Pulmonary Vein Isolation With or Without Left Atrial Appendage Ligation in Atrial Fibrillation: The aMAZE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left atrial appendage elimination may improve catheter ablation outcomes for atrial fibrillation. Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to catheter pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to planned pulmonary vein isolation for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation present for less than 3 years. Eligible patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Use of a 2:1 randomization ratio was intended to provide more device experience and safety data. Patients were enrolled from October 2015 to December 2019 at 53 US sites, with the final follow-up visit on April 21, 2021. Interventions: Left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bayesian adaptive analysis was used for primary end points. Primary effectiveness was freedom from documented atrial arrythmias of greater than 30 seconds duration 12 months after undergoing pulmonary vein isolation. Rhythm was assessed by Holter monitoring at 6 and 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, symptomatic event monitoring, or any electrocardiographic tracing obtained through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Primary safety was a composite of predefined serious adverse events compared with a prespecified 10% performance goal 30 days after the procedure. Left atrial appendage closure was evaluated through 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation. Results: Overall, 404 patients were randomized to undergo left atrial appendage ligation plus pulmonary vein isolation and 206 were randomized to undergo pulmonary vein isolation alone. Primary effectiveness was 64.3% with left atrial appendage ligation and pulmonary vein isolation and 59.9% with pulmonary vein isolation only (difference, 4.3% [bayesian 95% credible interval, -4.2% to 13.2%]; posterior superiority probability, 0.835), which did not meet the statistical criterion to establish superiority (0.977). Primary safety was met, with a 30-day serious adverse event rate of 3.4% (bayesian 95% credible interval, 2.0% to 5.0%; posterior probability, 1.0) which was less than the prespecified threshold of 10%. At 12 months after pulmonary vein isolation, complete left atrial appendage closure (0 mm residual communication) was observed in 84% of patients and less than or equal to 5 mm residual communication was observed in 99% of patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Percutaneous left atrial appendage ligation adjunctive to pulmonary vein isolation did not meet prespecified efficacy criteria for freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared with pulmonary vein isolation alone for patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, but met prespecified safety criteria and demonstrated high rates of closure at 12 months. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513797.

Outcomes of convergent atrial fibrillation ablation with continuous rhythm monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) are suboptimal. The convergent procedure (CP) may offer improved efficacy by combining endocardial and epicardial ablation. METHODS: We reviewed 113 consecutive patients undergoing the CP at our institution. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence (n = 92) or absence (n = 21) of continuous rhythm monitoring (CM) following the CP. Outcomes were reported in two ways. First, using a conventional definition of any atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia (AF/AT) recurrence lasting >30 seconds, after a 90 day blanking period. Second, by determining AF/AT burden at relevant time points in the group with CM. RESULTS: Across the entire cohort, 88% had either persistent or long-standing persistent AF, mean duration of AF diagnosis before the CP was 5.1 ± 4.6 years, 45% had undergone at least one prior AF ablation, 31% had impaired left ventricle ejection fraction and 62% met criteria for moderate or severe left atrial enlargement. Mean duration of follow-up after the CP was 501 ± 355 days. In the entire cohort, survival free from any AF/AT episode >30 seconds at 12 months after the blanking period was 53%. However, among those in the CM group who experienced recurrences, mean burden of AF/AT was generally very low (<5%) and remained stable over the duration of follow-up. Ten patients (9%) required elective cardioversion outside the 90 day blanking period, 11 patients (9.7%) underwent repeat ablation at a mean of 229 ± 178 days post-CP and 64% were off AADs at the last follow-up. Procedural complications decreased significantly following the transition from transdiaphragmatic to sub-xiphoid surgical access: 23% versus 3.8% (P = .005) CONCLUSIONS: In a large, consecutive series of patients with predominantly PeAF, the CP was capable of reducing AF burden to very low levels (generally <5%), which appeared durable over time. Complication rates associated with the CP decreased significantly with the transition from transdiaphragmatic to sub-xiphoid surgical access. Future trials will be necessary to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from the convergent approach.

Comparison of echocardiographic and fluoroscopic sizing of the left atrial appendage prior to percutaneous closure.

PURPOSE: Sizing of the left atrial appendage (LAA) ostium prior to occlusion (LAAO) is routinely performed with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). We sought to compare the utility of sizing via fluoroscopy to TEE for percutaneous LAAO. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all patients undergoing percutaneous LAAO at our institution from April 2015 through January 2018 (n = 195). We evaluated baseline characteristics, maximum measured ostium size (for both TEE and fluoroscopy), and differences in measured size to device size for both techniques. RESULTS: Of the total cohort, 185 (95%) had both intraoperative TEE and fluoroscopic images available for analysis and were included in the final analysis. The mean age was 74 years and 64% were male. Hypertension was present in 89%, diabetes in 30%, and stroke in 32% of patients. The mean ejection fraction was 51%. The most common LAA morphology was "wind sock" (52%). Measured ostial diameter on fluoroscopy was larger compared with TEE (2.04 ± 3.43 mm larger on fluoroscopy, p < 0.001). Ostium diameter on TEE was more closely correlated to the size of the device implanted compared with fluoroscopy (0.76 vs. 0.61, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy results in larger estimated LAA ostium diameter compared with TEE. Despite this, TEE was more strongly correlated to operator choice in device sizing, which may reflect practice patterns. Because compression of the ostium on the device is necessary for long-term procedural success, under-sizing may lead to a higher rate of leaks. Prospective evaluation of the utility of routine fluoroscopic sizing compared with TEE is warranted.

The Safety and Feasibility of Same-Day Discharge After Implantation of MICRA Transcatheter Leadless Pacemaker System.

BACKGROUND: Data suggests that same day discharge after implantation of trans-venous pacemakers is safe and feasible. We sought to determine whether same day discharge was feasible and safe following implantation of Medtronic MICRA leadless pacemakers. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing MICRA placement at our institution between April 2014 to August 2018 (n=167). Patients were stratified into two groups: those discharged on the same day as their procedure (SD, n=25), and those observed for at least one night in the hospital (HD, n=142). The primary endpoint included a composite of major complications including: access site complications, new pericardial effusion, device dislodgement, and need for device revision up to approximately 45 days of follow up. RESULTS: SD and HD had similar age (75±13 vs. 75±13 years, p=0.923), prevalence of male sex (49 vs. 44%, p=0.669), and frequency of high-grade heart block as an indication for pacing (38 vs. 32%, p=0.596). There were more Caucasians in the SD group (72 vs. 66%, p=0.038). The rate of the composite endpoint was statistically non-significantly higher in the HD group (3.5% vs. 0.0%, p=1.00). The rates of each individual components comprising the composite endpoint were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that in appropriately selected patients, same day discharge can occur safely following Micra leadless pacemaker implantation.

Development of a Risk Score to Predict New Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to define risk factors and develop a predictive risk score for new pacemaker implantation (PMI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: TAVR has become an accepted treatment alternative for patients with severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk. New PMI is a common occurrence after TAVR and is associated with poorer outcomes. METHODS: All patients without prior valve procedures undergoing elective TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3 at a single institution (n = 1,266) were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate for predictors of PMI in this population in a derivation cohort of patients with complete data (n = 778), and this model was used to develop the Emory risk score (ERS), which was tested in a validation cohort (n = 367). RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients (7.3%) in the derivation cohort required PMI. In a regression model, history of syncope (odds ratio [OR]: 2.5; p = 0.026), baseline right bundle branch block (OR: 4.3; p < 0.001), QRS duration ≥138 ms (OR: 2.5; p = 0.017), and valve oversizing >15.6% (OR: 1.9; p = 0.041) remained independent predictors of PMI and were included in the ERS. The ERS was strongly associated with PMI (per point increase OR: 2.2; p < 0.001) with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.778 (p < 0.001), which was similar to its performance in the derivation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: A history of syncope, right bundle branch block, longer QRS duration, and higher degree of oversizing are predictive of the need for PMI after TAVR. Additionally, the ERS for PMI was developed and validated, representing a simple bedside tool to aid in risk stratification for patients for undergoing TAVR.

Outcomes of Micra leadless pacemaker implantation with uninterrupted anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of the MICRA Leadless pacemaker requires the use of a 27 French introducer, blunt delivery system and device fixation to the myocardium via nitinol tines. While prior studies have proven its safety, it is unclear whether performing this procedure with uninterrupted anticoagulation exposes patients to increased risks. We sought to investigate the feasibility and safety of continuing therapeutic anticoagulation during the periprocedural period. METHODS: We evaluated all patients undergoing MICRA placement at our institution between April 2014 and August 2018 with complete follow-up data (n = 170). Patients were stratified into two groups: those on active anticoagulation (OAC, n = 26), defined as having an International normalized ratio >2.0 or having continued a direct oral anticoagulant, and those not anticoagulated (Off-OAC, n = 144). We evaluated for a composite outcome of all major complications, including access site complications and pericardial effusion. RESULTS: OAC and Off-OAC groups had similar mean age (74 ± 13 vs 75 ± 13 years; P = .914). The OAC group had a nonsignificantly lower prevalence of end-stage renal disease (8% vs 17%; P = .375) and aspirin use (27% vs 47%; P = .131). Those in the OAC group were more likely to be on warfarin than those in the Off-OAC group (81% vs 30%; P < .001). The rate of the composite endpoint was similar between the OAC and Off-OAC groups (3.8 % vs 1.4%, respectively; P = .761). Length of stay was similar between groups (1.3 ± 2.6 vs 2.3 ± 3.4 days; P = 0.108). CONCLUSION: Continuation of therapeutic anticoagulation during MICRA implantation appears to be feasible, safe and associated with shorter hospitalization among appropriately selected individuals.

Outcomes of percutaneous vacuum-assisted debulking of large vegetations as an adjunct to lead extraction.

BACKGROUND: Consensus statements on lead extraction give consideration to open surgical removal in the setting of large vegetations, to mitigate the risk of massive embolism that may occur with percutaneous lead removal. Vacuum-assisted debulking (VD) of large vegetations as an adjunct to percutaneous lead extraction may provide an opportunity to mitigate these risks. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients undergoing lead extraction at our institution for endovascular infection from 2012 to 2018 and stratified them into two groups based on presence of adjunctive VD (n = 6) or without VD (no-VD, n = 39). VD was performed with the AngioVac system (Angio-Dynamics, Latham, NY, USA). RESULTS: Across the cohort, mean age was 62 ± 15 years, ejection fraction was 41 ± 16%, and 39% had end-stage renal disease on dialysis. Defibrillator systems were present in 71%, and 22% had cardiac resynchronization devices. Mean duration of the oldest extracted lead was 6.3 ± 4.9 years. There were no significant differences in baseline covariates between groups. Those in the VD group were significantly less likely to have Staphylococcus aureus as a causative organism (P = .04). In the VD group, vegetations targeted for debulking ranged in size from 1.8 to 6 cm (longest dimension). There were no operative deaths or clinically evident embolic events in either group. The overall nonfatal complication rate in the VD group was higher (33.3% vs 2.3%, P = .043). CONCLUSION: VD can be performed as an adjunct to percutaneous lead extraction with a reasonable safety profile. The relative safety and efficacy of this approach removal requires further study.

Long-term performance of a pacing lead family: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: The performance of Abbott/St. Jude Medical (Sylmar CA) Tendril pacing leads has not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the performance of Tendril leads as compared with that of different pacing leads. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients implanted with the following leads: Tendril leads 1888 TC, 2088 TC, and 1688 TC, Medtronic (Fridely, MN) 4076 CapSureFix Novus, and Boston Scientific (Natick, MA) FINELINE II Sterox Pacing EZ leads (models 4469, 4470, and 4471). The primary end point was the incidence of lead malfunction assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 9782 leads were implanted, including 8512 Tendril leads, 731 Medtronic 4076 CapSureFix Novus leads, and 539 FINELINE II leads. A total of 540 leads (5.5%) malfunctioned during a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.9 years. Lead malfunction manifested predominantly as noise and/or low impedance (95%). Lead malfunction rates were significantly higher at 5 years for Tendril vs non-Tendril leads (7.0% vs 2.1%; P < .001). The highest rate of failure at 5 years was seen in the Tendril 1888 TC leads (9.9%), followed by Tendril 1688 (5.7%) and Tendril 2088 (5.2%) leads. In contrast, malfunction rates were significantly lower for the Medtronic 4076 (2.6%) and FINELINE II (1.7%) leads. During follow-up to 10 years, the incidence of lead malfunction for Optim-insulated Tendril leads (models 1888 TC and 2088 TC) was significantly higher than that for the non-Optim-insulated Tendril 1688 TC lead (24.5% vs 7.1%) (P = .008). CONCLUSION: Tendril leads appear to have a higher rate of malfunction than do comparator leads. Optim insulation may partly explain the higher failure rate.

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion, Shared Decision-Making, and Comprehensive Atrial Fibrillation Management.

The epidemic of atrial fibrillation (AF) requires a comprehensive management strategy that uses the full force of available data and technology, including anticoagulation, ablative therapy, and left atrial appendage occlusion. Patient-centered care with an emphasis on shared decision-making is particularly relevant to the authors' understanding of the complexity of AF and has helped them tailor therapy in this ever-growing patient population.

Increased healthcare utilization associated with complete atrioventricular block in pacemaker patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study is to characterize and quantify the impact of complete atrioventricular block (cAVB) on heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and healthcare utilization in pacemaker (PM) patients. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years implanted with a dual-chamber PM from April 2008 to March 2014 were selected from the MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. Patients with ≤ 1-year continuous MarketScan enrollment prior to and post-implant, and those with prior HF diagnosis were excluded. Patients were dichotomized into those with cAVB, defined as a 3rd degree AVB diagnosis or AV node ablation in the year prior to PM implant, versus those without any AVB (noAVB). Post-implant HFH and associated costs were compared based on inpatient claims. RESULTS: The study cohort included 21,202 patients, of which 14,208 had no AVB and 6994 had cAVB, followed for 2.39 and 2.27 years, respectively. Patients with cAVB were associated with a significantly increased risk of cumulative HFH (HR 1.59 [95% CI 1.35-1.86] p < 0.001) and significantly higher costs ($636 [609-697] vs $369 [353-405] per pt-year, p < 0.001) compared to those with no AVB. CONCLUSIONS: Among dual-chamber PM patients without prior HF, cAVB is associated with a significantly increased risk of HFH and greater HF-related healthcare utilization. Identifying patients at high risk for HF in the setting of RV pacing, and potentially earlier use of biventricular or selective conduction system pacing, may reduce HF-related healthcare utilization.

Magnetic resonance imaging safety in nonconditional pacemaker and defibrillator recipients: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations regarding performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in non-MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator recipients are evolving. Previous studies have suggested low adverse event rates with MRI in nonconditional cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) recipients, but low power limits optimal characterization of risk. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize the clinical risk associated with MRI in CIED recipients in order to improve power. METHODS: PubMed and CINAHL indexed articles from 1990 to 2017 were queried. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis of continuous variables. Safety outcomes were evaluated with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventy studies of non-MRI conditional devices undergoing MRI were identified, allowing for analysis of 5099 patients who underwent a total of 5908 MRI studies. Heterogeneity in lead parameter changes was observed within studies, although smaller variances were noted between studies. All lead characteristics and battery voltages showed very small, clinically insignificant changes when assessed as a pooled cohort, although cases of clinically relevant outcomes were also noted (lead failure 3, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock 1, electrical reset 94). Electrical resets were found only in older devices. Defibrillator function was unchanged, and inappropriate shocks were avoided with pre-MRI programming changes. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrated low lead failure and clinical event rates in non-MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator recipients undergoing MRI. Observed changes were small and interstudy variance was low, suggesting that the composite event rates offer a reasonable estimate of true effect. The observed adverse events reinforce the need for ongoing vigilance and caution, particularly with older devices.

Clinical Outcomes After Ablation of the AV Junction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Impact of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often undergo AV junction ablation (AVJA) and pacemaker implantation. Right ventricular (RV) pacing contributes to increased risk of heart failure (HF), which may be mitigated by biventricular pacing. We sought to determine the impact of AVJA concurrent with RV versus biventricular pacemaker implantation on AF and HF hospitalizations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database was used to select 18- to 100-year-old patients with AF with pacemaker implantation. Patients were divided into those with an RV and a biventricular pacemaker and further into those who did (AVJA+) or did not undergo concurrent ablation. Separately, the AVJA+ group was divided into those receiving RV versus biventricular pacemakers. AF and HF hospitalization rates were compared between groups after matching on demographics, comorbidities, and baseline hospitalization rates. The study included 24 361 patients, with RV (n=23 377) or biventricular (n=984) pacemakers; 1611 patients underwent AVJA. AVJA+ was associated with reduced AF hospitalization risk (RV hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; P<0.001; biventricular HR, 0.20; P=0.003) compared with no AVJA. However, HF hospitalization risk was increased for RV (HR, 1.63; P=0.001), but not biventricular (HR, 0.98; P=0.942), pacemakers. In AVJA+ patients, biventricular pacing was associated with reduced risk of HF hospitalization versus RV pacing (HR, 0.62; P=0.017). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients with AF, AVJA+ significantly reduced AF hospitalizations, irrespective of whether an RV or a biventricular pacemaker was implanted. However, AVJA was associated with a marked HF hospitalization increase in patients with an RV pacemaker, which was ameliorated with biventricular pacing.

Incidence and Time Course for Developing Heart Failure With High-Burden Right Ventricular Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Although right ventricular pacing can contribute to cardiomyopathy, the impact of complete atrioventricular block (cAVB) on heart failure (HF) development in pacemaker patients has not been well characterized. We evaluated the incidence and time course for developing HF after pacemaker implantation for cAVB. METHODS AND RESULTS: A MarketScan database identified patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker implantation from 2008 to 2014. Patients with cAVB were identified by an atrioventricular node ablation or diagnosis of third-degree AVB. Patients with ≥1 year of continuous MarketScan enrollment before and after implant and without a previous diagnosis of HF were dichotomized into those with cAVB and without AVB. The primary end point was new HF assessed over acute (0-6 months) and chronic (6 months to 4 years) phases post-pacemaker implantation. The cohort included 6994 cAVB patients and 14 208 patients without AVB, followed for 2.35 years (interquartile range, 1.62-3.39 years). After adjustment for baseline covariates, patients with cAVB experienced an increased risk of new-onset HF in the acute phase (hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-1.79; P<0.001). Although the risk of HF remained elevated among those with cAVB in the chronic phase, the effect was attenuated (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.25; P<0.001). After pacemaker implantation, younger patients (≤55 years of age) and those with an antecedent history of atrial fibrillation experienced the highest risk of HF associated with cAVB. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a diagnosis of cAVB, and thus presumed to have a higher burden of right ventricular pacing, experienced an increased risk of new-onset HF after pacemaker implantation compared with those without AVB. Better tools are needed to identify patients at high risk of developing HF in the setting of right ventricular pacing and to determine whether these patients benefit from upfront biventricular pacing.

Clinical Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conditional and Nonconditional Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional pacing and defibrillator systems with particular attention to clinically actionable outcomes. BACKGROUND: While recipients of new MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator systems may undergo MRI scanning with very low risk, safety and regulatory concerns persist regarding such scanning in recipients of non-MRI conditional systems. METHODS: Patients with any cardiac device who were referred for MRI were prospectively enrolled at a single center and underwent scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Pre- and postscan lead characteristic changes, system integrity, and symptoms were analyzed. A comparison was made between non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional devices. RESULTS: 105 patients were evaluated allowing for comparison of 97 scans with non-MRI conditional devices and 16 scans with MRI conditional devices. The cohort included those with pacemaker dependency, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization devices. Small, nonsignificant changes were observed in lead characteristics following scanning, and there was no significant difference when comparing non-MRI and MRI conditional devices. Lead parameter changes did not require lead revision or programming changes. No device reset, failures, or premature scan termination was observed. CONCLUSIONS: 1.5 T MRI scanning in patients with MRI conditional and non-MRI conditional cardiac devices was performed with similar, low clinical risk.

Time Course of Subsequent Shocks After Initial Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Discharge and Implications for Driving Restrictions.

IMPORTANCE: Although guidelines recommend driving restrictions for 3 to 6 months after appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, contemporary data to support these recommendations are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To define the time course of subsequent shocks after an initial ICD discharge. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of a nationwide cohort of 14 230 ICD recipients enrolled in a remote monitoring program. Participants underwent ICD implantation from October 1, 2008, to December 31, 2013, and experienced at least 1 shock. The risk of driving after an ICD shock was estimated using the risk for harm (RH) formula, and an annual RH of less than 5 events per 100 000 ICD recipients was deemed safe. The likelihood of loss of consciousness associated with an ICD shock was estimated using a cautious value of 32% and an estimate of 14% based on contemporary data. Data were extracted and analyzed from December 17, 2014, to October 31, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Time course of subsequent shocks after an initial ICD discharge. RESULTS: Of 73 503 ICD recipients who underwent remote monitoring, 14 230 (19.4%) experienced at least 1 ICD shock and were included in this analysis (10 870 men [76.4%]; 3360 women [23.6%]; median age at device implantation, 68 years; interquartile range [IQR], 60-76 years). The cumulative incidence of receiving a second shock was 14.5% (IQR, 13.9%-15.1%) at 1 month and 28.7% (IQR, 27.9%-29.5%) at 6 months. The time from implantation to initial shock had an inverse association with the likelihood of receiving a second shock (lowest quartile of time at 6 months, 31.6% [95% CI, 30.2%-33.2]; highest quartile of time at 6 months, 25.3% [95% CI, 23.8%-26.9%]). The number of ICD therapy zones was also significantly associated with the incidence of a second shock (1 therapy zone, 20.8% [95% CI, 19.4%-22.3%] at 3 months to 51.5% [95% CI, 48.5%-53.7%] at 3 years; 3 therapy zones, 26.9% [95% CI, 24.8%-29.0%] at 3 months to 57.3% [95% CI, 54.1%-60.5%] at 3 years). When a likelihood of loss of consciousness of 32% associated with an ICD shock was used, the RH while driving fell below the accepted threshold at 4 to 6 months after an initial shock. However, when a contemporary estimate for loss of consciousness associated with an ICD shock of 14% was used, the RH fell below the threshold at 1 month after an initial shock. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this large cohort of ICD recipients, the incidence of a second shock after an initial ICD discharge was lower than previously reported and depended on several programmed ICD variables. These data, with future research to derive contemporary estimates of the likelihood of fatality resulting from an ICD shock while driving, should support the development of evidence-based guidelines for driving restrictions in ICD recipients.

Electrogram Characteristics of Ablated and Non-Ablated Myocardium in Humans: A Comparison of Miniaturized Embedded Electrodes and Conventional Ablation Electrodes.

INTRODUCTION: Intracardiac electrogram voltage remains an important metric for radiofrequency lesion application. Embedded micro-electrodes within ablation catheters are now approved for use in humans. OBJECTIVE: This study examined electrogram characteristics of miniaturized electrode bipoles (iEGMmini ) compared to distal ablation tip bipoles (iEGMstandard ) in the setting of typical atrial flutter in humans. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective trial involving 21 patients. A total of 54 non-ablated and 56 ablated sites were analyzed offline by separate blinded observers for iEGM voltage after a clinically successful radiofrequency (RF) ablation for typical atrial flutter. Ablation sites were defined as sites that were localized anatomically within the RF lesion set and did not have atrial capture at 10 mA and 2 milliseconds. Non-ablated sites were defined as sites adjacent to or remote from the ablation lesion set with capture at 10 mA and 2 milliseconds. RESULTS: iEGMmini had greater voltages at non-ablated sites and lower voltages at ablated sites than iEGMstandard (non-ablated sites iEGMstandard 0.64 mV vs. iEGMmini 1.0 mV; ablated sites iEGMstandard 0.15 mV, iEGMmini 0.08 mV, P < 0.001). The difference for each patient between ablated and non-ablated sites was greater for iEGMmini compared to iEGMstandard (0.94 mV ± 0.57 iEGMmini vs. 0.52 mV ± 0.35 iEGMstandard , P < 0.001). Inter-observer agreement was good among all non-ablated sites and iEGMmini ablated sites, but was less robust for ablated sites using iEGMstandard . CONCLUSIONS: Imbedded mini-electrode iEGM bipoles had higher voltages in non-ablated tissue, lower voltages in ablated tissue, and significantly greater intra-patient differences between ablated and non-ablated sites. These data suggest a potential role for miniaturized electrode bipole use in RF lesion monitoring.

Predictors of Long-Term Survival Following Transvenous Extraction of Defibrillator Leads.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist on long-term outcomes following extraction of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, particularly for noninfectious indications. We sought to identify predictors of long-term survival after ICD lead extraction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ICD lead extractions at our institution (n = 508). Procedural outcomes and long-term survival were ascertained by medical records review. RESULTS: Indication for lead extraction was infection in 32.5% and lead failure in 61.8%. Mean dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was 5.1 ± 5.9 years. Complete procedural success was achieved in 96.5% of cases. Major procedure-related complications occurred in 1.6% with six periprocedural deaths. During a mean follow-up of 866 ± 798 days, survival was significantly worse among patients with infection as the indication for extraction. At 1 year after extraction, survival among those with infection was 88.2%, compared to 95.0% in the lead failure cohort (P < 0.001). Procedural failure was a significant predictor of long-term mortality, even after excluding periprocedural deaths. In multivariate models, the presence of chronic kidney disease, increased number of leads requiring extraction, lower ejection fraction, and procedural failure were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite high rates of procedural success, infectious indication for ICD lead extraction is associated with increased long-term mortality. In contrast, among patients undergoing extraction for lead failure, long-term survival was excellent. The presence of procedural failure was a significant predictor of long-term mortality. Further studies will be necessary to better understand the mechanisms by which procedural failure may adversely impact long-term outcomes.

Pulse Generator Exchange Does Not Accelerate the Rate of Electrical Failure in a Recalled Small Caliber ICD Lead.

BACKGROUND: St. Jude Riata/Riata ST defibrillator leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) were recalled by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011 for an increased rate of failure. More than 227,000 leads were implanted and at least 79,000 patients still have active Riata leads. Studies have examined clinical predictors of lead failure in Riata leads, but none have addressed the effect of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator exchange on lead failure. The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of ICD generator exchange on the rate of electrical failure in the Riata lead at 1 year. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted in patients who underwent implantation of a Riata/Riata ST lead at one center. Patients with a functioning Riata lead (with/without externalized conductor) at the time of ICD exchange were compared to controls with Riata leads implanted for a comparable amount of time who did not undergo generator replacement. RESULTS: Riata leads were implanted in 1,042 patients prior to the recall and 153 of these patients underwent generator exchange without lead replacement. Conductor externalization was noted in 21.5% of Riata leads in the ICD exchange cohort, which was not different from the control group (19.2%; P = 0.32). Two leads failed in the first year after generator replacement (1.5%) which did not significantly differ from the control group (2.0%; P = 0.57). At change-out, 54% received a commanded shock (18.6 ± 0.9 J) that did not result in any change in the high-voltage lead impedance (46.1 ± 1.1 ohms). CONCLUSIONS: Conductor externalization was seen frequently in our cohort of patients. ICD generator exchange did not accelerate the rate of Riata lead failure at 1 year. Although both the control and the change-out cohorts failed at a rate much greater than nonrecalled leads, generator exchange did not appear to add to the problem.