The impact of supraventricular arrhythmias on the outcomes of guideline-compliant implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming.

INTRODUCTION: Several implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) programming strategies are applied to minimize ICD therapy, especially unnecessary therapies from supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). However, it remains unknown whether these optimal programming recommendations only benefit those with SVAs or have any detrimental effects from delayed therapy on those without SVAs. This study aims to assess the impact of SVA on the outcomes of ICD programming based on 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention were classified into four groups based on SVA status and ICD programming: (1) guideline-concordant group (GC) with SVA, (2) GC without SVA, (3) nonguideline concordant group (NGC) with SVA, and (4) NGC without SVA. Cox proportional hazard models were analyzed for freedom from ICD therapies, shock, and mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients (median age, 64 years) were enrolled. ICD therapies were the most frequent in NGC with SVA (24.0%), followed by NGC without SVA (19.9%), GC without SVA (11.6%), and GC with SVA (8.1%). Guideline concordant programming was associated with 68% ICD therapy reduction (HR 0.32, p = .007) and 67% ICD shock reduction (HR 0.33, p = .030) in SVA patients and 44% ICD therapy reduction in those without SVA (HR 0.56, p = .030). CONCLUSION: Programming ICDs in primary prevention patients based on current guidelines reduces therapy burden without increasing mortality in both SVA and non-SVA patients. A greater magnitude of reduced ICD therapy was found in those with supraventricular arrhythmias.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure.

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Device-device interaction between cardiac implantable electronic devices and continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

The current design of an innovative left ventricular assist device (LVAD) makes use of magnetic levitation technology, which enables the rotors of the device to be completely suspended by magnetic force, reducing friction and blood or plasma damage. However, this electromagnetic field can result in electromagnetic interference (EMI), which can interfere with proper functioning of another cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) in its direct proximity. Approximately 80% of patients with an LVAD have a CIED, most frequently an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Several device-device interactions have been reported, including EMI-induced inappropriate shocks, inability to establish telemetry connection, EMI-induced premature battery depletion, undersensing by the device, and other CIED malfunctions. Unfortunately, additional procedures, including generator exchange, lead adjustment, and system extraction, are frequently required because of these interactions. In some circumstances, the additional procedure might be preventable or avoidable with appropriate solutions. In this article, we describe how EMI from the LVAD impacts the functionality of the CIED and provide possible management options, including manufacturer-specific information, for the current CIEDs (eg, transvenous and leadless pacemakers, transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs, and transvenous cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers and ICDs).

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

A Woman With Recurrent Torsade de Pointes.

A woman in her mid-40s presented to the emergency department after a fall with head trauma. During day 15 of admission, the patient had 3 episodes of torsade de pointes while taking 50 mg of oral metoprolol succinate daily. What would you do next?

Programming of implantable cardioverter defibrillators for primary prevention: outcomes at centers with high vs. low concordance with guidelines.

BACKGROUND: While ICD therapy reduction programming strategies are recommended in current multi-society guidelines, concerns remain about a possible trade-off between the benefits of ICD therapy reduction and failure to treat episodes of ventricular arrhythmias. The study is to evaluate the outcomes of primary prevention patients followed in centers with high and low concordance with the 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive patients with primary prevention ICD implantation from two centers between 2014 and 2016 were included. One center was classified as high guideline concordance center (HGC) with 47% (146/310) of patients with initial ICD concordant with the guidelines, and the other center was classified as low guideline concordance center (LGC) with only 1% (2/178) of patients with guideline-concordant initial ICD programming. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess risk of first ICD therapy (ATP or shock), first ICD shock, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were included (mean age, 66 ± 13 years). During a mean follow-up of 1.9 ± 0.9 years, patients followed at HGC were 63% less likely to receive any ICD therapy (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.37, 95% CI 0.42-0.99). There were no significant differences in the rate of first ICD shock (aHR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34-1.52) or mortality (aHR 1.19, 95% CI, 0.47-3.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to primary prevention patients followed at LGC, primary prevention ICD patients followed at HGC received a significantly lower rate of ICD therapy, mainly from ATP reduction, without a difference in mortality during follow-up.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulant and Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the STS/ACC TVT Registry.

Background Clinical evidence on the safety and effectiveness of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends and outcomes of using DOACs in patients with TAVR and atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results Data from the STS/ACC TVT (Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry was used to identify patients who underwent successful TAVR with preexisting or incident atrial fibrillation who were discharged on oral anticoagulation between January 2013 and May 2018. Patients with a mechanical valve, valve-in-valve procedure, or prior stroke within a year were excluded. The adjusted primary outcome was 1-year stroke events. The adjusted secondary outcomes included bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and death. A total of 21 131 patients were included in the study (13 004 TAVR patients were discharged on a vitamin K antagonist and 8127 were discharged on DOACs.) The use of DOACs increased 5.5-fold from 2013 to 2018. The 1-year incidence of stroke was comparable between DOAC-treated patients and vitamin K antagonist-treated patients (2.51% versus 2.37%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.81-1.23) whereas DOAC-treated patients had lower 1-year incidence of any bleeding (11.9% versus 15.0%; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89), intracranial hemorrhage (0.33% versus 0.59%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.87), and death (15.8% versus 18.2%; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-1.00). Conclusions In patients with TAVR and atrial fibrillation, DOAC use, when compared with vitamin K antagonists, was associated with comparable stroke risk and significantly lower risks of bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and death at 1 year.

Atrial fibrillation burden and subsequent heart failure events in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist but little is known on how AF burden associates with subsequent episodes of HF. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess the short- and long-term association of AF burden with subsequent episodes of HF events in patients with reduced ejection fraction. METHODS: Patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices with at least 90 days of device data were included in the study. Time-dependent Cox regression with a 7-day window was used to evaluate the association of short- and long-term AF burden with subsequent HF events. Each patient with HF was matched to two control patients without an HF event based on age, gender, year of implant and CRT defibrillation capability. RESULTS: In our cohort with 2:1 matching (N = 549), 183 patients developed HF events and 275 (50.1%) had AF over an average follow-up of 24 ± 11 months. A 1-hour increase in short-term AF burden was associated with a 3% increased risk of HF events (HR, 1.034; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.012-1.056; P = .01; HR for 24-hour = 2.23). In contrast, the association between long-term AF burden and subsequent HF events was not statistically significant (HR, 1.009; 95% CI, 0.992-1.026; P = .373). CONCLUSION: A 24-hour increase in AF burden is associated with a more than two-fold increased risk of HF events over the subsequent week while the long-term AF burden is not significantly associated with HF events.

Programming implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in primary prevention: Guideline concordance and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate therapy is a common adverse effect in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that may be prevented by appropriate programming. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of device programming based on a 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and a 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention from 2014-2016 at 3 centers were included in the retrospective analysis. Patients were classified into 2 groups based on the tachycardia programming at the time of implant: guideline concordant group (GC) and non-guideline concordant group (NGC). Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate freedom from ICD therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shock), ICD shock, and death. RESULTS: A total of 772 patients were included in the study (mean age 63.3 ± 13.8 years). Of this total, 258 patients (33.4%) were in the GC group and 514 patients (66.6%) were in the NGC group. During mean follow-up of 2.02 ± 0.91 years, guideline concordant programming was associated with a 53% reduction in ICD therapy (P <.01) and 50% reduction in ICD shock (P = .02). There were no significant differences in mortality (6% in GC group vs11% in NGC group; P = .22). CONCLUSION: Only one-third of the studied population had an ICD device programmed in concordance with current guidelines. ICD programming based on the current guidelines was associated with a significantly lower rate of ICD therapy and shock without changes in mortality during intermediate-term follow-up.

Effect of obstructive sleep apnea and its treatment of atrial fibrillation recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) have an increased the risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF). However, it remains unclear if patients with OSA carry a higher risk of recurrent AF after successful catheter ablation. This meta-analysis was conducted (1) to evaluate the association between OSA and recurrent AF after catheter ablation, and (2) to assess the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on the risk of recurrent AF in patients with OSA. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases from inception through July 2017 to identify studies that evaluated the risk of recurrent AF after successful catheter ablation in patients with OSA were included. Effect estimates from the individual study were extracted and combined using random-effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird. RESULTS: Seven observational studies with a total of 4572 patients AF after successful catheter ablation were enrolled. Compared to patients without OSA, the pooled OR of recurrent AF in patients with OSA was 1.70 (95% CI, 1.40-2.06, I2  = 0). Among OSA patients with AF after successful catheter ablation, the use of CPAP was significantly associated with decreased risk of recurrent AF with pooled OR of 0.28 (0.19-0.40, I2  = 0). Egger's regression asymmetry test was performed and showed no publication bias for the associations of OSA and CPAP with recurrent AF. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggested a significant association between OSA and recurrent AF after catheter ablation. The use of CPAP in patients with OSA is associated with reduced risk of recurrent AF after catheter ablation.