Pacing and Defibrillation Consideration in the Era of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Tricuspid regurgitation is a commonly encountered valvular pathology in patients with trans-tricuspid pacing or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions are increasingly performed in patients at high surgical risk. Implantation of these valves can lead to the "jailing" of a trans-tricuspid lead. This practice carries both short- and long-term risks of lead failure and subsequent infection without the ability to perform traditional transvenous lead extraction. Herein, this manuscript reviews available therapeutic options for lead management in patients undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: The decision to jail a lead may be appropriate in certain high-risk cases, though extraction may be a better option in most cases given the variety of options for re-implant, including leadless pacemakers, valve-sparing systems, epicardial leads, leads placed directly through prosthetic valves, and the completely subcutaneous implantable-defibrillator. A growing number of patients meet the requirement for CIED implantation in the United States. A significant proportion of these patients will have tricuspid valve dysfunction, either related to or independent of their transvenous lead. As with any percutaneous intervention that has shown efficacy, the role of TTVI is also likely to increase as this therapy advances beyond the investigational phase. As such, the role of the heart team in the management of these patients will be increasingly critical in the years to come, and in those patients that have pre-existing CIED leads, we advocate for the involvement of an electrophysiologist in the heart team.

Long-term performance of single-connector (DF4) implantable defibrillator leads.

AIMS: Single-connector (DF4) defibrillator leads have become the predominantly implanted transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. However, data on their long-term performance are derived predominantly from manufacturer product performance reports. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reviewed medical records in 5289 patients with DF4 leads between 2011 and 2023 to determine the frequency of lead-related abnormalities. We defined malfunction as any single or combination of electrical abnormalities requiring revision including a sudden increase (≥2×) in stimulation threshold, a discrete jump in high-voltage impedance, or sensing of non-physiologic intervals or noise. We documented time to failure, predictors of failure, and management strategies. Mean follow-up after implant was 4.15 ± 3.6 years (median = 3.63), with 37% of leads followed for >5 years. A total of 80 (1.5%) leads demonstrated electrical abnormalities requiring revision with an average time to failure of 4 ± 2.8 years (median = 3.5). Of the leads that malfunctioned, 62/80 (78%) were extracted and replaced with a new lead and in the other 18 cases, malfunctioned DF4 leads were abandoned, and a new lead implanted. In multivariable models, younger age at implant (OR 1.03 per year; P < 0.001) and the presence of Abbott/St. Jude leads increased the risk of malfunction. CONCLUSION: DF4 defibrillator leads demonstrate excellent longevity with >98.3% of leads followed for at least 5 years still functioning normally. Younger age at implant and lead manufacturer are associated with an increased risk of DF4 lead malfunction. The differences in lead survival between manufacturers require further investigation.

Assessing the outcomes of prescribing angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for COVID-19 patients.

Background: Patients with heart failure were affected severely by COVID-19. Most heart failure patients are on guideline directed medical therapy, which includes ACE inhibitors (ACEI) and ARBs. These medications were controversial at the beginning of the pandemic due to their interplay with the receptor that SARS-CoV-2 binds in the lungs. We investigated the effect that ACEI and ARB had on patients with hypertension, coronary artery disease, and heart failure. Methods: We recruited 176 patients with COVID-19 infection and cardiovascular comorbidities at the American University of Beirut Medical Center in Lebanon. Of these, 110 patients were taking ACEI or ARB and 66 were not. We collected clinical data and looked at inflammatory markers such as CRP and IL-6 and cardiac markers such as troponin T. We also reported the incidence of ARDS, sepsis, and death of each patient, and compared the 2 groups. Results: We found that patients taking ACEI and ARB had a statistically significant decrease in levels of troponin T, IL-6, and CRP compared to patients not taking these medications (p < 0.05). We found no difference in rates of ARDS, sepsis, or death between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system had no effect on the mortality of patients with COVID-19 and on their overall disease progression. However, it may be beneficial not to stop these medications as they decrease inflammation in the body and the levels of troponin, which are related to increased stress on the heart.

Risk of thromboembolic events in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A systematic review.

The risk of thromboembolism in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients remains uncertain and was assessed in this review to better weigh benefits vs. risks of prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. A search was performed through three databases: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library until 2022. Self-controlled case series, case-control and cohort studies were included, and findings summarized narratively. Meta-analyses for risk of thromboembolism including deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and myocardial infarction (MI) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 non-hospitalized patients were conducted. Frequency, incidence rate ratio (IRR), and risk ratio (RR) of stroke were used to assess risk in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients considering the lack of studies to conduct a meta-analysis. Ten studies met inclusion criteria characterized by adult non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Risk of bias was relatively low. Risk of DVT (RR: 1.98 with 95% CI: 1.03-3.83) and PE (OR: 6.72 with 95% CI: 4.81-9.39 and RR: 4.44 with 95% CI: 1.98-9.99) increased in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients compared to controls. Risk of MI (OR: 1.91 with 95% CI: 0.89-4.09) is possibly increased in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients with moderate certainty when compared to controls. A trend in favor of stroke was documented in the first week following infection. Our meta-analyses support the increase in risk of DVT and PE, and likely increase of MI, in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. The risk of stroke appears significant in the first week following infection but drops to insignificance two weeks later. More studies are needed to establish evidence-based recommendations for prophylactic anticoagulation therapy in non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients.