Bifurcation PCI with a hybrid strategy with drug- eluting balloons versus a stepwise provisional two- stent strategy: Rationale and design of the hybrid DEB study.

The optimal treatment strategy for coronary bifurcation lesions by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is complex and remains a subject of debate. Current guidelines advise a stepwise provisional approach with optional two-stent strategy. However, a two-stent strategy, both upfront and stepwise provisional, is technically demanding. Therefore, there is increasing interest in the use of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in bifurcation lesions, mainly after a provisional approach with unsatisfactory result of the side branch. Some small pilot studies already showed that the use of DEB in bifurcation lesions is safe and feasible. However, a randomized comparison of this hybrid DEB strategy with a two-stent strategy is currently lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The Hybrid DEB study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigating noninferiority of a hybrid DEB approach, using a combination of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the main vessel and DEB in the side branch, compared to stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. A total of 500 patients with de novo true coronary bifurcation lesions, treated with a stepwise provisional approach and an unsatisfactory result of the side branch after main vessel stenting (≥ 70% stenosis and/or < thrombolysis in myocardial infarction III flow), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment with a DEB or with a DES in the side branch. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of the occurrence of all-cause death, periprocedural or spontaneous myocardial infarction and/or target vessel revascularization at the anticipated median 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Hybrid DEB study will compare in a multicenter, randomized fashion a hybrid DEB approach with a stepwise provisional two-stent strategy in patients with true bifurcation lesions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT05731687.

Application and comparison of the FADES, MADIT, and SHFM-D risk models for risk stratification of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment.

AIMS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment is beneficial in selected patients. However, it remains difficult to accurately predict which patients benefit most from ICD implantation. For this purpose, different risk models have been developed. The aim was to validate and compare the FADES, MADIT, and SHFM-D models. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients receiving a prophylactic ICD at the Leiden University Medical Center were evaluated. Individual model performance was evaluated by C-statistics. Model performances were compared using net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated differentiation improvement (IDI). The primary endpoint was non-benefit of ICD treatment, defined as mortality without prior ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD intervention. A total of 1969 patients were included (age 63 ± 11 years; 79% male). During a median follow-up of 4.5 ± 3.9 years, 318 (16%) patients died without prior ICD intervention. All three risk models were predictive for event-free mortality (all: P < 0.001). The C-statistics were 0.66, 0.69, and 0.75, respectively, for FADES, MADIT, and SHFM-D (all: P < 0.001). Application of the SHFM-D resulted in an improved IDI of 4% and NRI of 26% compared with MADIT; IDI improved 11% with the use of SHFM-D instead of FADES (all: P < 0.001), but NRI remained unchanged (P = 0.71). Patients in the highest-risk category of the MADIT and SHFM-D models had 1.7 times higher risk to experience ICD non-benefit than receive appropriate ICD interventions [MADIT: mean difference (MD) 20% (95% CI: 7-33%), P = 0.001; SHFM-D: MD 16% (95% CI: 5-27%), P = 0.005]. Patients in the highest-risk category of FADES were as likely to experience ICD intervention as ICD non-benefit [MD 3% (95% CI: -8 to 14%), P = 0.60]. CONCLUSION: The predictive and discriminatory value of SHFM-D to predict non-benefit of ICD treatment is superior to FADES and MADIT in patients receiving prophylactic ICD treatment.

The clinical course of patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Extended experience on clinical outcome, device replacements, and device-related complications.

BACKGROUND: Large randomized trials demonstrated the beneficial effect of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) treatments in selected patients. Data on long-term follow-up of patients outside the setting of clinical trials are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of ICD and CRT-D recipients. METHODS: All patients who underwent ICD (n = 1729 [57%]) or CRT-D (n = 1326 [43%]) implantation at the Leiden University Medical Center since 1996 were evaluated. Follow-up visits were performed every 3-6 months, and events were registered. Cumulative incidence curves of device therapy and device-related complications were adjusted for the competing risk of all-cause mortality. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 5.1 years (25th-75th percentile 3.1-7.8 years), 842 patients (28%) died. The cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI] 45%-54%) in ICD recipients after 12 years of follow-up and 55% (95% CI 52%-58%) in CRT-D recipients after 8 years of follow-up. A total of 1081 patients (35%) received appropriate defibrillator therapy. The cumulative incidence of appropriate therapy in ICD patients was 58% (95% CI 54%-62%) after 12 years of follow-up and 39% (95% CI 35%-43%) in CRT-D patients after 8 years of follow-up. Twelve-year cumulative incidences of adverse events were 20% (95% CI 18%-22%) for inappropriate shock, 6% (95% CI 5%-8%) for device-related infection, and 17% (95% CI 14%-21%) for lead failure. CONCLUSION: After long-term follow-up of ICD (12 years) and CRT-D (8 years) recipients, 49% of ICD recipients and 55% of CRT-D recipients had died. Appropriate ICD therapy was received by the majority (58%) of ICD recipients and by almost 40% of CRT-D recipients.

Super-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy remain at risk for ventricular arrhythmias and benefit from defibrillator treatment.

AIMS: Mortality and ventricular arrhythmias are reduced in patients responding to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This response is accompanied by improvement in LVEF, and some patients even outgrow original eligibility criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. It is however unclear if these patients still benefit from ICD treatment. The current study aimed to evaluate if the incidence of ICD therapy is related to the extent of CRT response. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients who underwent primary prevention CRT-defibrillator implantation were included. They were divided into subgroups according to the reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) 6 months after implantation. Pre-defined subgroups were: negative responders (increased LVESV), non-responders (decreased LVESV 0-14%), responders (decreased LVESV 15-29%), and super-responders (decreased LVESV ≥30%). During a median follow-up of 57 months (25th-75th percentile 39-84), 512 patients were studied [101 (20%) negative responders, 101 (20%) non-responders, 149 (29%) responders, and 161 (31%) super-responders]. In the first year of follow-up super-responders received significantly less appropriate ICD therapy (3% vs. 12%; P < 0.001). The 5-year cumulative incidence of appropriate ICD therapy was 31% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19-43] in negative responders, 39% (95% CI 25-53) in non-responders, 34% (95% CI 25-43) in responders, and 27% (95% CI 18-35) in super-responders, respectively (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of CRT response was associated with a parallel reduction of appropriate device therapy during the first year of follow-up. Thereafter, no association was observed. Furthermore, 23% of super-responders were treated for potentially life-threatening arrhythmias and benefit from ICD treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment: data from a large clinical registry.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized trials have shown the beneficial effect on survival of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) as primary prevention therapy in selected patients, data concerning the cost-effectiveness in routine clinical practice remain scarce. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of primary prevention ICD implantation in the real world. METHODS: Patients receiving primary prevention single-chamber or dual-chamber ICD implantation at the Leiden University Medical Center were included in the study. Using a Markov model, lifetime cost, life years (LYs), and gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for device recipients and control patients. Data on mortality, complication rates, and device longevity were retrieved from our center and entered into the Markov model. To account for model assumptions, one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Importantly, calculations for the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness rate (ICER) per QALY gained are based on several numbers of assumptions, and accordingly findings may have over- or underestimated the cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy. RESULTS: Primary prevention ICD implantation adds an estimated mean of 2.07 LYs and 1.73 QALYs. Increased lifetime cost for single-chamber and dual-chamber ICD recipients were estimated at €60,788 and €64,216, respectively. This resulted for single-chamber ICD recipients, in an estimated ICER of €35,154 per QALY gained. In dual-chamber ICD recipients, an estimated ICER of €37,111 per QALY gained was calculated. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, estimated cost per QALY gained are €35,837 (95% confidence interval [CI]: €28,368-€44,460) for single-chamber and €37,756 (95% CI: €29,055-€46,050) for dual-chamber ICDs. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of data and detailed costs, derived from routine clinical practice, ICD therapy in selected patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction appears to be cost-effective.

Gender-specific differences in clinical outcome of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in clinical outcome of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment in men and women. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University Medical Center. PATIENTS: 1946 primary prevention ICD recipients (1528 (79%) men and 418 (21%) women). Patients with congenital heart disease were excluded for this analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality, ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing and shock) and ICD shock. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.3 years (25th-75th percentile 1.4-5.4), 387 (25%) men and 76 (18%) women died. The estimated 5-year cumulative incidence for all-cause mortality was 20% (95% CI 18% to 23%) for men and 14% (95% CI 9% to 19%) for women (log rank p<0.01). After adjustment for potential confounding covariates all-cause mortality was lower in women (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.84; p<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence for appropriate therapy in men was 24% (95% CI 21% to 28%) as compared with 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) in women (log rank p=0.07). After adjustment, a non-significant trend remained (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.06; p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, 21% of primary prevention ICD recipients are women. Women have lower mortality and tend to experience less appropriate ICD therapy as compared with their male peers.

Suitability for subcutaneous defibrillator implantation: results based on data from routine clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the proportion of current implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients who would be suitable for a subcutaneous lead ICD (S-ICD). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care facility in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: All patients who received a single- or dual-chamber ICD in the Leiden University Medical Center between 2002 and 2011. Patients with a pre-existent indication for cardiac pacing were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Suitability for an S-ICD defined as not reaching one of the following endpoints during follow-up: (1) an atrial and/or right ventricular pacing indication, (2) successful antitachycardia pacing without a subsequent shock or (3) an upgrade to a CRT-D device. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR 1.7-5.7 years), 463 patients (34% of the total population of 1345 patients) reached an endpoint. The cumulative incidence of ICD recipients suitable for an initial S-ICD implantation was 55.5% (95% CI 52.0% to 59.0%) after 5 years. Significant predictors for the unsuitability of an S-ICD were: secondary prevention, severe heart failure and prolonged QRS duration. CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years of follow-up, approximately 55% of the patients would have been suitable for an S-ICD implantation. Several baseline clinical characteristics were demonstrated to be useful in the selection of patients suitable for an S-ICD implantation.

Clinical prediction model for death prior to appropriate therapy in primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients with ischaemic heart disease: the FADES risk score.

OBJECTIVES: To construct a risk score out of baseline variables to estimate the risk of death without prior implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention ICD patients with ischaemic heart disease. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care facility in The Netherlands. PATIENTS: All patients with ischaemic heart disease who received an ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands in the period 1996-2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality without prior appropriate ICD therapy (anti-tachycardia pacing or shock). RESULTS: 900 patients (87% men, mean age 64±10 years) were included in the analysis. During a median follow-up of 669 days (IQR 363-1322 days), 150 patients (17%) died and 191 (21%) patients received appropriate device therapy. 114 (13%) patients died without prior appropriate therapy. Stratification of the risk for death without prior appropriate therapy resulted in risk categorisation of patients as low, intermediate or high risk. NYHA ≥III, advanced age, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤25% and a history of smoking were significant independent predictors of death without appropriate ICD therapy. 5-year cumulative incidence for death without prior appropriate therapy ranged from 10% (95% CI 6% to 16%) in low-risk patients to 41% (95% CI 33% to 51%) in high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of death without prior appropriate ICD therapy can be predicted in primary prevention ICD patients with ischaemic heart disease, which facilitates patient-tailored risk estimation.

The mode of death in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator patients: results from routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Although data on the mode of death of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) patients have been examined in randomized clinical trials, in routine clinical practice data are scarce. To provide reasonable expectations and prognosis for patients and physicians, this study assessed the mode of death in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the mode of death in ICD/CRT-D recipients in routine clinical practice. METHODS: All patients who underwent an ICD or CRT-D implantation at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, between 1996 and 2010 were included. Patients were divided into primary prevention ICD, secondary prevention ICD, and CRT-D patients. For patients who died during follow-up, the mode of death was retrieved from hospital and general practitioner records and categorized according to a predetermined classification: heart failure death, other cardiac death, sudden death, noncardiac death, and unknown death. RESULTS: A total of 2859 patients were included in the analysis. During a median follow-up of 3.4 years (interquartile range 1.7-5.7 years), 107 (14%) primary prevention ICD, 253 (28%) secondary prevention ICD, and 302 (25%) CRT-D recipients died. The 8-year cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 39.9% (95% confidence interval 37.0%-42.9%). Heart failure death and noncardiac death were the most common modes of death for all groups. Sudden death accounted for approximately 7%-8% of all deaths. CONCLUSION: For all patients, heart failure and noncardiac death are the most common modes of death. The proportion of patients who died suddenly was low and comparable for primary and secondary ICD and CRT-D patients.

Update on small-diameter implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads performance.

BACKGROUND: The performance of small diameter implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads is questionable. However, data on performance during long-term follow-up are scarce. The aim of this study is to provide an update for the lead failure and cardiac perforation rate of Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis ICD lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) and St. Jude Medical's Riata ICD lead (St. Jude Medical Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA). METHODS: Since 1996, all ICD system implantations at the Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands, are registered. For this study, data up to February 2011 on 396 Sprint Fidelis leads (follow-up 3.4 ± 1.5 years), 165 8-French (F) Riata leads (follow-up 4.6 ± 2.6 years), and 30 7-F Riata leads (follow-up 2.9 ± 1.3 years) were compared with a benchmark cohort of 1,602 ICD leads (follow-up 3.4 ± 2.7 years) and assessed for the occurrence of lead failure and cardiac perforation. RESULTS: During follow-up, the yearly lead failure rate of the Sprint Fidelis lead, 7-F Riata lead, 8-F Riata lead, and the benchmark cohort was 3.54%, 2.28%, 0.78%, and 1.14%, respectively. In comparison to the benchmark cohort, the adjusted hazard ratio of lead failure was 3.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.4-5.7, P < 0.001) for the Sprint Fidelis lead and 4.2 (95% CI 1.0-18.0, P < 0.05) for the 7-F Riata lead. One cardiac perforation was observed (3.3%) in the 7-F Riata group versus none in the 8-F Riata and Sprint Fidelis lead population. CONCLUSION: The current update demonstrates that the risk of lead failure during long-term follow-up is significantly increased for both the Sprint Fidelis and the 7-F Riata lead in comparison to the benchmark cohort. Only one cardiac perforation occurred.

Cardiac device infections are associated with a significant mortality risk.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac device infections (CDIs) are a serious complication associated with the implantation of cardiac rhythm devices. However, the effect of CDI on the subsequent risk of mortality is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prognostic importance of CDI in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy - defibrillator. METHODS: All patients who received their initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy - defibrillator between January 2000 and September 2009 were included. During follow-up, the occurrence of CDI and all-cause mortality were noted. The prognostic importance of the first CDI on mortality was assessed by modeling CDI as a time-dependent covariate in the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 2476 patients (79% men; mean age 62 ± 13 years) were included in this analysis. During follow-up, CDI occurred in 64 (2.6%) patients. The 1-year mortality following first CDI was 16.9% (95% confidence interval 6.7%-27.1%). Experiencing the first CDI was associated with a 1.9-fold (hazard ratio 1.87; 95% confidence interval 1.07-3.26) increased risk of mortality compared to patients who did not experience CDI. After controlling for possible confounders, this increased to a 2.4-fold (hazard ratio 2.40; 95% confidence interval 1.35-4.28) increased risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients who receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy - defibrillator after their initial implant, the 3-year incidence of CDI was 2.6%. The occurrence of CDI was associated with substantial 1-year mortality, and patients experiencing CDI had a more than 2-fold increased risk of mortality compared with patients who remained free from CDI.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator longevity under clinical circumstances: an analysis according to device type, generation, and manufacturer.

BACKGROUND: One of the major drawbacks of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment is the limited device service life. Thus far, data concerning ICD longevity under clinical circumstances are scarce. In this study, the ICD service life was assessed in a large cohort of ICD recipients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the battery longevity of ICDs under clinical circumstances. METHODS: All patients receiving an ICD in the Leiden University Medical Center were included in the analysis. During prospectively recorded follow-up visits, reasons for ICD replacement were assessed and categorized as battery depletion and non-battery depletion. Device longevity and battery longevity were calculated. The impact of device type, generation, manufacturer, the percentage of pacing, the pacing output, and the number of shocks on the battery longevity was assessed. RESULTS: Since 1996, 4673 ICDs were implanted, of which 1479 ICDs (33%) were replaced. Mean device longevity was 5.0 ± 0.1 years. A total of 1072 (72%) ICDs were replaced because of battery depletion. Mean battery longevity of an ICD was 5.5 ± 0.1 years. When divided into different types, mean battery longevity was 5.5 ± 0.2 years for single-chamber ICDs, 5.8 ± 0.1 for dual-chamber ICDs, and 4.7 ± 0.1 years for cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (P <.001). Devices implanted after 2002 had a significantly better battery longevity as compared with devices implanted before 2002 (5.6 ± 0.1 years vs 4.9 ± 0.2 years; P <.001). In addition, large differences in battery longevity between manufacturers were noted (overall log-rank test, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ICDs were replaced because of battery depletion. Large differences in longevity exist between different ICD types and manufacturers. Modern ICD generations demonstrated improved longevity.

Trans-venous lead removal without the use of extraction sheaths, results of >250 removal procedures.

AIMS: The number of implanted cardiac rhythm devices has rapidly increased in the past decade. Subsequently, the need for lead extraction has also increased. Several techniques of lead removal have been documented from manual traction of the lead to lead extraction assisted with mechanical or laser sheaths. The goal of this study was to review our experience with lead removal using manual traction without the assistance of extraction sheaths. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the Leiden University Medical Center all leads are removed using manual traction without the assistance of extraction sheaths. We have retrospectively reviewed all lead removal procedures performed between 2000 and 2009. Procedures were reviewed for indication, success, complication rates, and mortality. In total, 279 lead removal procedures were included. During these procedures 445 leads were removed. Time since lead implantation: 4.2 ± 4.7 years. During extraction 53(11.9%) leads fractured, of which >50% could still be completely removed using a femoral approach. A longer implantation duration [odds ratio (OR) 1.16 per year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.23] and passive fixation (OR 2.52, 95%CI 1.17-5.45) significantly associated with the chance of lead fracture during lead removal. Clinical success, using the primary approach of manual traction from the pectoral area, was obtained in 228 (84.8%) procedures. Major complications occurred in 2(0.7%) and minor in 13(4.7%) procedures. One patient died within 24 h after the procedure due to septic shock. There was no further mortality within the first month after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Lead removal using manual traction, without the assistance of lead extraction sheaths, is clinically successful in ~85% of the lead extraction procedures. Concomitant morbidity and mortality are low. The highest clinical success (~95%) was observed in patients with leads implanted less than 2.6 years.

Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator treatment in the elderly: therapy, adverse events, and survival gain.

AIMS: In elderly patients, obscurity remains regarding the benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment as primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. This study assesses implant rates, therapy, adverse events, and survival gain in the elderly primary prevention ICD patient. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1395 patients treated with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death at the Leiden University Medical Center were included and allocated to three groups according to age. Endpoints consisted of appropriate shocks and survival gain, defined as the time following first appropriate ICD shock to death. Mean follow-up was 2.9 ± 2.1 years. Fifty-one per cent of the patients were <65 years, 35% were 65-74 years, and 14% were ≥75 years. Prior to the year 2000, no ICDs were implanted in patients ≥75 years; 29% of the ICDs were implanted in patients 65-74 years. After 2005, 53% of the ICD recipients were ≥65 years at the time of implant, including 16% aged ≥75 years (P = 0.03). Five-year cumulative incidence of appropriate shocks was 19% for patients <65 years, 23% for patients 65-74 years, and 13% for patients ≥75 years (P = 0.47). At 1-year following appropriate shock, cumulative incidence for death was 35% for patients ≥75 years as compared with 7% for patients <65 years (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In routine clinical practice, the percentage of patients ≥75 years receiving an ICD for primary prevention is increasing. Despite experiencing comparable rates of appropriate ICD shocks, life prolongation by ICD is significantly less in elderly as compared to younger patients.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients who are upgraded and respond to cardiac resynchronization therapy have less ventricular arrhythmias compared with nonresponders.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of upgrading implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) combined with defibrillator (CRT-D) on the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and appropriate ICD therapies. BACKGROUND: CRT has been shown to improve left ventricular (LV) systolic function and induce reverse LV remodeling. In addition, it has been hypothesized that CRT may reduce the incidence of VA. METHODS: Heart failure patients receiving an upgrade from ICD to CRT-D were evaluated. Patients were considered responders to CRT if LV end-systolic volume reduced ≥15% at 6 months of follow-up. Episodes of VA, triggering device therapy (anti-tachycardia pacing and shocks) were recorded before and after upgrade for the overall population. In addition, these outcomes were compared between CRT responders and nonresponders during the follow-up period after CRT response was assessed. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients (93 males [81%], age 65 ± 12 years) were evaluated during a mean follow-up of 54 ± 34 months before CRT-D upgrade and 37 ± 27 months after upgrade. In CRT responders (n = 70), the frequency of VA requiring appropriate device therapy demonstrated a trend toward a decrease from 0.51 ± 0.79 to 0.30 ± 0.59 per patient per year after CRT-D upgrade (p = 0.052). In CRT nonresponders (n = 45), the frequency of VA requiring appropriate device therapy significantly increased from 0.40 ± 0.69 to 1.21 ± 2.53 per patient per year after CRT-D upgrade (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: After upgrade from ICD to CRT-D, nonresponders to CRT showed a significant increase in VA burden requiring appropriate device therapy.

Implantation-related complications of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

The number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantations is increasing drastically worldwide, and hence, the number of implanting centers is also increasing. Despite abundant data on the beneficial effect of these devices, little is known regarding safety and complication rates. Eleven ICD and 7 CRT trials were systematically reviewed to provide data on the frequency of in-hospital mortality and complications related to the implantation. Average in-hospital mortality was 2.7% in trials using both thoracotomy and nonthoracotomy ICDs, 0.2% in trials using nonthoracotomy ICDs, and 0.3% in CRT trials. The pneumothorax rate was similar between the nonthoracotomy ICD and CRT trials (0.9%) Coronary sinus complications occurred in 2.0% of patients undergoing CRT. Lead dislodgement rates were higher in CRT trials (5.7%) than in nonthoracotomy ICD trials (1.8%).

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients: the need for defibrillator back-up after an event-free first battery service-life.

INTRODUCTION: In primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients, the relatively low incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) combined with the limited battery service-life potentially results in a large group of patients who have had no benefit of the ICD during first service-life. Data on the occurrence of VA after device replacement remain scarce. The purpose of this study was to give clinicians better insight in the dilemma whether or not to replace an ICD after an event-free first battery service-life. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients treated with an ICD for primary prevention who had a replacement because of battery depletion and who did not receive appropriate therapy before device replacement were included in this analysis. Of 154 primary prevention ICD patients needing replacement because of battery depletion, 114 (74%) patients (mean age 61 ± 11 years, 80% male) had not received appropriate ICD therapy for VA. Follow-up was 71 ± 24 months after the initial implantation and 25 ± 21 months after device replacement. Following replacement, 3-year cumulative incidence of appropriate therapy in response to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation was 14% (95% CI 5-22%). CONCLUSION: The majority of primary prevention ICD patients do not experience VA during first battery service-life. However, a substantial part of these patients does experience appropriate ICD therapy after replacement.

Driving restrictions after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: an evidence-based approach.

AIMS: Little evidence is available regarding restrictions from driving following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation or following first appropriate or inappropriate shock. The purpose of the current analysis was to provide evidence for driving restrictions based on real-world incidences of shocks (appropriate and inappropriate). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 2786 primary and secondary prevention ICD patients were included. The occurrence of shocks was noted during a median follow-up of 996 days (inter-quartile range, 428-1833 days). With the risk of harm (RH) formula, using the incidence of sudden cardiac incapacitation, the annual RH to others posed by a driver with an ICD was calculated. Based on Canadian data, the annual RH to others of 5 in 100 000 (0.005%) was used as a cut-off value. In both primary and secondary prevention ICD patients with private driving habits, no restrictions to drive directly following implantation, or an inappropriate shock are warranted. However, following an appropriate shock, these patients are at an increased risk to cause harm to other road users and therefore should be restricted to drive for a period of 2 and 4 months, respectively. In addition, all ICD patients with professional driving habits have a substantial elevated risk to cause harm to other road users during the complete follow-up after both implantation and shock and should therefore be restricted to drive permanently. CONCLUSION: The current analysis provides a clinically applicable tool for guideline committees to establish evidence-based driving restrictions.