Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator.

BACKGROUND: The presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device has long been a contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We established a prospective registry to determine the risks associated with MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 tesla for patients who had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that was "non-MRI-conditional" (i.e., not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MRI scanning). METHODS: Patients in the registry were referred for clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at a field strength of 1.5 tesla. Devices were interrogated before and after MRI with the use of a standardized protocol and were appropriately reprogrammed before the scanning. The primary end points were death, generator or lead failure, induced arrhythmia, loss of capture, or electrical reset during the scanning. The secondary end points were changes in device settings. RESULTS: MRI was performed in 1000 cases in which patients had a pacemaker and in 500 cases in which patients had an ICD. No deaths, lead failures, losses of capture, or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during MRI. One ICD generator could not be interrogated after MRI and required immediate replacement; the device had not been appropriately programmed per protocol before the MRI. We observed six cases of self-terminating atrial fibrillation or flutter and six cases of partial electrical reset. Changes in lead impedance, pacing threshold, battery voltage, and P-wave and R-wave amplitude exceeded prespecified thresholds in a small number of cases. Repeat MRI was not associated with an increase in adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, device or lead failure did not occur in any patient with a non-MRI-conditional pacemaker or ICD who underwent clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 tesla, was appropriately screened, and had the device reprogrammed in accordance with the prespecified protocol. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; MagnaSafe ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00907361 .).

Percutaneous Implantation of an Entirely Intracardiac Leadless Pacemaker.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac pacemakers are limited by device-related complications, notably infection and problems related to pacemaker leads. We studied a miniaturized, fully self-contained leadless pacemaker that is nonsurgically implanted in the right ventricle with the use of a catheter. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we implanted an active-fixation leadless cardiac pacemaker in patients who required permanent single-chamber ventricular pacing. The primary efficacy end point was both an acceptable pacing threshold (≤2.0 V at 0.4 msec) and an acceptable sensing amplitude (R wave ≥5.0 mV, or a value equal to or greater than the value at implantation) through 6 months. The primary safety end point was freedom from device-related serious adverse events through 6 months. In this ongoing study, the prespecified analysis of the primary end points was performed on data from the first 300 patients who completed 6 months of follow-up (primary cohort). The rates of the efficacy end point and safety end point were compared with performance goals (based on historical data) of 85% and 86%, respectively. Additional outcomes were assessed in all 526 patients who were enrolled as of June 2015 (the total cohort). RESULTS: The leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in 504 of the 526 patients in the total cohort (95.8%). The intention-to-treat primary efficacy end point was met in 270 of the 300 patients in the primary cohort (90.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0 to 93.2, P=0.007), and the primary safety end point was met in 280 of the 300 patients (93.3%; 95% CI, 89.9 to 95.9; P<0.001). At 6 months, device-related serious adverse events were observed in 6.7% of the patients; events included device dislodgement with percutaneous retrieval (in 1.7%), cardiac perforation (in 1.3%), and pacing-threshold elevation requiring percutaneous retrieval and device replacement (in 1.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The leadless cardiac pacemaker met prespecified pacing and sensing requirements in the large majority of patients. Device-related serious adverse events occurred in approximately 1 in 15 patients. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; LEADLESS II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030418.).

Coronary venous angioplasty to facilitate transvenous left ventricular lead placement: A single-center 13-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Barriers to successful left ventricular lead placement within the coronary venous anatomy may include focal stenoses, thromboses, phrenic nerve stimulation, vessel tortuosity, small vessel caliber, nonexcitable tissue, and valve presence. A large series describing the utilization of coronary venous angioplasty (CVAP) for relief of these issues is absent in the literature. OBJECTIVE: We report our experience on all patients treated with CVAP in a single-center 13-year experience. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with CVAP (64% male, mean age 67 ± 12 years) were treated by five different implanting physicians for approved cardiac resynchronization therapy indications. The reason for CVAP was categorized by obstacle (focal occlusion, valve presence, small caliber vessel) and location. The number, type, and size of balloon used, inflation characteristics, complications, and success of lead deployment crossing the point of intervention were all tabulated. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of patients (36/47) had successful CVAP. The most common reason for intervention was a focal occlusion (24/47; 51%), followed by valve presence (13/47; 28%), and small vessel caliber (10/47; 21%). Focal occlusions were most successfully managed with CVAP (23/24; 96%), followed by small vessel caliber (7/10; 70%) and valve presence (6/13; 46%). The reason for failure was most commonly due to failure to relieve the obstruction (5/11; 45%), thrombosis (3/11; 27.3%), dissection (2/11; 18.2%), and inability to pass the balloon through the occlusion (1/11; 9.0%). There were no significant complications developed from CVAP utilization. CONCLUSION: In a large analysis, CVAP can be safely and successfully performed in the majority of instances required.

The rationale and design of the SMART CRT trial.

AIMS: The SMART CRT study will assess the efficacy of an atrioventricular optimization algorithm to improve reverse remodeling among patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the presence of interventricular electrical delay. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SMART CRT study is a global, multicenter, prospective, randomized study of patients undergoing CRT implantation. The primary endpoint of this trial is response rate to CRT, defined as decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥15% at 6 months compared to preimplant baseline. Additional prespecified analyses are: (1) clinical composite endpoint combining all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association class, and Quality of Life (using a patient global assessment instrument); (2) the individual components of the clinical composite endpoint; (3) 6-minute walk distance; (4) Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire; (5) LVESV as a continuous variable; and (6) absolute left-ventricular ejection fraction. Subjects with intraventricular delay ≥ 70 ms measured between the right ventricular and left ventricular pacing leads will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to have either an AV Delay and pacing chamber determined by SmartDelay™ or a Fixed AV Delay of 120 ms with biventricular pacing. Enrollment of an estimated 726 of subjects from up to 100 centers worldwide is planned to achieve 436 randomized subjects and 370 complete data sets required to power the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide important data regarding the importance of AV Delay programming in patients with prolonged interventricular delay at the pacing sites.

Additional electrodes on the Quartet™ LV lead provide more programmable pacing options than bipolar and tripolar equivalents.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate any benefits to the number of viable pacing vectors and maximal spatial coverage with quadripolar left ventricular (LV) leads when compared with tripolar and bipolar equivalents in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: A meta-analysis of five previously published clinical trials involving the Quartet™ LV lead (St Jude Medical, St Paul, MN, USA) was performed to evaluate the number of viable pacing vectors defined as capture thresholds ≤2.5 V and no phrenic nerve stimulation and maximal spatial coverage of viable vectors in CRT patients at pre-discharge (n = 370) and first follow-up (n = 355). Bipolar and tripolar lead configurations were modelled by systematic elimination of two and one electrode(s), respectively, from the Quartet lead. The Quartet lead with its four pacing electrodes exhibited the greatest number of pacing vectors per patient when compared with the best bipolar and the best tripolar modelled equivalents. Similarly, the Quartet lead provided the highest spatial coverage in terms of the distance between two furthest viable pacing cathodes when compared with the best bipolar and the best tripolar configurations (P < 0.05). Among the three modelled bipolar configurations, the lead configuration with the two most distal electrodes resulted in the highest number of viable pacing vectors. Among the four modelled tripolar configurations, elimination of the second proximal electrode (M3) resulted in the highest number of viable pacing options per patient. There were no significant differences observed between pre-discharge and first follow-up analyses. CONCLUSION: The Quartet lead with its four electrodes and the capability to pace from four anatomical locations provided the highest number of viable pacing vectors at pre-discharge and first follow-up visits, providing more flexibility in device programming and enabling continuation of CRT in more patients when compared with bipolar and tripolar equivalents.

Multicentre safety of adding Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) to conventional ablation for atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation (FIRM) uses 64-electrode basket catheters to identify atrial fibrillation (AF)-sustaining sites for ablation, with promising results in many studies. Accordingly, new basket designs are being tested by several groups. We set out to determine the procedural safety of adding basket mapping and map-guided ablation to conventional pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We collected 30 day procedural safety data in five US centres for consecutive patients undergoing FIRM plus PVI (FIRM-PVI) compared with contemporaneous controls undergoing PVI without FIRM. A total of 625 cases were included in this analysis: 325 FIRM-PVI and 300 PVI-controls. FIRM-PVI patients were more likely than PVI-controls to be male (83% vs. 66%, P < 0.001) and have long-standing persistent AF (26% vs. 13%, P < 0.001) reflecting patients referred for FIRM. Total ablation time was greater for FIRM-PVI (62 ± 22 min) vs. PVI-controls (52 ± 18 min, P = 0.03). The complication rate for FIRM-PVI procedures (4.3%) was similar to controls (4.0%, P = 1) for both major and minor complications; no deaths were reported. The rate of complications potentially attributable to the basket catheter was small and did not differ between basket types (Constellation 2.8% vs. FIRMap 1.8%, P = 0.7) or between cases in which basket catheters were and were not used (P = 0.5). Complication rates did not differ between centres (P = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural complications from the use of the basket catheters for AF mapping are low, and thus procedural safety appears similar between FIRM-PVI and PVI-controls in a large multicentre cohort. Future studies are required to determine the optimal approach to maximize the efficacy of FIRM-guided ablation.

Rationale and design of a randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy: The MPP Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the majority of Class III congestive heart failure (HF) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) show a clinical benefit, up to 40% of patients do not respond to CRT. This paper reports the design of the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) trial, a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CRT using MPP compared to standard biventricular (Bi-V) pacing. METHODS: A maximum of 506 patients with a standard CRT-D indication will be enrolled at up to 50 US centers. All patients will be implanted with a CRT-D system (Quartet LV lead Model 1458Q with a Quadra CRT-D, Abbott) that can deliver both MPP and Bi-V pacing. Standard Bi-V pacing will be activated at implant. At 3 months postimplant, patients in whom the echocardiographic parameters during MPP are equal or better than during Bi-V pacing are randomized (1:1) to either an MPP or Bi-V arm. RESULTS: The primary safety endpoint is freedom from system-related complications at 9 months. Each patient's response to CRT will be evaluated using a heart-failure clinical composite score, consisting of a change in NYHA functional class, patient global assessment score, HF events, and cardiovascular death. The primary efficacy endpoint is the proportion of responders in the MPP arm compared with the Bi-V arm between 3 and 9 months. CONCLUSION: This trial seeks to evaluate whether MPP via a single quadripolar LV lead improves hemodynamic and clinical responses to CRT, both in clinical responders and nonresponders.

Vdrive Evaluation of Remote Steering and Testing in Lasso Electrophysiology Procedures Study: The VERSATILE Study in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Circular mapping catheters (CMC) are an essential tool in most atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. The Vdrive™ with V-Loop™ system enables a physician to remotely manipulate a CMC during electrophysiology studies. Our aim was to compare the clinical performance of the system to conventional CMC navigation according to efficiency and safety endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 120 patients scheduled to undergo a CMC study followed by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) were included. Treatment allocation was randomized 2:1, remote navigation:manual navigation. The primary effectiveness endpoint was assessed based on both successful navigation to the targeted pulmonary vein (PV) and successful recording of PV electrograms. All PVs were treated independently within and between patients. The primary safety endpoint was assessed based on the occurrence of major adverse events (MAEs) through seven days after the study procedure. Primary effectiveness endpoints were achieved in 295/302 PVs in the Vdrive arm (97.7%) and 167/167 PVs in the manual arm (100%). Effectiveness analysis indicates Vdrive non-inferiority (pnon-inferiority = 0.0405; δ = -0.05) per the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted for PV correlation. Five MAEs related to the ablation procedure occurred (three in the Vdrive arm-3.9%; two in the manual arm-2.33%). No device-related MAEs were observed; safety analysis indicates Vdrive non-inferiority (pnon-inferiority = 0.0441; δ = 0.07) per the normal Z test. CONCLUSION: Remote navigation of a CMC is equivalent to manual in PVI in terms of safety and effectiveness. This allows for single-operator procedures in conjunction with a magnetically guided ablation catheter.

Stability of rotors and focal sources for human atrial fibrillation: focal impulse and rotor mapping (FIRM) of AF sources and fibrillatory conduction.

INTRODUCTION: Several groups report electrical rotors or focal sources that sustain atrial fibrillation (AF) after it has been triggered. However, it is difficult to separate stable from unstable activity in prior studies that examined only seconds of AF. We applied phase-based focal impulse and rotor mapping (FIRM) to study the dynamics of rotors/sources in human AF over prolonged periods of time. METHODS: We prospectively mapped AF in 260 patients (169 persistent, 61 ± 12 years) at 6 centers in the FIRM registry, using baskets with 64 contact electrodes per atrium. AF was phase mapped (RhythmView, Topera, Menlo Park, CA, USA). AF propagation movies were interpreted by each operator to assess the source stability/dynamics over tens of minutes before ablation. RESULTS: Sources were identified in 258 of 260 of patients (99%), for 2.8 ± 1.4 sources/patient (1.8 ± 1.1 in left, 1.1 ± 0.8 in right atria). While AF sources precessed in stable regions, emanating activity including spiral waves varied from collision/fusion (fibrillatory conduction). Each source lay in stable atrial regions for 4,196 ± 6,360 cycles, with no differences between paroxysmal versus persistent AF (4,290 ± 5,847 vs. 4,150 ± 6,604; P = 0.78), or right versus left atrial sources (P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Rotors and focal sources for human AF mapped by FIRM over prolonged time periods precess ("wobble") but remain within stable regions for thousands of cycles. Conversely, emanating activity such as spiral waves disorganize and collide with the fibrillatory milieu, explaining difficulties in using activation mapping or signal processing analyses at fixed electrodes to detect AF rotors. These results provide a rationale for targeted ablation at AF sources rather than fibrillatory spiral waves.

EsophAguS Deviation During RadiofrequencY Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: The EASY AF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Injury to the esophagus has been reported in a high percentage of patients undergoing ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the incidence of esophageal injury in patients undergoing ablation of AF with and without an esophageal deviating device. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, controlled Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial compared the incidence of ablation-related esophageal lesions, as assessed by endoscopy, in patients undergoing AF ablation assigned to a control group (luminal esophageal temperature [LET] monitoring alone) compared with patients randomized to a deviation group (esophagus deviation device + LET). This novel deviating device uses vacuum suction and mechanical deflection to deviate a segment of the esophagus, including the trailing edge. RESULTS: The data safety and monitoring board recommended stopping the study early after randomizing 120 patients due to deviating device efficacy. The primary study endpoint, ablation injury to the esophageal mucosa, was significantly less in the deviation group (5.7%) in comparison to the control group (35.4%; P < 0.0001). Control patients had a significantly higher severity and greater number of ablation lesions per patient. There was no adverse event assigned to the device. By multivariable analysis, the only feature associated with reduced esophageal lesions was randomization to deviating device (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.04-0.46; P = 0.001). Among control subjects, there was no difference in esophageal lesions with high power/short duration (31.8%) vs other radiofrequency techniques (37.2%; P = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an esophageal deviating device resulted in a significant reduction in ablation-related esophageal lesions without any adverse events.

Postoperative performance of the Quartet® left ventricular heart lead.

INTRODUCTION: The Quartet(®) left ventricular (LV) lead is the first with 4 pacing electrodes (tip and 3 rings) that enables pacing from 10 different pacing vectors. Postoperative performance of this lead was evaluated in a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter IDE study. METHODS: Patients with standard indications for CRT-D were enrolled. Electrical performance and presence of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) were assessed during pacing from each of 10 vectors at predischarge (within 7 days), 1 month, and 3 months postimplant. RESULTS: The Quartet LV lead was implanted successfully in 170 patients (95.5% implant success rate, 68 ± 11 years, 68.5% male, LVEF: 25 ± 7%, NYHA class III: 98.3% and class IV: 1.7%). Mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 1.9 months. Capture threshold and impedance for each of the 10 LV lead pacing vectors remained stable during follow-up. LV lead dislodgement occurred in 6 (3.5%) patients and PNS was observed in 23 (13.5%) patients. PNS was resolved noninvasively in all 23 (100%) patients, either by reprogramming to pace from the additional LV lead pacing vectors alone (13 pts, 56.5%), reprogramming to pace from the additional LV lead pacing vectors and reprogramming pacing output (4 pts, 17.4%), or by reprogramming pacing output alone (6 pts, 26.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The Quartet LV lead electrical performance was stable and was associated with a high implant success and low dislodgement rate during 3-month follow-up. In all patients with PNS, the 10 pacing vectors combined with reduced output programming enabled the elimination of PNS noninvasively.

Occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: the role of left ventricular lead type and placement site.

AIMS: Unwanted phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been reported in ∼1 in 4 patients undergoing left ventricular (LV) pacing. The occurrence of PNS over mid-term follow-up and the significance of PNS are less certain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 1307 patients enrolled in pre-market studies of LV leads manufactured by Medtronic (models 4193 and 4195 unipolar, 4194, 4196, 4296, and 4396 bipolar) were pooled. Left ventricular lead location was recorded at implant using a common classification scheme. Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms were either spontaneously reported or identified at scheduled follow-up visits. A PNS-related complication was defined as PNS resulting in invasive intervention or the termination of LV pacing. Average follow-up was 14.9 months (range 0.0-46.6). Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms occurred in 169 patients (12.9%). Phrenic nerve stimulation-related complications occurred in 21 of 1307 patients (1.6%); 16 of 738 (2.2%) in the unipolar lead studies, and 5 of 569 (0.9%) in the bipolar lead studies (P = 0.08). Phrenic nerve stimulation was more frequent at middle-lateral/posterior, and apical LV sites (139/1010) vs. basal-posterior/lateral/anterior, and middle-anterior sites (20/297; P= 0.01). As compared with an anterior LV lead position, a lateral LV pacing site was associated with over a four-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.005) and an apical LV pacing site was associated with over six-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.001). CONCLUSION: Phrenic nerve stimulation occurred in 13% of patients undergoing LV lead placement and was more common at mid-lateral/posterior, and LV apical sites. Most cases (123/139; 88%) of PNS were mitigated via electrical reprogramming, without the need for invasive intervention.

Effects of Atrioventricular Optimization on Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results of the SMART-CRT Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of atrioventricular optimization (AVO) to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes remains controversial. Previous post hoc analyses of a multicenter trial showed that measures of electrical dyssynchrony (right ventricular-left ventricular [LV] or LV electrical delay durations) are associated with patients who benefit from AVO. METHODS: This was a global, multicenter, prospective, randomized trial of de novo cardiac resynchronization therapy implant patients with an right ventricular-LV duration ≥70 ms to determine whether AVO results in greater reverse remodeling. Patients were randomized 1:1 for either an AVO algorithm (SmartDelay) that determines atrioventricular delay and pacing chamber, biventricular or LV only, or a fixed atrioventricular delay of 120 ms with biventricular pacing. Paired echocardiograms performed at baseline and 6 months were evaluated. The primary end point was echocardiographic cardiac resynchronization therapy response, defined dichotomously as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients (n=120 women) were randomized and had completed 6 months of follow-up. The echocardiographic cardiac resynchronization therapy response rate did not statistically differ between the groups (SmartDelay, 74.8%; fixed, 67.7%; P=0.17). Analyses of prespecified secondary end points demonstrated significant improvements in the absolute (median: SmartDelay, -41.0 mL; fixed, -33.0 mL; P=0.01) and relative change in LV end-systolic volume (SmartDelay, -38.3%; fixed, -27.8%; P=0.03) for patients with SmartDelay optimization. Similar results were observed for the relative improvement in LV ejection fraction (SmartDelay, 46.7%; fixed, 32.1%; P=0.050); absolute improvement in LV ejection fraction trended to be higher with SmartDelay (P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of reverse remodeling parameters demonstrated that AVO via SmartDelay, relative to the nonoptimized fixed atrioventricular delay comparator group, improved absolute and relative changes in LV function in patients with longer right ventricular-LV duration. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03089281.

Positioning of left ventricular pacing lead guided by intracardiac echocardiography with vector velocity imaging during cardiac resynchronization therapy procedure.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative modality for "real-time" left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony quantification and optimal resynchronization is not established. This study determined the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), coupled with vector velocity imaging (VVI), to evaluate LV dyssynchrony and to guide LV lead placement at the time of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implant. METHODS: One hundred and four consecutive heart failure patients undergoing ICE-guided (Group 1, N = 50) or conventional (Group 2, N = 54) CRT implant were included in the study. For Group 1 patients, LV dyssynchrony and resynchronization were evaluated by VVI including visual algorithms and the maximum differences in time-to-peak (MD-TTP) radial strain. Based on the findings, the final LV lead site was determined and optimal resynchronization was achieved. CRT responders were defined using standard criteria 6 months after implantation. RESULTS: Both groups underwent CRT implant with no complications. In Group 1, intraprocedural optimal resynchronization by VVI including visual algorithms and MD-TTP was a predictor discriminating CRT response with a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 89%. Use of ICE/VVI increased number of and predicted CRT responders (82% in Group 1 vs 63% in Group 2; OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.08-6.65, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: ICE can be safely performed during CRT implantation. "Real-time" VVI appears to be helpful in determining the final LV lead position and pacing mode that allow better intraprocedural resynchronization. VVI-optimized acute resynchronization predicts CRT response and this approach is associated with higher number of CRT responders.

Left Ventricular Enlargement, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Efficacy, and Impact of MultiPoint Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) epicardial pacing results in slowly propagating paced wavefronts. We postulated that this effect might limit cardiac resynchronization therapy efficacy in patients with LV enlargement using conventional biventricular pacing with single-site LV pacing, but be mitigated by LV stimulation from 2 widely spaced sites using MultiPoint pacing with wide anatomic separation (MPP-AS: ≥30 mm). We tested this hypothesis in the multicenter randomized MPP investigational device exemption trial. METHODS: Following implant, quadripolar biventricular single-site pacing was activated in all patients (n=506). From 3 to 9 months postimplant, among patients with available baseline LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) measures, 188 received biventricular single-site pacing and 43 received MPP-AS. Patients were dichotomized by median baseline LVEDV indexed to height (LVEDVIMedian). Outcomes were measured by the clinical composite score (primary efficacy end point), quality of life, LV structural remodeling (↑EF >5% and ↓ESV 10%) and heart failure event/cardiovascular death. RESULTS: LVEDVIMedian was 1.1 mL/cm. Baseline characteristics differed in patients with LVEDVI>Median versus LVEDVI≤Median. Among patients with LVEDVI>Median, biventricular single-site pacing was less efficacious compared to patients with LVEDVI≤Median (clinical composite score, 65% versus 79%). In contrast, MPP-AS programming generated greater clinical composite score response (92% versus 65%, P=0.023) and improved quality of life (-31.0±29.7 versus -15.7±22.1, P=0.038) versus biventricular single-site pacing in patients with LVEDVI>Median. Reverse remodeling trended better with MPP-AS programming. In patients with LVEDVI>Median, heart failure event rate increased following the 3-month randomization point with biventricular single-site pacing (0.0150±0.1725 in LVEDVI>Median versus -0.0190±0.0808 in LVEDVI ≤Median, P=0.012), but no heart failure event occurred in patients with MPP-AS programming between 3 and 9 months in LVEDVI>Median. All measured outcomes did not differ in patients receiving MPP-AS and biventricular single-site pacing with LVEDVI≤Median. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional biventricular single-site pacing, even with a quadripolar lead, has reduced efficacy in patients with LV enlargement. However, the greatest response rate in patients with larger hearts was observed when programmed to MPP-AS pacing.

Irrigated radiofrequency catheter ablation guided by electroanatomic mapping for recurrent ventricular tachycardia after myocardial infarction: the multicenter thermocool ventricular tachycardia ablation trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) is an important cause of mortality and morbidity late after myocardial infarction. With frequent use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, these VTs are often poorly defined and not tolerated for mapping, factors previously viewed as relative contraindications to ablation. This observational multicenter study assessed the outcome of VT ablation with a saline-irrigated catheter combined with an electroanatomic mapping system. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-one patients (median LV ejection fraction, 0.25; heart failure in 62%) with recurrent episodes of monomorphic VT (median, 11 in the preceding 6 months) caused by prior myocardial infarction were enrolled. All inducible monomorphic VTs with a rate approximating or slower than any spontaneous VTs were targeted for ablation guided by electroanatomic mapping during sinus rhythm and/or VT. Patients were not excluded for multiple VTs (median, 3 per patient) or unmappable VT (present in 69% of patients). Ablation abolished all inducible VTs in 49% of patients. The primary end point of freedom from recurrent incessant VT or intermittent VT after 6 months of follow-up was achieved for 123 patients (53%). In 142 patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators before and after ablation for intermittent VT who survived 6 months, VT episodes were reduced from a median of 11.5 to 0 (P<0.0001). The 1-year mortality rate was 18%, with 72.5% of deaths attributed to ventricular arrhythmias or heart failure. The procedure mortality rate was 3%, with no strokes. CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation is a reasonable option to reduce episodes of recurrent VT in patients with prior myocardial infarction, even when multiple and/or unmappable VTs are present. This population remains at high risk for death, warranting surveillance and further study.

Influence of left ventricular lead location on outcomes in the COMPANION study.

INTRODUCTION: There are no randomized controlled trial data that evaluate mortality and hospitalization rates in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients based on left ventricular (LV) lead location. We analyzed the event-driven outcomes of mortality and hospitalization as well as functional outcomes including Functional Class, Quality-of-Life, and 6-minute walk distance in 1,520 patients enrolled in the COMPANION study of CRT versus optimal medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up after implantation of 16.2 months, patients randomized to CRT, regardless of lead location, experienced benefit compared with optimized pharmacologic therapy (OPT), with respect to all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. All but a posterior location showed benefit with respect to the all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization outcome. Mortality benefit in CRT-D patients was indifferent to LV lead position. All functional outcomes including 6-minute walk distance, Quality-of-Life (QOL) and Functional Class improved with CRT, regardless of LV lead location. CONCLUSION: LV lead location was not a major determinant of multiple measures of response to CRT therapy in the COMPANION Trial. While acute data indicate that a left lateral LV lead location results in the most favorable hemodynamic response, these chronic data suggest that positioning an LV lead in an anterior rather than a lateral or posterior LV location has similar benefit.

Comparative study of acute and mid-term complications with leadless and transvenous cardiac pacemakers.

BACKGROUND: Leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs) aim to mitigate lead- and pocket-related complications seen with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare complications between the LCP cohort from the LEADLESS Pacemaker IDE Study (Leadless II) trial and a propensity score-matched real-world TVP cohort. METHODS: The multicenter LEADLESS II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Nanostim LCP (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) using structured follow-up, with serious adverse device effects independently adjudicated. TVP data were obtained from Truven Health MarketScan claims databases for patients implanted with single-chamber TVPs between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014 and more than 1 year of preimplant enrollment data. Comorbidities and complications were identified via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Short-term (≤1 months) and mid-term (>1-18 months) complications were compared between the LCP cohort and a propensity score-matched subset of the TVP cohort. RESULTS: Among 718 patients with LCPs (mean age 75.6 ± 11.9 years; 62% men) and 1436 patients with TVPs (mean age 76.1 ± 12.3 years; 63% men), patients with LCPs experienced fewer complications (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.60; P < .001), including short-term (5.8% vs 9.4%; P = .01) and mid-term (0.56% vs 4.9%; P < .001) events. In the short-term time frame, patients with LCPs had more pericardial effusions (1.53% vs 0.35%; P = .005); similar rates of vascular events (1.11% vs 0.42%; P = .085), dislodgments (0.97% vs 1.39%; P = .54), and generator complications (0.70% vs 0.28%; P = .17); and no thoracic trauma compared to patients with TVPs (rate of thoracic trauma 3.27%). In short- and mid-term time frames, TVP events absent from the LCP group included lead-related, pocket-related, and infectious complications. CONCLUSION: Patients with LCPs experienced fewer overall short- and mid-term complications, including infectious and lead- and pocket-related events, but more pericardial effusions, which were uncommon but serious.

Creation and Implementation of an Outpatient Pathway for Atrial Fibrillation in the Emergency Department Setting: Results of an Expert Panel.

Atrial fibrillation and flutter (AF) is a common condition among emergency department (ED) patients in the United States. Traditionally, ED care for primary complaints related to AF focus on rate control, and patients are often admitted to an inpatient setting for further care. Inpatient care may include further telemetry monitoring and diagnostic testing, rhythm control, a search for identification of AF etiology, and stroke prophylaxis. However, many patients are eligible for safe and effective outpatient management pathways. They are widely used in Canada and other countries but less widely adopted in the United States. In this project, we convened an expert panel to create a practical framework for the process of creating, implementing, and maintaining an outpatient AF pathway for emergency physicians to assess and treat AF patients, safely reduce hospitalization rates, ensure appropriate stroke prophylaxis, and effectively transition patients to longitudinal outpatient treatment settings from the ED and/or observation unit. To support local pathway creation, the panel also reached agreement on a protocol development plan, a sample pathway, consensus recommendations for pathway components, sample pathway metrics, and a structured literature review framework using a modified Delphi technique by a technical expert panel of emergency medicine, cardiology, and other stakeholder groups.