men (n = 5628), women (n = 1439) were shorter (1.62 [interquartile range, 1.57-1.65] m vs 1.75 [1.70-1.80] m; P < .001), with smaller BSAs (1.76 [1.62-1.90] m2 vs 2.02 [1.89-2.16] m2; P < .001). In adjusted sex-stratified analyses, the reduction in HFH or death was greater for women (hazard ratio, 0.54; credible interval, 0.42-0.70) than for men (hazard ratio, 0.77; credible interval, 0.66-0.89; Pinteraction = .009); results were similar for all-cause mortality even after adjustment for height, BSA, and LVEDD. Sex-specific differences were observed only in nonischemic cardiomyopathy. The effect of CRT on HFH or death was observed at a shorter QRS duration for women (126 ms) than for men (145 ms). Indexing QRS duration by height, BSA, or LVEDD attenuated sex-specific QRS duration thresholds for the effects of CRT on HFH or death but not on mortality. CONCLUSION: Although body size partially explains sex-specific QRS duration thresholds for CRT benefit, it is not associated with the magnitude of CRT benefit. Indexing QRS duration for body size might improve selection of patients for CRT, particularly with a "borderline" QRS duration.

Prior history of atrial fibrillation and arrhythmic outcomes: Data from the WEARIT-II prospective registry.

INTRODUCTION: Wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is utilized in patients with assumed but not yet confirmed risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD). Many of these patients also present with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the rate of WCD-detected ventricular or atrial arrhythmia events in this specific high-risk cohort is not well understood. METHODS: In WEARIT-II, the cumulative probability of any sustained or nonsustained VT/VF (WCD-treated and nontreated), and atrial/supraventricular arrhythmias during WCD use was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method by prior AF, with comparisons by the log-rank test. The incidence of ventricular and atrial arrhythmia events were expressed as events per 100 patient-years, and were analyzed by prior AF using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: WEARIT-II enrolled 2000 patients, 557 (28%) of whom had AF before enrollment. Cumulative probability of any sustained or nonsustained WCD-detected VT/VF during WCD use was significantly higher among patients with a history of AF than without AF (6% vs. 3%, p = .001). Similarly, the recurrent rate of any sustained or nonsustained VT/VF was significantly higher in patients with prior AF versus no prior AF (131.5 events per 100 patient-years vs. 22.7 events per 100 patient-years, p = .001). Patients with prior AF also had a significantly higher burden of any WCD-detected atrial arrhythmias/SVT/inappropriate arrhythmias therapy (183.2 events per 100 patient-years vs. 74.8 events per 100 patient-years, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that patients with a history of AF wearing the WCD for risk assessment have a higher incidence of ventricular arrhythmias that may facilitate the decision making for ICD implantation.

Implantable cardiac monitors: artificial intelligence and signal processing reduce remote ECG review workload and preserve arrhythmia detection sensitivity.

Introduction: Implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) provide long-term arrhythmia monitoring, but high rates of false detections increase the review burden. The new "SmartECG" algorithm filters false detections. Using large real-world data sets, we aimed to quantify the reduction in workload and any loss in sensitivity from this new algorithm. Methods: Patients with a BioMonitor IIIm and any device indication were included from three clinical projects. All subcutaneous ECGs (sECGs) transmitted via remote monitoring were classified by the algorithm as "true" or "false." We quantified the relative reduction in workload assuming "false" sECGs were ignored. The remote monitoring workload from five hospitals with established remote monitoring routines was evaluated. Loss in sensitivity was estimated by testing a sample of 2000 sECGs against a clinical board of three physicians. Results: Of our population of 368 patients, 42% had an indication for syncope or pre-syncope and 31% for cryptogenic stroke. Within 418.5 patient-years of follow-up, 143,096 remote monitoring transmissions contained 61,517 sECGs. SmartECG filtered 42.8% of all sECGs as "false," reducing the number per patient-year from 147 to 84. In five hospitals, nine trained reviewers inspected on average 105 sECGs per working hour. This results in an annual working time per patient of 83 min without SmartECG, and 48 min with SmartECG. The loss of sensitivity is estimated as 2.6%. In the majority of cases where true arrhythmias were rejected, SmartECG classified the same type of arrhythmia as "true" before or within 3 days of the falsely rejected sECG. Conclusion: SmartECG increases efficiency in long-term arrhythmia monitoring using ICMs. The reduction of workload by SmartECG is meaningful and the risk of missing a relevant arrhythmia due to incorrect filtering by the algorithm is limited.

QRS Morphology and the Risk of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data on the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) on the risk of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia in heart failure patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to assess whether QRS morphology is associated with risk of ventricular arrhythmias in CRT recipients. METHODS: The study population comprised 2,862 patients implanted with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)/CRT-D for primary prevention who were enrolled in 5 landmark primary prevention ICD trials (MADIT-II [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial], MADIT-CRT [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy], MADIT-RIT [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-Reduction in Inappropriate Therapy], MADIT-RISK [Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial-RISK], and RAID [Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients With Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators]). Patients with QRS duration ≥130 ms were divided into 2 groups: those implanted with an ICD only vs CRT-D. The primary endpoint was fast ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) (defined as VT ≥200 beats/min or VF), accounting for the competing risk of death. Secondary endpoints included appropriate shocks, any sustained VT or VF, and the burden of fast VT/VF, assessed in a recurrent event analysis. RESULTS: Among patients with left bundle branch block (n = 1,792), those with CRT-D (n = 1,112) experienced a significant 44% (P < 0.001) reduction in the risk of fast VT/VF compared with ICD-only patients (n = 680), a significantly lower burden of fast VT/VF (HR: 0.55; P = 0.001), with a reduced burden of appropriate shocks (HR: 0.44; P < 0.001). In contrast, among patients with non-left bundle branch block (NLBBB) (N = 1,070), CRT-D was not associated with reduction in fast VT/VF (HR: 1.33; P = 0.195). Furthermore, NLBBB patients with CRT-D experienced a statistically significant increase in the burden of fast VT/VF events compared with ICD-only patients (HR: 1.90; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a potential proarrhythmic effect of CRT among patients with NLBBB. These data should be considered in patient selection for treatment with CRT.

Sex-Related Differences in Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia Events in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator and Prior Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Data on the risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), and death by sex in patients with prior VT/VF are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess sex-related differences in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-treated VT/VF events and death in patients implanted for secondary prevention or primary prevention ICD indications who experienced VT/VF before enrollment in the RAID (Ranolazine Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator) trial. METHODS: Sex-related differences in the first and recurrent VT/VF requiring antitachycardia pacing or ICD shock and death were evaluated in 714 patients. RESULTS: There were 124 women (17%) and 590 men observed during a mean follow-up of 26.81 ± 14.52 months. Compared to men, women were at a significantly lower risk of VT/VF/death (HR: 0.67; P = 0.029), VT/VF (HR: 0.68; P = 0.049), VT/VF treated with antitachycardia pacing (HR: 0.59; P = 0.019), and VT/VF treated with ICD shock (HR: 0.54; P = 0.035). The risk of recurrent VT/VF was also significantly lower in women (HR: 0.35; P < 0.001). HR for death was similar to the other endpoints (HR: 0.61; P = 0.162). In comparison to men, women presented with faster VT rates (196 ± 32 beats/min vs 177 ± 30 beats/min, respectively; P = 0.002), and faster shock-requiring VT/VF rates (258 ± 56 beats/min vs 227 ± 57 beats/min, respectively; P = 0.30). There was a significant interaction for the risk of VT/VF by race (P = 0.013) with White women having significantly lower risk than White men (HR: 0.36; P < 0.001), whereas Black women had a similar risk to Black men (HR: 1.06; P = 0.851). CONCLUSIONS: Women with a history of prior VT/VF experienced a lower risk recurrent VT/VF requiring ICD therapy when compared to men. Black Women had a risk similar to men, whereas the lower risk for VT/VF in women was observed primarily in White women. (Ranolazine Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Trial; NCT01215253).

Apixaban for Stroke Prevention in Subclinical Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Subclinical atrial fibrillation is short-lasting and asymptomatic and can usually be detected only by long-term continuous monitoring with pacemakers or defibrillators. Subclinical atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk of stroke by a factor of 2.5; however, treatment with oral anticoagulation is of uncertain benefit. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting 6 minutes to 24 hours. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind, double-dummy design to receive apixaban at a dose of 5 mg twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily when indicated) or aspirin at a dose of 81 mg daily. The trial medication was discontinued and anticoagulation started if subclinical atrial fibrillation lasting more than 24 hours or clinical atrial fibrillation developed. The primary efficacy outcome, stroke or systemic embolism, was assessed in the intention-to-treat population (all the patients who had undergone randomization); the primary safety outcome, major bleeding, was assessed in the on-treatment population (all the patients who had undergone randomization and received at least one dose of the assigned trial drug, with follow-up censored 5 days after permanent discontinuation of trial medication for any reason). RESULTS: We included 4012 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 76.8±7.6 years and a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3.9±1.1 (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of stroke); 36.1% of the patients were women. After a mean follow-up of 3.5±1.8 years, stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year) and in 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year) (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.88; P = 0.007). In the on-treatment population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.57; P = 0.001). Fatal bleeding occurred in 5 patients in the apixaban group and 8 patients in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation, apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin but a higher risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ARTESIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01938248.).

Benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy among older patients: A patient-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and mortality for guideline-indicated patients with heart failure (HF). Most patients with HF are aged ≥70 years but such patients are often under-represented in randomized trials. METHODS: Patient-level data were combined from 8 randomized trials published 2002-2013 comparing CRT to no CRT (n = 6,369). The effect of CRT was estimated using an adjusted Bayesian survival model. Using age as a categorical (<70 vs ≥70 years) or continuous variable, the interaction between age and CRT on the composite end point of HFH or all-cause mortality or all-cause mortality alone was assessed. RESULTS: The median age was 67 years with 2436 (38%) being 70+; 1,554 (24%) were women; 2,586 (41%) had nonischemic cardiomyopathy and median QRS duration was 160 ms. Overall, CRT was associated with a delay in time to the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.75, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.66-0.85, P = .002) and all-cause mortality alone (aHR of 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, P = .017). When age was treated as a categorical variable, there was no interaction between age and the effect of CRT for either end point (P > .1). When age was treated as a continuous variable, older patients appeared to obtain greater benefit with CRT for the composite end point (P for interaction = .027) with a similar but nonsignificant trend for mortality (P for interaction = .35). CONCLUSION: Reductions in HFH and mortality with CRT are as great or greater in appropriately indicated older patients. Age should not be a limiting factor for the provision of CRT.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Comorbidities and clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: patient-level meta-analysis from eight clinical trials.

AIMS: Patients with heart failure usually have several other medical conditions that might alter the effects of interventions. We investigated whether the burden of comorbidity modified the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Original patient-level data from eight randomized trials exploring the effects of CRT versus no CRT were pooled (BLOCK-HF, MIRACLE, MIRACLE-ICD, MIRACLE-ICD II, RAFT, COMPANION, MADIT-CRT and REVERSE). A prior history of the following comorbidities was considered: episodic or persistent atrial fibrillation (n = 920), coronary artery disease (n = 3732), diabetes (n = 2171), and hypertension (n = 3353). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of comorbidities: 0, 1-2, or ≥3. The outcomes of interest were time to all-cause mortality and time to the composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or all-cause mortality. Outcomes were evaluated within each comorbidity group using a Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression model. Of 6324 patients, 970 (15%) had no comorbidities, 4052 (64%) had 1-2 and 1302 (21%) had ≥3 comorbidities. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for CRT versus no CRT for all-cause mortality in the overall cohort was 0.79 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.68-0.93) (p = 0.010); for no comorbidities the aHR was 0.54 (95% CI 0.34-0.86), for 1-2 comorbidities was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.97) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.07) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.13). For the endpoint of HFH or all-cause mortality, the aHR for the overall cohort was 0.74 (95% CI 0.65-0.84) (p = 0.001), for no comorbidities was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.94), for 1-2 comorbidities was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.90) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.82) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.081). CONCLUSION: In a meta-analysis of patient-level data from eight major trials, the totality of evidence suggests that CRT reduces HFH and/or all-cause mortality even when several comorbid diseases are present. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00271154, NCT00251251, NCT00267098, NCT00180271.

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator in cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

Introduction: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The benefit of the ICD in patients with advanced CKD, remains elusive. Moreover, the benefit of the ICD in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HFrEF who are cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients may be attenuated. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patients with CKD who are CRT recipients may derive less benefit from the ICD due to the competing risk of dying prior to experiencing an arrhythmia. Methods: The study population included 1,015 patients receiving CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) device for primary prevention of SCD who were enrolled in either (Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial) MADIT-CRT trial or the Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients with Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator (RAID) trial. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the stage of CKD: those with Stage 1 to 3a KD, labeled as (S1-S3a)KD. The second group included patients with Stage 3b to stage 5 kidney disease, labeled as (S3b-S5)KD. The primary endpoint was any ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (Any VT/VF). Results: The cumulative incidence of Any VT/VF was 23.5% in patients with (S1-S3a)KD and 12.6% in those with (S3b-S5)KD (p < 0.001) The incidence of Death without Any VT/VF was 6.6% in patients with (S1-S3a)KD and 21.6% in patients with (S3b-S5)KD (p < 0.001). A Fine and Gray multivariate competing risk regression model showed that Patients with (S3b-S5)KD had a 43% less risk of experiencing Any VT/VF when compared to those with (S1-S3a)KD (HR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.33-0.94] p = 0.03. After two years of follow up, there was almost a 5-fold increased risk of Death without Any VT/VF among patients with (S3b-S5)KD when compared to those with (S1-S3a)KD [HR = 4.63, 95% CI (2.46-8.72), p for interaction with time = 0.012]. Conclusion: Due to their lower incidence of arrhythmias and higher risk of dying prior to experiencing an arrhythmia, the benefit of the ICD may be attenuated in CRT recipients with advanced CKD. Future prospective trials should evaluate whether CRT without a defibrillator may be more appropriate for these patients.

Effect of Carvedilol vs Metoprolol on Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmias Among Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Both selective and nonselective beta-blockers are used to treat patients with heart failure (HF). However, the data on the association of beta-blocker type with risk of atrial arrhythmia and ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in HF patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the effect of metoprolol vs carvedilol on the risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) and VA in HF patients with an ICD. METHODS: This study pooled primary prevention ICD recipients from 5 landmark ICD trials (MADIT-II, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, MADIT-RISK, and RAID). Fine and Gray multivariate regression models, stratified by study, were used to evaluate the risk of ATA, inappropriate ICD shocks, and fast VA (defined as ventricular tachycardia ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation) by beta-blocker type. RESULTS: Among 4,194 patients, 2,920 (70%) were prescribed carvedilol and 1,274 (30%) metoprolol. The cumulative incidence of ATA at 3.5 years was 11% in patients treated with carvedilol vs 15% in patients taking metoprolol (P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that carvedilol treatment was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of ATA (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.53-0.81; P < 0.001) when compared to metoprolol, and with a corresponding 35% reduction in the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47-0.89; P = 0.008). Carvedilol vs metoprolol was also associated with a 16% reduction in the risk of fast VA. However, these findings did not reach statistical significance (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70-1.02; P = 0.085). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggests that HF patients with ICDs on carvedilol treatment experience a significantly lower risk of ATA and inappropriate ICD shocks when compared to treatment with metoprolol.