Convalescent Plasma for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Experience.

In Winter 2020, Italy, and in particular the Lombardy region, was the first country in the Western hemisphere to be hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Plasma from individuals recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma, CCP) was the first therapeutic tool adopted to counteract the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this retrospective cohort study, we report the experience of the city hospital of Mantua, Lombardy region, on the compassionate use of CCP in patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19. Between April 2020 and April 2021, 405 consecutive COVID-19 patients received 657 CCP units with a median anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (nAb) titer of 160 (interquartile range (IQR), 80−320). Their median age was 68 years (IQR, 56−78 years), and 62% were males. At enrollment, 55% of patients had an increased body mass index (BMI), and 25.6% had at least three comorbidities. The 28-day crude mortality rate was 12.6% (51/405). Young age (<68 years), mild disease (admission to low-intensity departments) and early treatment (<7 days from symptoms onset) with high nAb titer (≥320) CCP were found as independently associated with a favorable response to CCP treatment. No safety concerns were recorded, with a rate of CCP-related adverse reactions (all of mild intensity) of 1.3%. In our real-life experience, the first in the western world, early administration of high-titer CCP was a safe and effective treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The VALID-CRT risk score reliably predicts response and outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy in a real-world population.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to confirm the value of the VALID-cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) risk score in predicting outcome and to assess its association with clinical response (CR) in an unselected real-world CRT population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present analysis comprised all consecutive CRT patients (pts) enrolled in the CRT-MORE registry from 2011 to 2013. Pts were stratified into five groups (quintiles 1-5) according to the VALID-CRT risk predictor index applied to the CRT-MORE population. In the analysis of clinical outcome, adverse events comprised death from any cause and non-fatal heart failure (HF) events requiring hospitalization. CR at 12-month follow-up was also assessed. We enrolled 905 pts. During a median follow-up of 1005 [627-1361] days, 134 patients died, and 79 had at least one HF hospitalization. At 12 months, 69% of pts displayed an improvement in their CR. The mean VALID-CRT risk score derived from the CRT-MOdular Registry (MORE) population was 0.317, ranging from -0.419 in Q1 to 2.59 in Q5. The risk-stratification algorithm was able to predict total mortality after CRT (survival ranging from 93%-Q1 to 77%-Q5; hazards ratio [HR] = 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-1.61, P < .0001), and HF hospitalization (ranging from 95% to 90%; HR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.45, P = .009). CR was significantly lower in pts with a high-to-very high risk profile (Q4-5) than in pts with a low-to-intermediate risk profile (Q1-2-3) (55% vs 79%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The VALID-CRT risk-stratification algorithm reliably predicts outcome and CRT response after CRT in an unselected, real-world population.

The stricter criteria for Class I CRT indication suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines reliably exclude patients with a worse prognosis in comparison with the 2013 ESC indication criteria.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines published in 2016 modified indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in comparison with the 2013 ESC Guidelines. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of the stricter criteria suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines on patient outcome in a real-world population. METHODS: We collected data on 930 consecutive patients with complete outcome information who had undergone CRT implantation from 2011 to 2013 from the CRT-MORE registry. Patients were classified according to 2013 (Reference) and 2016 (Current) ESC Guidelines. The primary end-point of the study was death from any cause and heart failure hospitalization. RESULTS: According to the Reference Guidelines, 650 (69.9%) patients met Class I indications, 190 (20.4%) Class IIa, 39 (4.2%) Class IIb and 51 (5.5%) Class III. According to the Current Guidelines, 563 (60.5%) patients met Class I indications, 145 (15.6%) Class IIa, 108 (11.6%) Class IIb and 114 (12.3%) Class III. On comparing the Reference and Current Guidelines, the 538 patients who confirmed their Class I indication had a better outcome in terms of freedom from the combined end-point of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99; p = 0.0436) when compared to the 112 patients who lost their class I indication (84 moved to class IIb and 28 moved to class III). CONCLUSIONS: The stricter criteria for Class I CRT indication suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines excluded about 20% of patients with a worse prognosis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRT MORE: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Modular Registry URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier:NCT01573091.

Chronic Apical and Nonapical Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with High-Grade Atrioventricular Block: Results of the Right Pace Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the two approaches to chronic right ventricular pacing currently adopted in clinical practice: right ventricular apical (RVA) and non-RVA pacing. BACKGROUND: Chronic RVA pacing is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, morbidity, and even mortality. Non-RVA pacing may yield more physiologic ventricular activation and provide potential long-term benefits and has recently been adopted as standard procedure at many implanting centers. METHODS: The Right Pace study was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind, nonrandomized trial involving 437 patients indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with a high percentage of RV pacing. RESULTS: RV lead-tip target location was the apex or the interventricular septum. RVA (274) and non-RVA patients (163) did not differ in baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 19 months (25th-75th percentiles, 13-25), 17 patients died. The rates of the primary outcome of death due to any cause or hospitalization for heart failure were comparable between the groups (log-rank test, p = 0.609), as were the rates of the composite of death due to any cause, hospitalization for heart failure, or an increase in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥ 15% as compared with the baseline evaluation (secondary outcome, p = 0.703). After central adjudication of X-rays, comparison between adjudicated RVA (239 patients) and non-RVA (170 patients) confirmed the absence of difference in the rates of primary (p = 0.402) and secondary (p = 0.941) outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with indications for dual-chamber pacemaker who require a high percentage of ventricular stimulation, RVA or non-RVA pacing resulted in comparable outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01647490).

Stricter criteria for left bundle branch block diagnosis do not improve response to CRT.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has proved to be effective in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Recently, new electrocardiography criteria have been proposed for the diagnosis of LBBB. These criteria are stricter than the current American Heart Association (AHA) criteria. We assessed the rate of echocardiographic response to CRT in patients with traditional LBBB versus patients who met the new criteria (strict LBBB). METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing CRT were enrolled in the CRT MORE registry. Patients with no-LBBB QRS morphology according to AHA criteria, atrial fibrillation, right bundle branch block, and right ventricular pacing were excluded. Strict LBBB was defined as: QRS ≥ 140 ms for men and ≥130 ms for women, QS or rS in V1-V2, mid-QRS notching or slurring in ≥2 contiguous leads. Patients showing a relative decrease of ≥15% in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) at 12 months were defined as responders. RESULTS: Among 335 patients with LBBB, 131 (39%) had strict LBBB. Patients with and without strict LBBB showed comparable baseline characteristics, except for QRS duration (166 ± 20 ms vs 152 ± 25 ms, P < 0.001). On 12-month evaluation, 205 patients (61%) were responders; 85 of 131 (65%) had strict LBBB and 120 of 204 (59%) had traditional LBBB (P = 0.267). On multivariate analysis, a history of atrial fibrillation, larger LVESV, and the presence of mid-QRS notching in ≥1 lead (odds ratio 2.099; 95% confidence interval 1.061-4.152, P = 0.033) were independently associated with echocardiographic response. CONCLUSION: Stricter definition of LBBB did not improve response to CRT in comparison to the current AHA definition.

Prevalence of true left bundle branch block in current practice of cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation.

AIMS: Accurate selection of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) may help increasing response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). There is no agreement on LBBB definition. The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of 'true-LBBB' according to Strauss in patients undergoing CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population included 414 consecutive patients (71.9% men; mean age 69.7 ±â€Š9.6 years), who underwent CRT according to 2010 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Patients were classified into three groups: traditional LBBB according to American Heart Association, LBBB according to Strauss and intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD). Subsequently, they were re-classified into classes of recommendations, according to the current 2013 ESC Guidelines. Traditional LBBB was recorded in 229 patients (55%), an LBBB according to Strauss in 153 (37%) and an IVCD in 32 (8%). Patients with an LBBB according to Strauss showed a significantly more prolonged QRS duration (P < 0.001), greater baseline end-systolic and end-diastolic volumes (P = 0.011 and P = 0.013, respectively) compared with those with IVCD. The prevalence of mid-QRS notching in at least two contiguous leads was 100% in LBBB according to Strauss; 24% in traditional LBBB and 21.9% in IVCD (P < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, PR interval less than 200 ms and QRS of at least 150 ms were independent predictors of mid-QRS notching [odds ratio (OR) 1.78; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.10-2.88; P = 0.02 and OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.80-4.62;P < 0.0001]. Applying stricter criteria for LBBB according to Strauss, a significant reduction in Class I recommendation and an increase in Class II was observed (90.1 vs. 37%; P < 0.0001 and 9.9 vs. 63%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Applying stricter criteria, only 37% of patients undergoing CRT showed a true-LBBB according to Strauss. Accurate identification of true-LBBB may have a potential additional value in better selecting patients.

Minimally invasive thoracoscopic technique for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Outcome of surgical left ventricular (LV) lead placement is not well defined in patients with failed percutaneous cardiac resynchronization therapy. An extended experience with epicardial LV lead placement is here reported, describing the minimally invasive procedure performed at our institution using a thoracoscopic surgical approach.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves long-term survival compared with cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker in patients with a class IA indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy: data from the Contak Italian Registry.

AIMS: In candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), the choice between pacemaker (CRT-P) and defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation is still debated. We compared the long-term prognosis of patients who received CRT-D or CRT-P according to class IA recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and who were enrolled in a multicentre prospective registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 620 heart failure patients underwent successful implantation of a CRT device and were enrolled in the Contak Italian Registry. This analysis included 266 patients who received a CRT-D and 108 who received a CRT-P according to class IA ESC indications. Their survival status was verified after a median follow-up of 55 months. During follow-up, 73 CRT-D and 44 CRT-P patients died (rate 6.6 vs. 10.4%/year; log-rank test, P = 0.020). Patients receiving CRT-P were predominantly older, female, had no history of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, and more frequently presented non-ischaemic aetiology of heart failure, longer QRS durations, and worse renal function. However, the only independent predictor of death from any cause was the use of CRT-P (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.16; P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The implantation of CRT-D, rather than CRT-P, may be preferable in patients presenting with current class IA ESC indications for CRT. Indeed, CRT-D resulted in greater long-term survival and was independently associated with a better prognosis.

An observational registry on efficacy and safety of the right ventricular outflow tract as a site for ICD leads: results of the EFFORT (EFFicacy Of Right ventricular outflow Tract as site for ICD leads) registry.

BACKGROUND: Although pacing from the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) has been shown to be safe and feasible in terms of sensing and pacing thresholds, its use as a site for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads is not common. This is probably due to physicians' concerns about defibrillation efficacy. To date, only one randomized trial, involving 87 enrolled patients, has evaluated this issue. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational study has been to compare safety (primary combined end point: efficacy of a 14-J shock in restoring sinus rhythm, R wave amplitude >4 mV and pacing threshold <1 V at 0.5 ms) and efficacy (in terms of effectiveness of a 14-J shock in restoring sinus rhythm after induction of VF, secondary end point) of two different sites for ICD lead positioning: RVOT and right ventricular apex (RVA). METHODS: The study involved 185 patients (153 males; aged 67 ± 10 years; range, 28-82 years). Site of implant was left to physician's decision. After implant, VF was induced with a 1-J shock over the T wave or--if this method was ineffective--with a 50-Hz burst, and a 14-J shock was tested in order to restore sinus rhythm. If this energy was ineffective, a second shock at 21 J was administered and--eventually--a 31-J shock followed--in case of inefficacy--by a 360-J biphasic external DC shock. Sensing and pacing thresholds were recorded in the database at implant, together with acute (within 3 days of implant) dislodgement rate. RESULTS: The combined primary end point was reached in 57 patients in the RVOT group (0.70%) and in 81 patients in the RVA group (0.79%). The 14-J shock was effective in 159 patients, 63 in the RVOT group (77%) and 86 in the RVA group (83%). Both the primary and the secondary end points are not statistically different. R wave amplitude was significantly lower in the RVOT group (10.9 ± 5.2 mV vs. 15.6 ± 6.4 mV, p < 0.0001), and pacing threshold at 0.5 ms was significantly higher (0.64 ± 0.25 V vs. 0.52 ± 0.20 V, p < 0.01), but these differences do not seem to have a clinical meaning, given that the lower values are well above the accepted limits in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety of ICD lead positioning in RVOT is comparable to RVA. Even if we observed statistically significant differences in sensing and pacing threshold, the clinical meaning of these differences is--in our opinion--irrelevant.