True bipolar or extended bipolar left ventricular pacing is associated with better survival in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

BACKGROUND: Limited studies are available on the clinical significance of left ventricular (LV) lead polarity in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), with a recent study suggesting better outcomes with LV true bipolar pacing. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether true bipolar LV pacing is associated with reduced mortality in a large, real-life CRT cohort, followed by remote monitoring. METHODS: We analyzed de-identified device data from CRT patients followed by the Boston Scientific LATITUDE remote monitoring database system. Patients with LV bipolar leads paced between the LV ring and LV tip were identified as true bipolar and those with LV bipolar leads paced between LV tip or LV ring and right ventricular (RV) coil were identified as extended bipolar. Patients with unipolar leads were identified as unipolar. RESULTS: Of the 59 046 patients included in the study, 2927 had unipolar pacing, 34 390 had extended bipolar pacing, and 21 729 had true bipolar pacing. LV true bipolar pacing was associated with a significant 30% lower risk of all-cause mortality as compared to unipolar pacing (hazards ratio [HR] = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.79, P < .001), after adjustment for age, gender, LV lead impedance, LV pacing threshold, and BIV pacing percentage <95%. Extended bipolar LV pacing was also associated with 24% lower risk of all-cause mortality when compared to unipolar LV pacing (HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.68-0.85; P < .001). However, there were no differences in outcomes between true bipolar and extended bipolar LV pacing (HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.93-1.01; P = .198). CONCLUSION: True bipolar or extended bipolar LV pacing is associated with a lower risk of mortality in CRT patients as compared to unipolar LV pacing.

Propensity-Matched Comparison of Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy After Left Atrial Appendage Closure With WATCHMAN.

OBJECTIVES: In this propensity-matched analysis of post-left atrial appendage closure antithrombotic therapy, the safety and effectiveness of oral anticoagulation (OAC) and antiplatelet therapy (APT) were compared. BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN device is an alternative to OAC in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, who are at high bleeding risk. Initial trials included 45 days of post-implantation OAC, but registry data suggest that APT may suffice. METHODS: Patients from the PROTECT-AF (Watchman Left Atrial Appendage System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), PREVAIL (Watchman LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Versus Long Term Warfarin Therapy), CAP (Continued Access to PROTECT-AF), CAP2 (Continued Access to PREVAIL), ASAP (ASA Plavix Feasibility Study With Watchman Left Atrial Appendage Closure Technology), and EWOLUTION (Registry on WATCHMAN Outcomes in Real-Life Utilization) trials receiving either OAC or APT post-implantation were matched and compared for nonprocedural bleeding and stroke or systemic thromboembolism over 6 months following implantation. Each patient on APT was matched with 2 patients on OAC, with propensity scores derived from age, sex, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, prior transient ischemic attack or stroke, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular ejection fraction, renal impairment, and different atrial fibrillation subtypes. RESULTS: The cohort on OAC (n = 1,018; 95% receiving warfarin and 5% receiving nonwarfarin OAC) was prescribed 45-day OAC post-implantation (92% also received single APT), followed by 6-month single or dual APT. The cohort on APT (n = 509; 91% receiving dual APT and 9% receiving single APT) received APT for variable durations. Six-month freedom from nonprocedural major bleeding was similar (OAC, 95.7%; APT, 95.5%; p = 0.775) despite more early bleeds with OAC. Freedom from thromboembolism beyond 7 days was similar between groups (OAC, 98.8%; APT, 99.4%; p = 0.089). However, device-related thrombosis was more frequent with APT (OAC, 1.4%; APT, 3.1%; p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: After left atrial appendage closure with the WATCHMAN, although device-related thrombosis was more common with APT, both APT and OAC strategies resulted in similar safety and efficacy endpoints.

HeartLogic Multisensor Algorithm Identifies Patients During Periods of Significantly Increased Risk of Heart Failure Events: Results From the MultiSENSE Study.

BACKGROUND: Care of heart failure (HF) patients results in a high burden on healthcare resources, and estimating prognosis is becoming increasingly important to triage resources wisely. Natriuretic peptides are recommended prognosticators in chronic HF. Our objective was to evaluate whether a multisensor HF index and alert algorithm (HeartLogic) replaces or augments current HF risk stratification. METHODS AND RESULTS: MultiSENSE (Multisensor Chronic Evaluation in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) enrolled 900 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators enabled for collection of heart sounds, respiration, thoracic impedance, heart rate, and activity data. The HeartLogic algorithm automatically calculated a daily HF index and identified periods IN or OUT of an active alert state relative to a configurable threshold. Patients experienced 192 independently adjudicated HF events (average rate, 0.20/patient-year [pt-yr]) during 1 year of follow-up. HF event rates while IN alert was 10-fold higher than OUT of alert (0.80 versus 0.08 events/pt-yr). Combined with NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) at enrollment (relative to 1000 pg/mL threshold, event rate was 0.42 [HIGH] versus 0.07 [LOW] events/pt-yr), substratification found the lowest risk group (LOW NT-proBNP and OUT of alert) experienced 0.02 events/pt-yr, whereas the highest risk group (HIGH NT-proBNP and IN alert) was associated with a 50-fold increased risk of an HF event (1.00 events/pt-yr) relative to the lowest risk group. CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic assessment using implantable device sensors within HeartLogic by itself or in conjunction with NT-proBNP measurements can identify time-intervals when patients are at significantly increased risk of worsening HF and potentially better triage resources to this vulnerable patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01128166.

Atrioventricular and ventricular-to-ventricular programming in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from ALTITUDE.

PURPOSE: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in patients with heart failure, yet response rates are variable. We sought to determine whether physician-specified CRT programming was associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Using data from the ALTITUDE remote follow-up cohort, we examined sensed atrioventricular (AV) and ventricular-to-ventricular (VV) programming and their associated outcomes in patients with de novo CRT from 2009-2010. Outcomes included arrhythmia burden, left ventricular (LV) pacing, and all-cause mortality at 4 years. RESULTS: We identified 5709 patients with de novo CRT devices; at the time of implant, 34% (n = 1959) had entirely nominal settings programmed, 40% (n = 2294) had only AV timing adjusted, 11% (n = 604) had only VV timing adjusted, and 15% (n = 852) had both AV and VV adjusted from nominal programming. Suboptimal LV pacing (<95%) during follow-up was similar across groups; however, the proportion with atrial fibrillation (AF) burden >5% was lowest in the AV-only adjusted group (17.9%) and highest in the nominal (27.7%) and VV-only adjusted (28.3%) groups. Adjusted all-cause mortality was significantly higher among patients with non-nominal AV delay >120 vs. <120 ms (adjusted heart rate (HR) 1.28, p = 0.008) but similar when using the 180-ms cutoff (adjusted HR 1.13 for >180 vs. ≤180 ms, p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Nominal settings for de novo CRT implants are frequently altered, most commonly the AV delay. There is wide variability in reprogramming. Patients with nominal or AV-only adjustments appear to have favorable pacing and arrhythmia outcomes. Sensed AV delays less than 120 ms are associated with improved survival.

Utilization trends and clinical outcomes in patients implanted with a single- vs a dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: Insights from the ALTITUDE Study.

BACKGROUND: Historically, the most commonly implanted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead is dual coil. Conventional wisdom holds that single-coil leads may be less effective than dual-coil leads, but easier to extract. No contemporary large-scale studies have evaluated the relative epidemiology of these 2 leads or compared their respective clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate trends in single- vs dual-coil ICD lead implantation and differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated 129,520 ICD recipients enrolled in the LATITUDE remote monitoring system between 2004 and 2014. Kaplan-Meier analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used for univariate and multivariate survival analysis, respectively. RESULTS: The majority of ICD recipients received a dual-coil lead (n = 110,330 [85.2%]). Single-coil lead implantation increased from 1.9% to 55.2% between 2004 and 2014. After adjusting for age, sex, device type, and year of implant, single-coil lead implantation was associated with a greater odds of induction for defibrillation testing (odds ratio 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.09; P = .0274), a higher rate of lead being taken out of service (hazard ratio 1.19; 95% CI 1.06-1.33; P = .0032), and a decreased mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% CI 0.87-0.96; P = .0004). In a 795 patient subset with adjudicated shock outcomes, first shock success was no different (87.0% in single coil vs 86.1% in dual coil; P = .8473). CONCLUSION: In a large real-world US population, single-coil lead implantation rates increased substantially between 2004 and 2014. Single-coil lead implantation was associated with more frequent defibrillation testing and the lead being taken out of service, but was not associated with increased mortality or more frequent defibrillation failure.

Incidence of defibrillator shocks after elective generator exchange following uneventful first battery life.

BACKGROUND: A significant number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients do not experience shocks after ICD implant. Elective generator exchange (GE) has been associated with increased risk of infection and ICD lead failure. There is a paucity of contemporary data reporting on shock incidence with replacement devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing elective GE (n=24 203) who transmit data remotely via a remote monitoring system were analyzed to determine the incidence of ICD shocks after GE. A total of 16 230 patients (67%) did not experience a shock with the first ICD (group A), and 7973 (33%) received at least 1 shock (group B). Patients in group A were older (71.3 versus 68.8 years, P<0.001) and more often female (71% versus 77% male, P<0.001). Over an average follow-up of 1.9±1.2 years after GE, the proportion of patients with shocks and risk of ICD shocks was lower for those who did not receive a shock during the first battery life (group A: 9.9% versus 27.7%, hazard ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.38, P<0.001). The cumulative rate of ICD shocks at 5 years after GE was 25.7% in group A and 51.1% in group B. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of ICD patients implanted across the United States, two thirds did not receive ICD shock therapy prior to GE. The occurrence of ICD shocks prior to GE is an important predictor of shocks after GE; however, even among those without shocks during first battery life, the incidence of shocks at 5 years following GE is >25%. These data should support informed decision making for patients and physicians at the time of ICD generator end of service.

A prospective evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the TAXUS Element paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent system for the treatment of de novo coronary artery lesions: design and statistical methods of the PERSEUS clinical program.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel-eluting stents decrease angiographic and clinical restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention compared to bare metal stents. TAXUS Element is a third-generation paclitaxel-eluting stent which incorporates a novel, thinner-strut, platinum-enriched metal alloy platform. The stent is intended to have enhanced radiopacity and improved deliverability compared to other paclitaxel-eluting stents. The safety and efficacy of the TAXUS Element stent are being evaluated in the pivotal PERSEUS clinical trials. METHODS/DESIGN: The PERSEUS trials include two parallel studies of the TAXUS Element stent in single, de novo coronary atherosclerotic lesions. The PERSEUS Workhorse study is a prospective, randomized (3:1), single-blind, non-inferiority trial in subjects with lesion length < or = 28 mm and vessel diameter > or = 2.75 mm to < or = 4.0 mm which compares TAXUS Element to the TAXUS Express2 paclitaxel-eluting stent system. The Workhorse study employs a novel Bayesian statistical approach that uses prior information to limit the number of study subjects exposed to the investigational device and thus provide a safer and more efficient analysis of the TAXUS Element stent. PERSEUS Small Vessel is a prospective, single-arm, superiority trial in subjects with lesion length < or = 20 mm and vessel diameter > or = 2.25 mm to <2.75 mm that compares TAXUS Element with a matched historical bare metal Express stent control. DISCUSSION: The TAXUS PERSEUS clinical trial program uses a novel statistical approach to evaluate whether design and metal alloy iterations in the TAXUS Element stent platform provide comparable safety and improved procedural performance compared to the previous generation Express stent. PERSEUS trial enrollment is complete and primary endpoint data are expected in 2010. PERSEUS Workhorse and Small Vessel are registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identification numbers NCT00484315 and NCT00489541.