Detection of atrial fibrillation in persons aged 65 years and above using a mobile electrocardiogram device.

BACKGROUND: Untreated atrial fibrillation (AF) often results in increased morbidity and mortality. Opportunistic AF screening in persons aged ≥ 65 years is recommended to identify patients with AF in order to prevent AF-related complications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of screening persons for AF with the Kardia mobile electrocardiogram device (MED) and to determine the percentage of newly detected AF cases by selective population screening in the Netherlands. METHODS: Persons aged ≥ 65 years, without a medical history of AF, in nursing homes, at public events or visiting the general practitioner (GP) were approached to participate. A Kardia MED smartphone ECG (sECG) was recorded and the CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated. An automated AF algorithm classified the sECGs as 'sinus rhythm', 'AF' or 'unclassified'. In the case of AF, participants were referred to their GP. All sECGs were assessed by blinded experts. RESULTS: A total of 2168 participants were screened for AF. According to the expert's interpretation, 2.5% had newly detected AF, of whom 76.4% never experienced palpitations and 89.1% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. The algorithm result was unclassified in 12.2% of cases, of which 95.5% were interpretable by experts. With expert opinion as the gold standard and excluding unclassified sECGs, the Kardia MED's negative and positive predictive value for detecting AF was 99.8% and 60.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Screening for AF using the Kardia MED is feasible and results in 2.5% newly detected AF cases. Expert interpretation of algorithm outcomes AF and unclassified is recommended.

Efficacy and Safety of Appropriate Shocks and Antitachycardia Pacing in Transvenous and Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillators: Analysis of All Appropriate Therapy in the PRAETORIAN Trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN trial (A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Subcutaneous and Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy) showed noninferiority of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) compared with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD) with regard to inappropriate shocks and complications. In contrast to TV-ICD, S-ICD cannot provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates appropriate therapy and whether antitachycardia pacing reduces the number of appropriate shocks. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial was an international, investigator-initiated randomized trial that included patients with an indication for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Patients with previous ventricular tachycardia <170 bpm or refractory recurrent monomorphic ventricular tachycardia were excluded. In 39 centers, 849 patients were randomized to receive an S-ICD (n=426) or TV-ICD (n=423) and were followed for a median of 49.1 months. ICD programming was mandated by protocol. Appropriate ICD therapy was defined as therapy for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmias were classified as discrete episodes and storm episodes (≥3 episodes within 24 hours). Analyses were performed in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: In the S-ICD group, 86 of 426 patients received appropriate therapy, versus 78 of 423 patients in the TV-ICD group, during a median follow-up of 52 months (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.4% and 17.5%; P=0.45). In the S-ICD group, 83 patients received at least 1 shock, versus 57 patients in the TV-ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimates 19.2% and 11.5%; P=0.02). Patients in the S-ICD group had a total of 254 shocks, compared with 228 shocks in the TV-ICD group (P=0.68). First shock efficacy was 93.8% in the S-ICD group and 91.6% in the TV-ICD group (P=0.40). The first antitachycardia pacing attempt successfully terminated 46% of all monomorphic ventricular tachycardias, but accelerated the arrhythmia in 9.4%. Ten patients with S-ICD experienced 13 electrical storms, versus 18 patients with TV-ICD with 19 electrical storms. Patients with appropriate therapy had an almost 2-fold increased relative risk of electrical storms in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, no difference was observed in shock efficacy of S-ICD compared with TV-ICD. Although patients in the S-ICD group were more likely to receive an ICD shock, the total number of appropriate shocks was not different between the 2 groups. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01296022.

Subcutaneous or Transvenous Defibrillator Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was designed to avoid complications related to the transvenous ICD lead by using an entirely extrathoracic placement. Evidence comparing these systems has been based primarily on observational studies. METHODS: We conducted a noninferiority trial in which patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing were assigned to receive a subcutaneous ICD or transvenous ICD. The primary end point was the composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks; the noninferiority margin for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio (subcutaneous ICD vs. transvenous ICD) was 1.45. A superiority analysis was prespecified if noninferiority was established. Secondary end points included death and appropriate shocks. RESULTS: A total of 849 patients (426 in the subcutaneous ICD group and 423 in the transvenous ICD group) were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 49.1 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 68 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 patients in the transvenous ICD group (48-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence, 15.1% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.39; P = 0.01 for noninferiority; P = 0.95 for superiority). Device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 44 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.09); inappropriate shocks occurred in 41 and 29 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.30). Death occurred in 83 patients in the subcutaneous ICD group and in 68 in the transvenous ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.70); appropriate shocks occurred in 83 and 57 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.12). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an indication for an ICD but no indication for pacing, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PRAETORIAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01296022.).

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

Hybrid Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation after Failed Percutaneous Endocardial and Epicardial Ablation.

INTRODUCTION: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) after percutaneous ablation is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. We assessed the feasibility of open chest extracorporeal circulation (ECC)-supported 3D multielectrode mapping and targeted VT substrate ablation in patients with previously failed percutaneous endocardial and epicardial VT ablations. METHODS: In patients with previously failed percutaneous endocardial and epicardial VT ablations and a high risk of hemodynamic collapse during the procedure, open chest ECC-supported mapping and ablation were performed in a hybrid EP lab setting. Electro-anatomic maps (3D) were acquired during sinus rhythm and VT using a multielectrode mapping catheter (HD grid; Abbott or Pentaray, Biosense Webster). Irrigated radiofrequency ablations of all inducible VT were performed with a contact force ablation catheter. RESULTS: Hybrid VT ablation was performed in 5 patients with structural heart disease (i.e., 3 with previous old myocardial infarction and 2 with nonischemic cardiomy-opathy) and recurrent VT. Acute procedural success was achieved in all patients. Four patients were successfully weaned off the ECC. In 1 patient with a severely reduced LVEF (16%), damage to the venous graft occurred after sternotomy and that patient died after 1 month. Four patients (80%) remained VT free after a median follow-up of 6 (IQR 4-10) months. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with previously failed percutaneous endocardial and epicardial VT ablations, open chest ECC-supported multielectrode epicardial mapping revealed a VT substrate in all of the patients, and targeted epicardial ablation abolished VT substrate in these patients.

Elimination of Benign Ventricular Premature Beats or Ventricular Tachycardia with Catheter Ablation versus Two Different Optimal Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment Regimens (Sotalol or Verapamil/Flecainide).

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VA), including premature beats (VPB) and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) are commonly encountered arrhythmias. Although these VA are usually benign, their treatment can be a challenge to primary and secondary health care providers. Mainstay treatment is comprised of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) and, in case of drug intolerance or failure, patients are referred for catheter ablation to tertiary health care centers. These patients require extensive medical attention and drug regimens usually have disappointing results. A direct comparison between the efficacy of the most potent AAD and primary catheter ablation in these patients is lacking. The ECTOPIA trial will evaluate the efficacy of 2 pharmacological strategies and 1 interventional approach to: suppress the VA burden, improve the quality of life (QoL), and safety. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that flecainide/verapamil combination and catheter ablation are both superior to sotalol in suppressing VA in patients with symptomatic idiopathic VA. STUDY DESIGN: The Elimination of Ventricular Premature Beats with Catheter Ablation versus Optimal Antiarrhythmic Drug Treatment (ECTOPIA) trial is a randomized, multicenter, prospective clinical trial to compare the efficacy of catheter ablation versus optimal AAD treatment with sotalol or flecainide/verapamil. One hundred eighty patients with frequent symptomatic VA in the absence of structural heart disease or underlying cardiac ischemia who are eligible for catheter ablation with an identifiable monomorphic VA origin with a burden ≥5% on 24-h ambulatory rhythm monitoring will be included. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion. The primary endpoint is defined as >80% reduction of the VA burden on 24-h ambulatory Holter monitoring. After reaching the primary endpoint, patients randomized to one of the 2 AAD arms will undergo a cross-over to the other AAD treatment arm to explore differences in drug efficacy and QoL in individual patients. Due to the use of different AAD (with and without ß-blocking characteristics) we will be able to explore the influence of alterations in sympathetic tone on VA burden reduction in different subgroups. Finally, this study will assess the safety of treatment with 2 different AAD and ablation of VA.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial: A prospective randomized CompArative trial of SubcutanEous ImplanTable CardiOverter-DefibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation testing.

In transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) implants, routine defibrillation testing (DFT) does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death but patients are exposed to the risk of complications related to DFT. The conversion rate of DFT in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is high and first shock efficacy is similar to TV-ICD efficacy rates. STUDY DESIGN: The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective two-arm trial designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of omitting DFT in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation in which the S-ICD system components are optimally positioned. Positioning of the S-ICD will be assessed with the PRAETORIAN score. The PRAETORIAN score is developed to systematically evaluate implant position of the S-ICD system components which determine the defibrillation threshold on post-operative chest X-ray. A total of 965 patients, scheduled to undergo a de novo S-ICD implantation without contra-indications for either DFT strategy, will be randomized to either standard of care S-ICD implantation with DFT, or S-ICD implantation without DFT but with evaluation of the implant position using the PRAETORIAN score. The study is powered to claim non-inferiority of S-ICD implantation without DFT in de novo S-ICD patients in respect to the primary endpoint of first shock efficacy in spontaneous arrhythmia episodes. Patients with a high PRAETORIAN score (≥90) in the interventional arm of this study will undergo DFT according to the same DFT protocol as in the control arm. CONCLUSION: The PRAETORIAN-DFT trial is a randomized trial that aims to gain scientific evidence to safely omit a routine DFT after S-ICD implantation in patients with correct device positioning.

Mechanical power sheath mediated recanalization and lead implantation in patients with venous occlusion: Technique and results.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic venous occlusion hampers lead revisions and upgrades in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). This can make cardiothoracic surgery, venoplasty, or contra-lateral implantation of leads with tunneling necessary. A technique using venous recanalization may be a preferred alternative. We assessed the efficacy and safety of this new technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2009 to 2016, all consecutive patients planned for lead revision or upgrade with known chronic venous occlusion were studied. All patients underwent extraction of an existing malfunctional or functional CIED lead with the Cook Evolution mechanical power sheath. By using the lumen of the sheath, endovascular access to the heart was obtained for new leads. Forty-two patients (107 leads, 2.6 ± 1.1) were included. The indication for this procedure was replacement of malfunctional leads (n = 35, 83%) or device upgrade (n = 7, 17%). In total, 77 leads were extracted (30 leads stayed in situ) with a mean age at time of extraction of 8.4 years. Because of damage to bystander leads during extraction, two additional leads (one RA lead, one LV lead) were extracted. Clinical success was achieved in 41 patients (97%) and complete success in 39 patients (93%). There were two minor complications (two pocket hematomas, managed conservatively) and one major complication (tamponade, needing thoracotomy). Mean procedure time was 3.0 hours (median, 2.0; range, 1:28-5:35 hours) with a mean fluoroscopy time of 14.9 ± 12.5 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The technique of Evolution-mediated recanalization in case of lead revisions or upgrades is feasible with an acceptable safety profile and high efficacy.

Preliminary findings on the safety of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in cardiac pacemaker patients.

INTRODUCTION: Modern pacemakers are designed to allow patients to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) under a set of specific conditions. Aim of this study is to provide confirmatory evidence of safety and performance of a new pacing system (ImageReady™, Boston Scientific) in patients undergoing 1.5 and 3T MRI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm studies were designed to provide confirmatory data of no impact of MRI on device function, lead parameters, and patient conditions in subjects implanted with the system undergoing a clinically non-indicated 1.5T and 3T MRI, respectively. Device measurements were done within 1 hour before and after the scan and at 1 month follow-up. Thirty-two subjects underwent MRI visit (17 subjects with 1.5T MRI and 15 subjects with 3T MRI). There were no unanticipated adverse effects related to the pacemaker. Device measurements taken pre- and post-MRI scan did not show any clinical relevant change that could indicate an effect of the MRI on the device or at the lead-tissue interface (RV threshold change: 0.01 ± 0.13 V, P = 0.60; RA threshold change: 0.01 ± 0.11 V, P = 0.53; R wave change: -0.44 ± 1.73 mV, P = 0.36; R wave change: 0.12 ± 1.67 mV, P = 0.73), with data confirmed at 1-month follow-up visit. CONCLUSION: The study documented safety of the pacing system in the 1.5T and 3T MRI environment by showing no adverse events related to device or MRI scan. Additional data are required to cover the more complex scenarios involving different diagnostic needs, conditions of use, clinical conditions, and new emerging technologies.

Success and complication rates of lead extraction with the first- vs. the second-generation Evolution mechanical sheath.

AIMS: The Evolution sheath (Cook Medical, USA) is a power sheath frequently used for chronic lead extraction. In 2013, a novel type (bidirectional) of Evolution sheath (the RL type) was introduced. We evaluated differences in success and complication rates of the two types. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2009 to 2015, all lead extractions requiring the use of an Evolution sheath were prospectively examined. According to the current guidelines, complete procedural success was defined as the removal of all targeted lead materials. Clinical success was the retention of a small portion of the lead, and failure was the inability to achieve either complete procedural or clinical success or the development of any permanently disabling complication. The Evolution sheath was used to extract 149 leads in 103 patients. The first 56 leads were extracted with the original unidirectional sheath, and 93 leads were extracted with the novel bidirectional R/L type. The median age of the lead at the time of extraction was 6.8 vs. 9.1 years (P = 0.007). Complete procedural success was higher for the Evolution R/L (80.0 vs. 98%, P = 0.0004). Clinical success rate was 98 vs. 99%. There were no major complications and 6 (12.0%) vs. 2 (3.8%) minor complications (P = 0.153). We did not observe changes in success rates or complications over time, meaning that the difference cannot be explained by learning curve. CONCLUSION: Use of the novel Evolution R/L sheath vs. the original Evolution sheath was associated with significant higher complete success rates, without major complications and with a trend towards the reduction of minor complications.

Bifocal left ventricular stimulation or the optimal left ventricular stimulation site in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a pressure-volume loop study.

AIMS: Several implantation strategies have been proposed to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), including bifocal left ventricular (LV) stimulation and optimal single-LV lead placement. This study aimed to compare these two strategies during invasive pressure-volume (PV) loop measurements. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-three patients eligible for CRT were included [21 (64%) men, 20 (61%) ischaemic aetiology, QRS 155 ± 23 ms], and underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive PV loop measurements. Left ventricular pump function was characterized by stroke work (SW) and dP/dtmax (5.1 ± 3.4 L mmHg and 856 ± 190 mmHg/s, respectively). Haemodynamic response was assessed during stimulation at single-LV sites and during bifocal LV [anterolateral and posterolateral (PL)] stimulation. Response during bifocal LV stimulation was not significantly higher compared with standard PL pacing (SW; ß = 9.4 ± 5.4, P = 0.080; dP/dtmax, ß = 0.2 ± 1.9, P = 0.922). However, mean pump function improvement was significantly higher during stimulation at the optimal LV site compared with bifocal LV stimulation (SW; ß = 12.7 ± 5.1, P = 0.012; dP/dtmax, ß = 3.3 ± 1.2, P = 0.020). Myocardial tissue properties were assessed by CMR tissue tagging. Mechanical activation at the optimal LV site was significantly more delayed compared with the worst LV site (431 ± 93 ms vs. 326 ± 127 ms; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Stimulation at the optimal LV site showed a significantly higher pump function improvement compared with bifocal LV stimulation. Mechanical activation at the optimal LV site was significantly more delayed compared with the non-optimal LV site. In general, these results suggest that implantation of a second LV lead yields no additional benefit over implantation of one optimally placed LV lead. However, a bifocal approach might be beneficial in the individual patient.

Lead extractions: the Zwolle experience with the Evolution mechanical sheath.

AIMS: The Evolution sheath (Cook, USA) is a power sheath with a cutting screw tip operated by mechanical rotation. It has been reported to be an effective tool for chronic lead extraction. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of this system. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 2009 to 2014, all lead extractions requiring the use of an Evolution sheath were prospectively examined. In 77 patients, 111 leads were extracted. The first 57 leads were extracted with the original unidirectional sheath, and since 2013, 54 leads were extracted with the bidirectional R/L type. According to the current guidelines, complete procedural success was defined as the removal of all targeted lead material. Clinical success was the retention of a small portion of the lead, and failure was the inability to achieve either complete procedural or clinical success or the development of any permanently disabling complication. The Evolution sheath was used to extract 111 leads in 77 patients. The median age of the lead at time of extraction was 8.0 years (median 6.9, interquartile range 6.4, minimum: 0.6 and maximum: 34.4), with a clinical success rate of 98% and a complete procedural success of 88%. Complete procedural success was higher for the R/L type Evolution sheath (96 vs. 80%, P = 0.006). There were 21 (19%) implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads, 22 (20%) right ventricular pacing leads, 60 (54%) right atrial leads, and 8 (7%) left ventricular leads. There were no major complications and six (8%) minor complications. There was no need for the usage of a femoral tool or snares. CONCLUSION: Use of Evolution for lead extractions seems to be safe and effective, with a high clinical success rate.

Ablation of focal atrial tachycardia from the non-coronary aortic cusp: case series and review of the literature.

AIMS: Focal atrial tachycardia successfully ablated from the non-coronary cusp (NCC) is rare. Our aim was to describe the characteristics of mapping and ablation therapy of NCC focal atrial tachycardias and to provide a comprehensive review of the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seven patients (age 40 ± 9 years) with symptomatic, drug-refractory atrial tachycardia were referred for electrophysiological study. Extensive right and left atrial mapping revealed atrial tachycardia near His in all patients but either failed to identify a successful ablation site or radiofrequency applications only resulted in temporary termination of the tachycardia. Mapping and ablation of the NCC were performed retrogradely via the right femoral artery. Mapping of the NCC demonstrated earliest atrial activation during atrial tachycardia 38 ± 14 ms (ranging 17-56 ms) before the onset of the P-wave. Earliest atrial activation in the NCC was earlier than earliest activation in the right atrium and left atrium in all patients. The P-wave morphology was predominantly negative in the inferior leads and biphasic in leads V1 and V2. The tachycardia was successfully terminated by radiofrequency application in 10 ± 6 s (2-16 s), without complications. All patients were free of symptoms during a follow-up of 19 ± 9 months. Literature search revealed 18 reports (91 patients) describing NCC focal atrial tachycardia, with 99% long-term ablation success with a 1% complication rate. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic focal atrial tachycardia near His may originate from the NCC and can be treated safely and effectively with radiofrequency ablation.

Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy as assessed by time-based speckle tracking imaging.

BACKGROUND: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is still difficult to predict with previously investigated dyssynchrony indices. The predictive value of speckle tracking strain analysis has not been fully delineated yet. The objective of this study was to assess the predictive value of longitudinal strain (LS) and radial strain (RS) speckle tracking measurements on echocardiographic and clinical response to CRT. METHODS: A total of 138 consecutive patients with functional class II-IV heart failure who underwent CRT were studied. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and during follow-up. Six different time-based left ventricular (LV)-dyssynchrony indices were measured with LS and RS. Echocardiographic response to CRT was defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume ≥15% and clinical response as survival without heart failure hospitalization. Multivariable analyses were performed to adjust for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Echocardiographic and clinical follow-up was 22 ± 8 and 42 ± 8 months, respectively. Ninety-six patients (70%) were classified as echocardiographic responders and 114 patients (83%) survived without heart failure hospitalization. QRS duration and nonischemic etiology predicted echocardiographic response to CRT. None of the speckle tracking indices was different between echocardiographic responders and nonresponders to CRT. Regarding clinical response, only maximal delay between six segments in four-chamber view measured with LS was different between responders and nonresponders, with 154-ms delay as the optimal cut-off value. Neither stratified analyses in patients with sinus rhythm nor multivariable analyses did change these findings. CONCLUSION: Of all time-based measured speckle tracking indices, only maximal delay between six segments in four-chamber view as assessed with LS was associated with clinical response to CRT.

Scar tissue-guided left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy: an acute pressure-volume loop study.

BACKGROUND: Response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is hampered by the extent and location of left ventricular (LV) scar tissue. It is commonly advised to avoid scar tissue while placing the LV lead. However, whether individual patients benefit from this strategy remains unclear. METHODS: Thirty-two CRT candidates with ischemic cardiomyopathy were enrolled from 2 successive clinical trials (TBS and E-pot study). Magnetic resonance imaging with late contrast enhancement was performed to assess location, degree and transmurality of LV scar tissue. Patients underwent invasive pressure-volume loop measurements to assess acute LV pump function changes during pacing at posterolateral (PL) and anterolateral LV sites. RESULTS: In the study population (26 [81%] men, ejection fraction [EF] 22% ± 8%, QRS 149 ± 20 milliseconds), baseline mean stroke work (SW) and dP/dtmax were 4.4 ± 2.2 L∙mmHg and 849 ± 212 mmHg/s, respectively. The extent of scar tissue was inversely related to the acute increase in SW during pacing (R = -0.53, P = .002). Stimulating PL scar tissue resulted in deterioration of pump function (∆SW -17% ± 17%, P = .018), whereas pacing PL viable tissue led to an increase in pump function (∆SW +62% ± 51%, P < .001). Switching from pacing at the location of scar tissue, irrespective of the scar location, to viable tissue showed a significant increase in SW (-8% ± 20% vs +20 ± 40, P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: The extent of LV scar tissue is inversely related to acute pump function improvement during CRT. Pacing at the location of (transmural) scar tissue at any site of the LV will generally deteriorate LV pump function. Placing the LV lead over viable myocardium significantly improves pump function as compared with pacing at the location of scar tissue in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Mechanical and electrical dysfunction of Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads.

AIM: Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are prone to failure by conductor externalization and/or electrical dysfunction. The objectives of this study were to determine the predictors of the Riata lead failure, to assess the association of conductor externalization and electrical lead failure, and to analyse the rates of lead failure over time. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 273 implanted Riata leads in our centre, 197 were investigated according to the Riata recall protocol, including electrical measurements by device interrogation and annually fluoroscopy. During a mean follow-up period of 5.6 ± 1.4 years, Riata lead failure was 18.8% (37 of 197) for externalization and 17.3% (34 of 197) for electrical lead failure. Electrical lead failure was correlated with time after implant. Externalization and electrical dysfunction co-existed in only 6 of 197 (3%) patients and were not related (Phi's coefficient -0.013, P = 0.85). During the second annual screening, 145 (73.6%) patients underwent fluoroscopy and 9 patients had novel externalizations resulting in an incidence of 6.72%/patient/year which was higher than expected based on cross-sectional analysis. Besides, there was a significant increase in the extent of externalization (17.65 ± 11.14 mm vs. 21.77 ± 11.95 mm, P = 0.001). In multivariate Cox regression analysis, non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and impaired LVEF were independent predictors of externalization, and 7 Fr lead was a predictor of electrical lead failure. CONCLUSION: Riata leads show progressive and high externalization rates without correlation between externalization and electrical lead failure. Non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and impaired LVEF are independent predictors of structural lead failure in cross-sectional analysis, whereas 7 Fr lead is a predictor of electrical lead failure.

Impact of a Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion on the Incidence of Appropriate Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Shocks and Mortality: A Substudy of the Dutch Outcome in ICD Therapy (DO-IT)) Registry.

BACKGROUND: Chronic total coronary occlusions (CTO) substantially increase the risk for sudden cardiac death. Among patients with chronic ischemic heart disease at risk for sudden cardiac death, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the favored therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. This study sought to investigate the impact of CTOs on the risk for appropriate ICD shocks and mortality within a nationwide prospective cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a subanalysis of the nationwide Dutch-Outcome in ICD Therapy (DO-IT) registry of primary prevention ICD recipients in The Netherlands between September 2014 and June 2016 (n=1442). We identified patients with chronic ischemic heart disease (n=663) and assessed available coronary angiograms for CTO presence (n=415). Patients with revascularized CTOs were excluded (n=79). The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shocks. Clinical follow-up was conducted for at least 2 years. A total of 336 patients were included, with an average age of 67±9 years, and 20.5% was female (n=69). An unrevascularized CTO was identified in 110 patients (32.7%). During a median follow-up period of 27 months (interquartile range, 24-32), the primary end point occurred in 21.1% of patients with CTO (n=23) compared with 11.9% in patients without CTO (n=27; P=0.034). Corrected for baseline characteristics including left ventricular ejection fraction, and the presence of a CTO was an independent predictor for the primary end point (hazard ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.03-3.22]; P=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Within this nationwide prospective registry of primary prevention ICD recipients, the presence of an unrevascularized CTO was an independent predictor for the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shocks.

On-screen image-guided lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Feasibility and outcome in a multicenter setting.

Background: Image guidance to assist left ventricular (LV) lead placement may improve outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but previous approaches and results varied greatly, and multicenter feasibility is lacking altogether. Objective: We sought to investigate the multicenter feasibility of image guidance for periprocedural assistance of LV lead placement for CRT. Methods: In 30 patients from 3 hospitals, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 3 months prior to CRT to identify myocardial scar and late mechanical activation (LMA). LMA was determined using radial strain, plotted over time. Segments without scar but clear LMA were classified as optimal for LV lead placement, according to an accurate 36-segment model of the whole heart. LV leads were navigated using image overlay with periprocedural fluoroscopy. After 6 months, volumetric response and super-response were defined as ≥15% or ≥30% reduction in LV end-systolic volume, respectively. Results: Periprocedural image guidance was successfully performed in all CRT patients (age 66 ± 10 years; 59% men, 62% with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 69% with left bundle branch block). LV leads were placed as follows: within (14%), adjacent (62%), or remote (24%) from the predefined target. According to the conventional 18-segment model, a remote position occurred only once (3%). On average, 86% of patients demonstrated a volumetric response (mean LV end-systolic volume reduction 36 ± 29%), and 66% of all patients were super-responders. Conclusion: On-screen image guidance for LV lead placement in CRT was feasible in a multicenter setting. Efficacy will be further investigated in the randomized controlled ADVISE (Advanced Image Supported Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial (NCT05053568).

Five-year safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers in a Dutch cohort.

BACKGROUND: Adequate real-world safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been demonstrated up to 3 years after implantation. Longer-term data are warranted to assess the net clinical benefit of leadless pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of LP therapy in a real-world cohort. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all consecutive patients with a first LP implantation from December 21, 2012, to December 13, 2016, in 6 Dutch high-volume centers were included. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of major procedure- or device-related complications (ie, requiring surgery) at 5-year follow-up. Analyses were performed with and without Nanostim battery advisory-related complications. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients with a pacing capture threshold ≤2.0 V at implantation and without ≥1.5-V increase at the last follow-up visit. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients were included (mean age 79 ± 9 years), 93 (52%) with a Nanostim and 86 (48%) with a Micra VR LP. Mean follow-up duration was 44 ± 26 months. Forty-one major complications occurred, of which 7 were not advisory related. The 5-year major complication rate was 4% without advisory-related complications and 27% including advisory-related complications. No advisory-related major complications occurred a median 10 days (range 0-88 days) postimplantation. The pacing capture threshold was low in 163 of 167 patients (98%) and stable in 157 of 160 (98%). CONCLUSION: The long-term major complication rate without advisory-related complications was low with LPs. No complications occurred after the acute phase and no infections occurred, which may be a specific benefit of LPs. The performance was adequate with a stable pacing capture threshold.

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN trial: a Prospective, RAndomizEd comparison of subcuTaneOus and tRansvenous ImplANtable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are widely used to prevent fatal outcomes associated with life-threatening arrhythmic episodes in a variety of cardiac diseases. These ICDs rely on transvenous leads for cardiac sensing and defibrillation. A new entirely subcutaneous ICD overcomes problems associated with transvenous leads. However, the role of the subcutaneous ICD as an adjunctive or primary therapy in patients at risk for sudden cardiac death is unclear. STUDY DESIGN: The PRAETORIAN trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter, prospective 2-arm trial that outlines the advantages and disadvantages of the subcutaneous ICD. Patients with a class I or IIa indication for ICD therapy without an indication for bradypacing or tachypacing are included. A total of 700 patients are randomized to either the subcutaneous or transvenous ICD (1:1). The study is powered to claim noninferiority of the subcutaneous ICD with respect to the composite primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and ICD-related complications. After noninferiority is established, statistical analysis is done for potential superiority. Secondary endpoint comparisons of shock efficacy and patient mortality are also made. CONCLUSION: The PRAETORIAN trial is a randomized trial that aims to gain scientific evidence for the use of the subcutaneous ICD compared with the transvenous ICD in a population of patients with conventional ICD with respect to major ICD-related adverse events. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with trial ID NCT01296022.