Kutyifa, Valentina

AbstractIntroductionThe impact of mRNA‐based coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown.MethodsBIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID‐19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub‐analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID‐19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID‐19 vaccine and non‐vaccinated patients was also performed.ResultsFirst and second doses of the COVID‐19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID‐19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre‐ and postvaccination.ConclusionsThough we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED‐detected AAs following vaccination for COVID‐19 over a 3‐month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high‐risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.

Background Shock‐reduction implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator programming (SRP) was associated with fewer therapies and improved survival in randomized controlled trials, but real‐world studies investigating SRP and associated outcomes are limited. Methods and Results The BIOTRONIK CERTITUDE registry was linked with the Medicare database. We included all patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implanted between August 22, 2012 and September 30, 2021 in the United States. SRP was defined as programming to either a therapy rate cutoff ≥188 beats per minute or number of intervals to detection ≥30/40 for treatment. Among 6781 patients (mean 74±9 years; 27% women), 3393 (50%) had SRP. Older age, secondary prevention indication, and device implantation in the southern or western United States were associated with lower use of SRP. The cumulative incidence rate of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shocks was lower in the SRP group (5.1% shocks/patient year) compared with the non‐SRP group (7.2% shocks/patient year) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73–0.96]; P =0.005). Over a median follow‐up of 2.9 years, 739 deaths occurred in the SRP group and 822 deaths occurred in the non‐SRP group (adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88–1.07]; P =0.569). SRP was associated with a lower all‐cause mortality among patients without ischemic heart disease compared with patients with ischemic heart disease (adjusted HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48–0.87] versus adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92–1.14]; P interaction =0.004). Conclusions Adoption of SRP is low in real‐world clinical practice. Age, clinical variables, and geographic factors are associated with use of SRP. In this study, SRP‐associated decrease in mortality was limited to patients without ischemic heart disease.

AbstractCardiac 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.

AbstractAimsIntraoperative defibrillation testing (DT) during implant or replacement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been a matter of debate for many years. This debate was put to rest by the Simple and Nordic ICD trials, and the practice of testing during new implantations has essentially been almost abandoned. Old registries demonstrated an increased incidence of significant findings in DT during replacements. The aim of the present study was to evaluate frequency of significant findings and safety of DT in subjects undergoing device replacement.Methods and resultsA prospective observational multi-centre study included consecutive patients undergoing ICD generator replacement. The primary outcome was a failure to terminate induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a single shock 10 J below the maximal capacity of the device. Secondary outcomes included complications of DT. Patients were followed-up at 1- and 6-months post-procedure. A total of 92 patients were eligible, and consented to the study, of which 84 underwent DT during battery replacement. The median age was 68 years and 79.8% were males. Induction of VF was successful in 84 patients as was a successful conversion on the first attempt in all. There were no procedure-related complications. During follow up one patient had two appropriate ICD shock events. In four patients, ICD programming was changed. None suffered inappropriate shock. There was no evidence of lead malfunction. Two deaths occurred, none of which was related to arrhythmia.ConclusionThe present study found DT was not associated with complications in patients undergoing ICD generator replacement but produced no clinically important information.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Maurice Kahn Foundation via the Mayo- Sheba Collaboration Fund. Background The need for intraoperative defibrillation testing (DFT) during implant and/or replacement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been a matter of debate for many years. This debate was put to rest by the Simple and the Nordic ICD trials, and the practice of testing during new implantations has practically been nearly abandoned. Nevertheless, induction of VF for testing purposes (VFT) may still have an important role in selective populations at risk for defibrillation failure, who were not included in the SIMPLE and Nordic trials. One such population includes those who undergo device replacements. Old registries demonstrated an increased incidence of significant findings in VFT during replacements. In the present study, we sought to test this observation. Objectives Evaluate frequency of significant findings and the safety of VFT in subjects undergoing device replacement. Methods A prospective observational multi-center study of VFT included consecutive patients undergoing ICD generator replacement in 5 centers in Israel, Europe, and the US. All centers followed the same VFT protocol. The primary outcome was defined as failure to terminate induced VF with a single shock at 10 Joules below the maximal capacity of the device. Secondary outcomes included complications of VFT. Patients were followed-up at 1 month and 6 months post-procedure. Data collection included documentation of any peri-operative complications and clinical endpoints (occurrence of appropriate shock, inappropriate shocks, lead failure, need for re-intervention, and infection). Results A total of 92 patients were eligible, and consented for the study, of which 84 underwent DFT during battery replacement. The median age was 68 years and 79.8% were male subjects. Induction of VF was successful in all 84 patients as well as VFT with a successful conversion on first attempt. During follow up one patient had two appropriate ICD shock events. In four patients, the ICD programming was changed. None suffered an inappropriate shock. There was no evidence of lead malfunction. A total of two deaths occurred, none of which were related to the device. Conclusion The present study found VFT was not associated with complications in patients undergoing ICD/CRTD generator replacement but produced no clinically important information.

Background We aimed to provide personalized risk estimates for cardiac events (CEs) and life‐threatening events in women with either type 1 or type 2 long QT. Methods and Results The prognostic model was derived from the Rochester Long QT Syndrome Registry, comprising 767 women with type 1 long QT (n=404) and type 2 long QT (n=363) from age 15 through 60 years. The risk prediction model included the following variables: genotype/mutation location, QTc‐specific thresholds, history of syncope, and β‐blocker therapy. A model was developed with the end point of CEs (syncope, aborted cardiac arrest, or long QT syndrome–related sudden cardiac death), and was applied with the end point of life‐threatening events (aborted cardiac arrest, sudden cardiac death, or appropriate defibrillator shocks). External validation was performed with data from the Mayo Clinic Genetic Heart Rhythm Clinic (N=467; type 1 long QT [n=286] and type 2 long QT [n=181]). The cumulative follow‐up duration among the 767 enrolled women was 22 243 patient‐years, during which 323 patients (42%) experienced ≥1 CE. Based on genotype‐phenotype data, we identified 3 risk groups with 10‐year projected rates of CEs ranging from 15%, 29%, to 51%. The corresponding 10‐year projected rates of life‐threatening events were 2%, 5%, and 14%. C statistics for the prediction model for the 2 respective end points were 0.68 (95% CI 0.65–0.71) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.66–0.76). Corresponding C statistics for the model in the external validation Mayo Clinic cohort were 0.65 (95% CI 0.60–0.70) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.70–0.84). Conclusions This is the first risk prediction model that provides absolute risk estimates for CEs and life‐threatening events in women with type 1 or type 2 long QT based on personalized genotype‐phenotype data. The projected risk estimates can be used to guide female‐specific management in long QT syndrome.

Background: Insight into type 5 long QT syndrome (LQT5) has been limited to case reports and small family series. Improved understanding of the clinical phenotype and genetic features associated with rare KCNE1 variants implicated in LQT5 was sought through an international multicenter collaboration. Methods: Patients with either presumed autosomal dominant LQT5 (N = 229) or the recessive Type 2 Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome (N = 19) were enrolled from 22 genetic arrhythmia clinics and 4 registries from 9 countries. KCNE1 variants were evaluated for ECG penetrance (defined as QTc >460 ms on presenting ECG) and genotype-phenotype segregation. Multivariable Cox regression was used to compare the associations between clinical and genetic variables with a composite primary outcome of definite arrhythmic events, including appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, aborted cardiac arrest, and sudden cardiac death. Results: A total of 32 distinct KCNE1 rare variants were identified in 89 probands and 140 genotype positive family members with presumed LQT5 and an additional 19 Type 2 Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome patients. Among presumed LQT5 patients, the mean QTc on presenting ECG was significantly longer in probands (476.9±38.6 ms) compared with genotype positive family members (441.8±30.9 ms, P <0.001). ECG penetrance for heterozygous genotype positive family members was 20.7% (29/140). A definite arrhythmic event was experienced in 16.9% (15/89) of heterozygous probands in comparison with 1.4% (2/140) of family members (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 11.6 [95% CI, 2.6–52.2]; P =0.001). Event incidence did not differ significantly for Type 2 Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome patients relative to the overall heterozygous cohort (10.5% [2/19]; HR 1.7 [95% CI, 0.3–10.8], P =0.590). The cumulative prevalence of the 32 KCNE1 variants in the Genome Aggregation Database, which is a human database of exome and genome sequencing data from now over 140 000 individuals, was 238-fold greater than the anticipated prevalence of all LQT5 combined (0.238% vs 0.001%). Conclusions: The present study suggests that putative/confirmed loss-of-function KCNE1 variants predispose to QT prolongation, however, the low ECG penetrance observed suggests they do not manifest clinically in the majority of individuals, aligning with the mild phenotype observed for Type 2 Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome patients.