Sex differences among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: a propensity-matched, multicentre, international analysis from the i-SUSI project.

AIMS: Women have been historically underrepresented in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. No data on sex differences regarding subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) carriers have been described. Aim of our study was to investigate sex-related differences among unselected S-ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, international i-SUSI registry were analysed. Comparisons between sexes were performed using a 1:1 propensity matching adjusted analysis for age, body mass index (BMI), left ventricular function, and substrate. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate shocks during follow-up. Inappropriate shocks and other device-related complications were deemed secondary outcomes. A total of 1698 patients were extracted from the i-SUSI registry; 399 (23.5%) were females. After propensity matching, two cohorts of 374 patients presenting similar baseline characteristics were analysed. Despite similar periprocedural characteristics and a matched BMI, women resulted at lower risk of conversion failure as per PRAETORIAN score (73.4% vs. 81.3%, P = 0.049). Over a median follow-up time of 26.5 [12.7-42.5] months, appropriate shocks were more common in the male cohort (rate/year 3.4% vs. 1.7%; log-rank P = 0.049), while no significant differences in device-related complications (rate/year: 6.3% vs. 5.8%; log-rank P = 0.595) and inappropriate shocks (rate/year: 4.3% vs. 3.1%; log-rank P = 0.375) were observed. After controlling for confounders, sex remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (aHR 1.648; CI 0.999-2.655, P = 0.048), while not resulting predictor of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications. CONCLUSION: In a propensity-matched cohort of S-ICD recipients, women are less likely to experience appropriate ICD therapy, while not showing higher risk of device-related complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876.

Impact of ventricular tachycardia ablation in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator carriers: a multicentre, international analysis from the iSUSI project.

AIMS: Catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has become an important tool to improve clinical outcomes in patients with appropriate transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks. The aim of our analysis was to test whether VT ablation (VTA) impacts long-term clinical outcomes even in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) carriers. METHODS AND RESULTS: International Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (iSUSI) registry patients who experienced either an ICD shock or a hospitalization for monomorphic VT were included in this analysis. Based on an eventual VTA after the index event, patients were divided into VTA+ vs. VTA- cohorts. Primary outcome of the study was the occurrence of a combination of device-related appropriate shocks, monomorphic VTs, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were addressed individually. Among n = 1661 iSUSI patients, n = 211 were included: n = 177 experiencing ICD shocks and n = 34 hospitalized for VT. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Both the crude and the yearly event rate of the primary outcome (5/59 and 3.8% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 41/152 and 16.4% yearly event rate in the VTA-; log-rank: P value = 0.0013) and the cardiovascular mortality (1/59 and 0.7% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 13/152 and 4.7% yearly event rate VTA-; log-rank P = 0.043) were significantly lower in the VTA + cohort. At multivariate analysis, VTA was the only variable remaining associated with a lower incidence of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio 0.262 (0.100-0.681), P = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: In a real-world registry of S-ICD carriers, the combined study endpoint of arrhythmic events and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the patient cohort undergoing VTA at long-term follow-up. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT0473876.

Differences in underlying cardiac substrate among S-ICD recipients and its impact on long-term device-related outcomes: Real-world insights from the iSUSI registry.

BACKGROUND: Outcome comparisons among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) recipients with nonischemic cardiomyopathies are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in device-related outcomes among S-ICD recipients with different structural substrates. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the i-SUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator registry) project were grouped according to the underlying substrate (ischemic vs nonischemic) and subgrouped into dilated cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Brugada syndrome (BrS), arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). The main outcome of our study was to compare the rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks and device-related complications. RESULTS: Among 1698 patients, the most common underlying substrate was ischemic (31.7%), followed by dilated cardiomyopathy (20.5%), BrS (10.8%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (8.5%), and ARVC (4.4%). S-ICD for primary prevention was more common in the nonischemic cohort (70.9% vs 65.4%; P = .037). Over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 26.5 (12.6-42.8) months, no differences were observed in appropriate shocks between ischemic and nonischemic patients (4.8%/y vs 3.9%/y; log-rank, P = .282). ARVC (9.0%/y; hazard ratio [HR] 2.492; P = .001) and BrS (1.8%/y; HR 0.396; P = .008) constituted the groups with the highest and lowest rates of appropriate shocks, respectively. Device-related complications did not differ between groups (ischemic: 6.4%/y vs nonischemic: 6.1%/y; log-rank, P = .666), nor among underlying substrates (log-rank, P = .089). Nonischemic patients experienced higher rates of inappropriate shocks than did ischemic S-ICD recipients (4.4%/y vs 3.0%/y; log-rank, P = .043), with patients with ARVC (9.9%/y; P = .001) having the highest risk, even after controlling for confounders (adjusted HR 2.243; confidence interval 1.338-4.267; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Most S-ICD recipients were primary prevention nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients. Among those, patients with ARVC tend to receive the most frequent appropriate and inappropriate shocks and patients with BrS the least frequent appropriate shocks.

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation. METHODS: The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy. RESULTS: The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

Sex differences in leadless pacemaker implantation: A propensity-matched analysis from the i-LEAPER registry.

BACKGROUND: The impact of sex in clinical and procedural outcomes in leadless pacemaker (LPM) patients has not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-related differences in patients undergoing LPM implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the i-LEAPER registry were analyzed. Comparisons between sexes were performed within the overall cohort using an adjusted analysis with 1:1 propensity matching for age and comorbidities. The primary outcome was the comparison of major complication rates. Sex-related differences regarding electrical performance and all-cause mortality during follow-up were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In the overall population (n = 1179 patients; median age 80 years), 64.3% were men. After propensity matching, 738 patients with no significant baseline differences among groups were identified. During median follow-up of 25 [interquartile range 24-39] months, female sex was not associated with LPM-related major complications (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-5.84; P = .190) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.42; P = .960). LPM electrical performance results were comparable between groups, except for a higher pacing impedance in women at implant and during follow-up (24 months: 670 [550-800] Ω vs 616 [530-770] Ω; P = .014) that remained within normal limits. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, we found differences in sex-related referral patterns for LPM implantation with an underrepresentation of women, although major complication rate and LPM performance were comparable between sexes. Female patients showed higher impedance values, which had no impact on overall device performance. Electrical parameters remained within normal limits in both groups during the entire follow-up.

Temporal association between drops in thoracic impedance and malignant ventricular arrhythmia: A longitudinal analysis of remote monitoring trends.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracic impedance (TI) drops measured by implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have been reported to correlate with ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF). The aim of our study was to assess the temporal association of decreasing TI trends with VT/VF episodes through a longitudinal analysis of daily remote monitoring data from ICDs and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds). METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective data from 2384 patients were randomized 1:1 into a derivation or validation cohort. The TI decrease rate was defined as the percentage of rolling weeks with a continuously decreasing TI trend. The derivation cohort was used to determine a TI decrease rate threshold for a ≥99% specificity of arrhythmia prediction. The associated risk of VT/VF episodes was estimated in the validation cohort by dividing the available follow-up into 60-day assessment intervals. Analyses were performed separately for 1354 ICD and 1030 CRT-D patients. During a median follow-up of 2.0 years, 727 patients (30.4%) experienced 3298 confirmed VT/VF episodes. In the ICD group, a TI decrease rate of >60% was associated with a higher risk of VT/VF episode in a 60-day assessment interval (stratified hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.92; p = .023). The TI decrease preceded (40.8%) or followed (59.2%) the VT/VF episodes. In the CRT-D group, no association between TI decrease and VT/VF episodes was observed (p = .84). CONCLUSION: In our longitudinal analysis, TI decrease was associated with VT/VF episodes only in ICD patients. Preventive interventions may be difficult since episodes can occur before or after TI decrease.

Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation following transvenous lead extraction in high-volume referral centers: Real-world data from a large international registry.

BACKGROUND: Limited data on the real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPMs) post-transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are available. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term safety and effectiveness of LPMs following TLE in comparison with LPMs de novo implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent LPM implantation in 12 European centers joining the International LEAdless PacemakEr Registry were enrolled. The primary end point was the comparison of LPM-related complication rate at implantation and during follow-up (FU) between groups. Differences in electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 1179 patients enrolled, 15.6% underwent a previous TLE. During a median FU of 33 (interquartile range 24-47) months, LPM-related major complications and all-cause mortality did not differ between groups (TLE group: 1.6% and 5.4% vs de novo group: 2.2% and 7.8%; P = .785 and P = .288, respectively). Pacing threshold (PT) was higher in the TLE group at implantation and during FU, with very high PT (>2 V@0.24 ms) patients being more represented than in the de novo implantation group (5.4% vs 1.6 %; P = .004). When the LPM was deployed at a different right ventricular (RV) location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted, a lower proportion of high PT (>1-2 V@0.24 ms) patients at implantation, 1-month FU, and 12-month FU (5.9% vs 18.2%, P = .012; 3.4% vs 12.9%, P = .026; and 4.3% vs 14.5%, P = .037, respectively) was found. CONCLUSION: LPMs showed a satisfactory safety and efficacy profile after TLE. Better electrical parameters were obtained when LPMs were implanted at a different RV location than the one where the previous transvenous RV lead was extracted.

Rationale and study design of the Italian Registry in the setting of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation with Rivaroxaban - IRIS.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) is used routinely to establish rhythm control. There is mounting evidence that CA procedures should be performed during continuous oral anticoagulation and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are considered the first anticoagulation strategy. Few real-life data are now available and even less in the Italian panorama. METHODS: IRIS is an Italian multicenter, non-interventional, prospective study which will be enrolled consecutive AF patients eligible for CA and treated with Rivaroxaban; patients in treatment with Rivaroxaban proceeded directly to CA while Rivaroxaban-naive patients were scheduled for CA after 4 weeks of uninterrupted anticoagulation unless the exclusion of atrial thrombi. Rivaroxaban was uninterrupted or shortly uninterrupted (<24 hours) prior CA, in line with routinely practice of each operator. Patients will be followed on continuous anticoagulation for 1 month after the ablation. The primary efficacy outcome is the cumulative incidence of all-cause death and systemic embolism while the primary safety outcome is the incidence of major bleeding events. The secondary outcomes are represented by non-major bleeding events. All events must be occurred within the first 30 days after the procedure. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty patients are expected to be enrolled and the study is estimated to be completed by the end of 2022. Up to now 56 patients have been enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first large Italian prospective study on the management of Rivaroxaban in patients undergoing CA of AF. It aims to depict a comprehensive view of anticoagulation strategy prior CA in several Italian electrophysiology labs.

Etiologic reclassification of cryptogenic stroke after implantable cardiac monitoring and computed tomography angiography re-assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Different mechanisms may underlie cryptogenic stroke, including subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF), nonstenotic carotid plaques (NCP), and aortic arch atherosclerosis (AAA). In a cohort of cryptogenic stroke patients, we aimed to: (1) evaluate the prevalence of subclinical AF, NCP, and AAA, and reclassify the etiology accordingly; (2) compare the clinical features of patients with reclassified etiology with those with confirmed cryptogenic stroke. METHODS: Data of patients hospitalized for cryptogenic stroke between January 2018 and February 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were included if they received implantable cardiac monitoring (ICM) to detect subclinical AF. Baseline computed tomography angiography (CTA) was re-evaluated to assess NCP and AAA. Since aortic plaques with ulceration/intraluminal thrombus were considered pathogenetic during the initial workup, only patients with milder AAA were included. Stroke etiology was reclassified as "cardioembolic", "atherosclerotic", or "mixed" based on the detection of AF and NCP/AAA. Patients with "true cryptogenic" stroke (no AF, ipsilateral NCP, or AAA detected) were compared with those with reclassified etiology. RESULTS: Among 63 patients included, 21 (33%) were diagnosed with AF (median follow-up time of 15 months), 12 (19%) had ipsilateral NCP, and 6 (10%) had AAA. Stroke etiology was reclassified in 30 patients (48%): cardioembolic in 14 (22%), atherosclerotic in 9 (14%), and mixed in 7 (11%). Patients with true cryptogenic stroke were younger compared to those with reclassified etiology (p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: One or more potential covert stroke sources can be recognized in half of the patients with a cryptogenic stroke through long-term cardiac monitoring and focused CTA re-assessment.

Peri-procedural and mid-term follow-up age-related differences in leadless pacemaker implantation: Insights from a multicenter European registry.

BACKGROUND: Age-related differences on leadless pacemaker (LP) are poorly described. Aim of this study was to compare clinical indications, periprocedural and mid-term device-associated outcomes in a large real-world cohort of LP patients, stratified by age at implantation. METHODS: Two cohorts of younger and older patients (≤50 and > 50 years old) were retrieved from the iLEAPER registry. The primary outcome was to compare the underlying indication why a LP was preferred over a transvenous PM across the two cohorts. Rates of peri-procedural and mid-term follow-up major complications as well as LP electrical performance were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 1154 patients were enrolled, with younger patients representing 6.2% of the entire cohort. Infective and vascular concerns were the most frequent characteristics that led to a LP implantation in the older cohort (45.8% vs 67.7%, p < 0.001; 4.2% vs 16.4%, p = 0.006), while patient preference was the leading cause to choose a LP in the younger (47.2% vs 5.6%, p < 0.001). Median overall procedural (52 [40-70] vs 50 [40-65] mins) and fluoroscopy time were similar in both groups. 4.3% of patients experienced periprocedural complications, without differences among groups. Threshold values were higher in the younger, both at discharge and at last follow-up (0.63 [0.5-0.9] vs 0.5 [0.38-0-7] V, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: When considering LP indications, patient preference was more common in younger, while infective and vascular concerns were more frequent in the older cohort. Rates of device-related complications did not differ significantly. Younger patients tended to have a slightly higher pacing threshold at mid-term follow-up.

Ventricular Arrhythmias and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Women: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Causes of sex differences in incidence of sustained ventricular arrhythmias (SVAs) are poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate sex-specific risk of SVAs and device therapies by balancing sex groups in relation to several baseline characteristics with the propensity score (PS). METHODS: We used a large remote monitoring dataset from implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds). Study endpoints were time to the first appropriate SVA, time to the first device therapy for SVA, and time to the first ICD shock. Results were compared between females and a PS-matched male subgroup. RESULTS: In a cohort of 2,532 patients with an ICD or CRT-D (median age, 70 years), 488 patients (19.3%) were women. After selecting 488 men PS-matched for 19 variables relative to baseline demographics, implant indications, principal comorbidities, and concomitant therapy, yet the SVA rate at the 2.1-year median follow-up was significantly lower in women than in man (adjusted HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; P < 0.001). Women also showed a reduced risk of any device therapy (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P < 0.001) and shocks (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.47-0.94; P = 0.021). Differences in sex-specific SVA risk profile were not confirmed in CRT-D patients (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.55-1.09; P = 0.14) nor in those with an ejection fraction <30% (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.52-1.23; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: After matching demographics, indications, principal comorbidities, and concomitant therapy, women still exhibited a lower SVA risk profile than men, except in the subgroups of CRT-D or/and ejection fraction <30%.

Clinical Management of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in COVID-19 Patients Referred to a Tertiary Cardiac Arrhythmia Center after Hospital Discharge.

BACKGROUND: Available reports on the post-discharge management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in COVID-19 patients are scarce. The aim of this case series was to describe the clinical outcomes of new-onset AF in COVID-19 patients referred to a tertiary cardiac arrhythmia center after hospital discharge. METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to our center for an ambulatory evaluation from 18 May 2020 to 15 March 2022 were retrospectively screened. Patients were included in the current analysis if new-onset AF was diagnosed during hospitalization for COVID-19 and then referred to our clinic. RESULTS: Among 946 patients, 23 (2.4%) were evaluated for new-onset AF during COVID-19. The mean age of the study cohort was 71.5 ± 8.1 years; 87.0% were male. Median time from COVID-19 discharge and the first ambulatory evaluation was 53 (41.5-127) days; median follow-up time was 175 (83-336) days. At the in-office evaluation, 14 (60.9%) patients were in sinus rhythm, and nine patients were in AF. In 13.0% of cases, oral anticoagulation was stopped according to CHADS-VASc. Eight patients in AF were scheduled for electrical cardioversion; one patient was rate-controlled. Four patients were treated with catheter ablation (CA) during follow-up. Two post-cardioversion AF recurrences were detected during follow-up, while no recurrences were diagnosed among patients who underwent CA. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that AF may not be considered as a simple bystander of the in-hospital COVID-19 course. Management of new-onset AF in post-COVID-19 patients referred to our clinic did not significantly differ from our usual practice, both in terms of long-term oral anticoagulation and in terms of rhythm control strategy.

The need for a subsequent transvenous system in patients implanted with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The absence of pacing capabilities may reduce the appeal of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) devices for patients at risk for conduction disorders or with antitachycardia pacing (ATP)/cardiac resynchronization (CRT) requirements. Reports of rates of S-ICD to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) system switch in real-world scenarios are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the need for a subsequent transvenous (TV) device in patients implanted with an S-ICD and its predictors. METHODS: All patients implanted with an S-ICD were enrolled from the multicenter, real-world iSUSI (International SUbcutaneouS Implantable cardioverter defibrillator) Registry. The need for a TV device and its clinical reason, and appropriate and inappropriate device therapies were assessed. Logistic regression with Firth penalization was used to assess the association between baseline and procedural characteristics and the overall need for a subsequent TV device. RESULTS: A total of 1509 patients were enrolled (age 50.8 ± 15.8 years; 76.9% male; 32.0% ischemic; left ventricular ejection fraction 38% [30%-60%]). Over 26.5 [13.4-42.9] months, 155 (10.3%) and 144 (9.3%) patients experienced appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, respectively. Forty-one patients (2.7%) required a TV device (13 bradycardia; 10 need for CRT; 10 inappropriate shocks). Body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 and chronic kidney disease (CKD) were associated with need for a TV device (odds ratio [OR] 2.57 [1.37-4.81], P = .003; and OR 2.67 [1.29-5.54], P = .008, respectively). CONCLUSION: A low rate (2.7%) of conversion from S-ICD to a TV device was observed at follow-up, with need for antibradycardia pacing, ATP, or CRT being the main reasons. BMI >30 kg/m2 and CKD predicted all-cause need for a TV device.

Combined Use of S-ICD and Absorbable Antibacterial Envelopes: A Proof-of-concept Study.

BACKGROUND: Absorbable antibacterial envelopes (AAEs) are currently recommended in patients undergoing a transvenous ICD implantation in cases at high risk of infection, who are now preferably implanted with a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). Nevertheless, experiences using a combined approach with S-ICD and AAE have not been reported. The aim of our study was to evaluate this strategy in patients at very high risk of infection. METHODS: Twenty-five patients were implanted with the S-ICD+AAE using our combined approach, restricted to patients who would fit our decisional flow algorithm identifying very high-risk patients. Patients were followed up 1 month after discharge and every 6 months thereafter. Complications were defined as device-related events requiring medical or surgical intervention for resolution and/or device reprogramming. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (92% males, mean age 58.5±14.1 years) were implanted with the S-ICD device and the AAE using our combined approach. The most common high-infective risk factors were diabetes requiring insulin treatment (80%) and CKD requiring hemodialysis (48%), with 7 (28%) patients presenting with more than 2 risk factors. A single mild early post-operative hematoma was observed that was managed conservatively with a spontaneous resolution. Despite a very high-risk cohort, only a single late pocket infection was detected and solved conservatively with antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The preliminary data of this proof-of-concept study show how a combined deployment of AAE and S-ICD in selected patients at very high risk of infection is a safe and feasible technique and may offer a reliable treatment option in specific and selected clinical settings.

Long-term comparisons of atrial fibrillation ablation outcomes with a cryoballoon or laser-balloon: A propensity-matched analysis based on continuous rhythm monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Cryoballoon (CB) and laser-balloon (LB) catheter ablation (CA) has been demonstrated to achieve durable and effective pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Only one head-to-head comparison with an intermittent rhythm monitor strategy is currently available. The aim of this study was to compare acute and long-term outcomes of CB and LB atrial fibrillation ablation procedures, by using a continuous rhythm monitoring strategy. METHODS: This was a prospective two-arm nonrandomized propensity-matched observational trial that compared the outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using LB and CB techniques. To evaluate AF recurrences, an implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) was implanted before hospital discharge to detect atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) recurrences. RESULTS: A total of 110 propensity-matched patients undergoing AF ablation with an LB (n = 55) or with a CB system (n = 55) were enrolled (paroxysmal AF 57.3%). Procedural time (LB: 87 [73-104] vs. CB 90 [70-130] min; p = 0.264) and fluoroscopy time did not differ. No differences in ATA recurrences were observed at 12 months (LB-30.9% vs. CB-29.1% and LB-45.5% vs. CB-38.2%; log-rank 0.539). As for AF burden, the 12-month median was 0 [0-1] vs. 0 [0-3]% (p = 0.127) in the LB and CB groups, respectively. When considering only PeAF patients, the median 12-month ATA burden was 26 [18.5-40.5] vs. 29 [26-35]% (p = 0.919) for the LB and CB patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a propensity-matched cohort undergoing AF ablation, arrhythmia outcomes assessed by continuous rhythm monitoring did not differ between LB and CB, with an overall low ATA burden. The only predictor of recurrences was persistent AF. There was no difference in procedure or fluoroscopy time.

Age-related differences and associated mid-term outcomes of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: A propensity-matched analysis from a multicenter European registry.

BACKGROUND: A few limited case series have shown that the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) system is safe for teenagers and young adults, but a large-scale analysis currently is lacking. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare mid-term device-associated outcomes in a large real-world cohort of S-ICD patients, stratified by age at implantation. METHODS: Two propensity-matched cohorts of teenagers + young adults (≤30 years old) and adults (>30 years old) were retrieved from the ELISIR Registry. The primary outcome was the comparison of inappropriate shock rate. Complications, freedom from sustained ventricular arrhythmias, and overall and cardiovascular mortality were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Teenagers + young adults represented 11.0% of the entire cohort. Two propensity-matched groups of 161 patients each were used for the analysis. Median follow-up was 23.1 (13.2-40.5) months. In total, 15.2% patients experienced inappropriate shocks, and 9.3% device-related complications were observed, with no age-related differences in inappropriate shocks (16.1% vs 14.3%; P = .642) and complication rates (9.9% vs 8.7%; P = .701). At univariate analysis, young age was not associated with increased rates of inappropriate shocks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.204 [0.675-2.148]: P = .529). At multivariate analysis, use of the SMART Pass algorithm was associated with a strong reduction in inappropriate shocks (adjusted HR 0.292 [0.161-0.525]; P <.001), whereas arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) was associated with higher rates of inappropriate shocks (adjusted HR 2.380 [1.205-4.697]; P = .012). CONCLUSION: In a large multicenter registry of propensity-matched patients, use of the S-ICD in teenagers/young adults was safe and effective. The rates of inappropriate shocks and complications between cohorts were not significantly different. The only predictor of increased inappropriate shocks was a diagnosis of ARVC.

Arrhythmogenic Risk and Mechanisms of QT-Prolonging Drugs to Treat COVID-19.

While looking for a solution to treat COVID-19, the massive off-label use of several drugs in COVID-19 has generated concerns in the early phase of the pandemic because of possible arrhythmogenic effects in relation to QTc interval prolongation. Indeed, some of these drugs have been historically associated with QT prolongation and Torsade de Point, a potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmia, and their first-time use on a very large scale has raised several concerns in the scientific community. This work aims to summarize the underlying arrhythmogenic mechanisms related to the use of potentially QT-prolonging drugs used during the pandemic to treat COVID-19.

Intraoperative sensing increase predicts long-term pacing threshold in leadless pacemakers.

PURPOSE: High pacing threshold (HPT) and very high pacing threshold (VHPT) are known to have a negative impact on leadless pacemaker battery longevity, representing the most common reason for device repositioning. In this study, we evaluated if intraoperative electrical parameters recorded during Micra™ VR implant would be able to predict device performance during follow-up (FU). METHODS: A total of 93 patients undergoing Micra™ VR implant were retrospectively considered. Patients were enrolled in the study if electrical assessment was performed at least twice at implant, at Micra™ final positioning and after removal of the delivery system. All patients received a FU visit at 1 and 12 month after discharge. R-wave sensing amplitude, pacing threshold (PT), and impedance were recorded at each visit. RESULTS: When compared to the first assessment, R-wave sensing amplitude increased by 19.1% after 13 ± 4 min (+ 1.71 ± 0.2 mV, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.02; p < .001). Conversely, there was a significant PT decrease of 22.1% at 12-month FU (- 0.22 ± 0.03 V, 95% CI - 0.13 to - 0.31; p < .001). Among patients with HPT, acute increase of R-wave sensing of 1.5 mV after 14 ± 4 min predicted a significant reduction of PT below 1 V/0.24, at 12-month post-implant (R = 0.72, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.33, p < .001), with a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% CI 0.61-0.98) and a specificity of 88.8% (95% CI 0.51-0.99). CONCLUSION: A 1.5-mV increase in R-wave amplitude at implant is predictive of PT normalization (< 1.0 V/0.24 ms) at 12-month FU. This finding may have practical implications for device repositioning in case of HPT recording at implant.

One-year mortality after implantable defibrillator implantation: do risk stratification models help improving clinical practice?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the available mortality risk stratification models for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) patients. METHODS: We conducted a review of mortality risk stratification models and tested their ability to improve prediction of 1-year survival after implant in a database of patients who received a remotely controlled ICD/CRT-D device during routine care and included in the independent Home Monitoring Expert Alliance registry. RESULTS: We identified ten predicting models published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2021 (Parkash, PACE, MADIT, aCCI, CHA2DS2-VASc quartiles, CIDS, FADES, Sjoblom, AAACC, and MADIT-ICD non-arrhythmic mortality score) that could be tested in our database as based on common demographic, clinical, echocardiographic, electrocardiographic, and laboratory variables. Our cohort included 1,911 patients with left ventricular dysfunction (median age 71, 18.3% female) from sites not using any risk stratification score for systematic patient screening. Patients received an ICD (53.8%) or CRT-D (46.2%) between 2011 and 2017, after standard physician evaluation. There were 56 deaths within 1-year post-implant, with an all-cause mortality rate of 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-3.8%). Four predicting models (Parkash, MADIT, AAACC, and MADIT-ICD non-arrhythmic mortality score) were significantly associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality with hazard ratios ranging from 3.75 (CI, 1.31-10.7) to 6.53 (CI 1.52-28.0, p ≤ 0.014 for all four). Positive predictive values of 1-year mortality were below 25% for all models. CONCLUSION: In our analysis, the models we tested conferred modest incremental predicting power to ordinary screening methods.