Houmsse, Mahmoud

AbstractBackgroundSudden cardiac death (SCD) is common after orthotopic heart transplant (OHT). No clear guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in OHT patients at high risk for SCD currently exist.ObjectivesTo assess the safety, efficacy, and benefit of ICDs and resynchronization therapy post‐OHT. We also provide a systematic review of previous reports.MethodsA retrospective multicenter cohort study within the United States. Patients with ICD post‐OHT between 2000 and 2020 were identified.ResultsWe analyzed 16 patients from 4 centers. The mean standard‐deviation (SD) age was 43 (18) years at OHT and 51 (20) years at ICD implantation. The mean (SD) duration from OHT to ICD implantation was 9 (5) years. The mean (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 35% (17%). There were 2 (13%) postprocedural complications: 1 hematoma and 1 death. Mean (SD) follow‐up was 24 (23) months. Survival rate was 63% (10/16) at 1 year and 56% (9/16) at 2 years, with 6/7 of those who died having LVEF < 35% at the time of the ICD implantation. Patients were more likely to receive appropriate therapy if their ICD was implanted for secondary (5/8) rather than primary (0/8) prevention (p = .007). Of those who did, 4 patients survived to 30 days post‐ICD therapy. Severe CAV was not associated with the rate of appropriate therapy.ConclusionsBeneficial outcomes were observed when ICDs were implanted for secondary prevention only, and in patients with higher baseline LVEF. We also observed benefits with resynchronization therapy.

AbstractBackgroundThe leadless Micra transcatheter‐pacing system (Micra‐TPS) is implanted via a femoral approach using a 27‐French introducer sheath. The Micra Transcutaneous Pacing Study excluded patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) filters.ObjectiveTo examine the feasibility and safety of Micra‐TPS implantation through an IVC filter.MethodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients with an IVC filter who underwent a Micra‐TPS implantation. Data for clinical and IVC filter characteristics, preprocedure imaging, and procedural interventions were collected. The primary outcome was a successful leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation via a femoral approach in the presence of an IVC filter. Periprocedural and delayed clinical complications were also evaluated.ResultsOf the 1528 Micra‐TPS implants attempted, 23 patients (1.5%) had IVC filters. The majority (69.6%) of IVC filters were permanent. Six (26.1%) patients underwent preprocedural imaging to assess for filter patency. One patient's filter was retrieved before LP implantation. The primary outcome was achieved in 21 of 22 patients (95.5%) with an existing IVC filter. An occluded IVC precluded LP implantation in one patient. Difficulty advancing the stiff guidewire or the 27‐Fr sheath was encountered in five patients. These cases required repositioning of the wire (n = 2), gradual sheath upsizing (n = 2), or balloon dilation of the filter (n = 1). Postprocedure fluoroscopy revealed intact filters in all cases. During a median 6‐month follow‐up, there were no clinical complications related to the filter or the Micra‐TPS.ConclusionThis multicenter experience demonstrates the feasibility and safety of Micra‐TPS implantation via an IVC filter without acute procedural or delayed clinical complications.

AbstractBackgroundAn internal risk stratification algorithm was developed to decrease the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) during lead extractions (LEs).ObjectiveTo report upon the impact of a risk stratification algorithm (RISE [RIsk Stratification prior to lead Extraction] protocol) on outcomes of LEs in a high‐volume center.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively maintained LEs database was performed to identify features associated with MACEs. On the basis of the retrospective data, the RISE protocol differentiated LEs procedures into “High” and “Low” risk for occurrence of MACEs. High‐risk LEs included dual‐coil defibrillator lead (≥3 years), pacemaker and single‐coil lead (≥5 years), and any StarFix coronary sinus lead. During the prospective evaluation of the RISE protocol, “High‐risk” LEs were performed in an operating room (OR) or hybrid laboratory with the cardiac anesthesiologist, OR nursing team, perfusionist in the room, and a cardiac surgeon on the premises. “Low‐risk” LEs were performed in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory with anesthesia provided by EP nursing team. The preintervention (pre‐RISE) and postintervention (post‐RISE) group spanned 19 and 40 months and consisted of 449 (632 leads) and 751 patients (1055 leads), respectively. The primary outcome of MACEs in the two groups was compared.ResultsProtocol compliance was 100%. The primary outcome of MACEs occurred in 15 patients (3.34%) before and 12 (1.6%) after implementation of the RISE protocol (P = .04).ConclusionRISE identified a low‐risk group where minimal resources are needed and allowed for rapid intervention in the high‐risk group that reduced the consequences of MACEs.