Scott, Luis R.

Abstract Aims Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Although lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is known to be a well-established risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, its role in the development of AF, independent of this association, remains unclear. Methods and results Adult patients from the three Mayo Clinic sites with a baseline Lp(a) and without AF history were included. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their Lp(a) levels: high Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) and low Lp(a) (<50 mg/dL). Survival probabilities free from incident AF were compared between Lp(a) groups, during a follow-up period up to 15 years, using the Kaplan–Meier curve and the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was also conducted. A total of 75 376 patients were included (median age: 55 years, 59% males), with a median follow-up duration of 8.8 (inter-quartile range: 3.4, 14.8) years. Incident AF was detected in 5738 (7.6%) patients. Survival probability free from incident AF was significantly lower in patients with elevated Lp(a) (86%) compared with those with low Lp(a) (88%, log-rank P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis adjusted for potential risk factors of AF showed a statistically significant association of elevated Lp(a) with an 11% increase in AF risk (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.05–1.18). Conclusion Our study suggests that elevated Lp(a) (≥50 mg/dL) is an independent risk factor for incident AF. Future prospective studies are warranted to validate our results and to test if reducing Lp(a) could mitigate the burden of AF.

Background: The optimal timing of pacemaker reimplantation following transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) remains unclear. Objective: Our study aimed to assess the impact of timing to pacemaker reimplantation after TLR of infected CIED on hospital outcomes. Method: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, patients aged ≥18 years who underwent new pacemaker implantation with percutaneous approach following TLR of infected CIED from 2017 to 2020 were identified. The study population was stratified based on the timing of pacemaker reimplantation following TLR of infected CIED: early (<5 days) vs delayed (≥5 days). Weighted-propensity-score matched conditional multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine the impact of the timing on various outcomes. Results: In our study, 469 (66.9%) patients received early device reimplantation, and 232 (33.1%) patients received delayed device reimplantation (≥5 days). Post-procedurally, patients in the delayed group had a higher risk of prolonged hospital stay (95% CI OR: 42.37 (6.36 – 282.11); p<0.01) and non-home discharge (95% CI OR: 2.00 (1.35 – 2.95), p<0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups in the early mortality, 30-day readmission, and procedural complications. Conclusion: Our study suggests that time-to-device reimplantation from TLR of infected CIED did not affect the overall short-term in-hospital outcomes. However, delayed device reimplantation was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay and non-home discharge.

AbstractIntroductionVentricular tachycardia storm or electrical storm (ES) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The factors contributing to ES and outcomes are less studied. The study aimed to determine the factors associated with ES and the probability of survival in patients undergoing LVAD in three tertiary centers over a span of 15 years.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2020. ES was defined as ≥3 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over a period of 24 h with no identifiable reversible cause. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 883 patients who underwent LVAD implantation were included in our study. ES occurred in 7% (n = 61) of patients with a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–297 days) following surgery. We found 57% of patients (n = 35) developed ES within 30 days, while 43% (n = 26) patients developed ES at a median of 545 (IQR 152–1032) days after surgery. Following ES, 26% of patients died within 1 year. Patients with ES had a significant association with a history of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks before the procedure. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.39–2.64, p < .001).ConclusionFollowing LVAD implantation, the rate of ES was 7% with majority of ES occurring within 30 days of LVAD. Risk factors for ES included pre‐implant history of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shock. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES.

Abstract Background Long‐term outcomes of sterile lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remain unclear. Methods We performed a retrospective study of a population residing in southeastern Minnesota with follow‐up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE of sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow‐up for at least 10 years or until their death were included. Results A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. Indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% ( n = 14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% ( n = 1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7 years. Moreover, 28.6% of patients in the LA cohort who required subsequent extraction did not proceed with the extraction, and among those who proceeded, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges (5.2% vs. 5.3%). There was no difference in 10‐year survival probability among the LA group and the TLE group ( p = .64). Conclusion An initial lead abandonment strategy was associated with more complicated subsequent extraction procedures compared to patients with an initial transvenous lead extraction strategy. However, there was no difference in 10‐year survival probability between both lead management approaches.

Abstract Aims Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cardiac amyloidosis has poor outcomes, and its assessment in all TAVR patients is costly and challenging. Electrocardiogram (ECG) artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that screen for CA may be useful to identify at-risk patients. Methods and results In this retrospective analysis of our institutional National Cardiovascular Disease Registry (NCDR)-TAVR database, patients undergoing TAVR between January 2012 and December 2018 were included. Pre-TAVR CA probability was analysed by an ECG AI predictive model, with &gt;50% risk defined as high probability for CA. Univariable and propensity score covariate adjustment analyses using Cox regression were performed to compare clinical outcomes between patients with high CA probability vs. those with low probability at 1-year follow-up after TAVR. Of 1426 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age 81.0 ± 8.5 years, 57.6% male), 349 (24.4%) had high CA probability on pre-procedure ECG. Only 17 (1.2%) had a clinical diagnosis of CA. After multivariable adjustment, high probability of CA by ECG AI algorithm was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.96, P = 0.046] and higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalizations] (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01–1.82, P = 0.041), driven primarily by heart failure hospitalizations (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13–2.20, P = 0.008) at 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in TIA/stroke or myocardial infarction. Conclusion Artificial intelligence applied to pre-TAVR ECGs identifies a subgroup at higher risk of clinical events. These targeted patients may benefit from further diagnostic evaluation for CA.

AbstractBackgroundThe real‐world data on the safety profile of transvenous lead extraction (TLE) for infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) among elderly patients is not well‐established. This study aimed to evaluate the hospital outcomes between patients of different age groups who underwent TLE for infected CIED.MethodUsing the Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent TLE for infected CIED between 2017 and 2020. We divided the patients into four groups: Group A. Young (<50 years), Group B. Young intermediate (50–69 years old), Group C. Older intermediate (70–79 years old), and Group D. Octogenarian (≥80 years old). We then analyzed the in‐hospital outcome and 30‐day readmission between these age groups.ResultsA total of 10,928 patients who were admitted for TLE of infected CIED were included in this study: 982 (9.0%) patients in group A, 4,234 (38.7%) patients in group B, 3,204 (29.3%) patients in group C and 2,508 (23.0%) of patients in group D. Our study demonstrated that the risk of early mortality increased with older age (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.19‐3.09, p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.51‐4.04, p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69‐4.72, p < .01). The risk of non‐home discharge also increased in elderly groups (Group B vs. Group A: OR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.52‐2.36; p < .01; Group C vs. Group A: OR: 2.82; 95% CI 2.24‐3.56; p < .01; Group D vs. Group A: OR: 4.16; 95% CI: 3.28‐5.28; p < .01). There was no significant difference in hospitalization length and 30‐day readmission between different age groups. Apart from a higher rate of open heart surgery in group A, the procedural complications were comparable between these age groups.ConclusionElderly patients had worse in‐hospital outcomes in early mortality and non‐home discharge following the TLE for infected CIED. There was no significant difference between elderly and non‐elderly groups in prolonged hospital stay and 30‐day readmission. Elderly patients did not have a higher risk of procedural complications.

Background: The outcomes of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation after transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are not well-established. Objective: This study sought to describe the outcomes of LP implantation following TLR of infected CIED. Method: We conducted a literature search using PubMed and Embase for a combination of term including leadless pacemaker implantation, transvenous lead extraction, transvenous lead removal , transvenous lead explant , infected cardiac implantable electronic device . The inclusion criterion was LP implantation after TLR of infected CIED. The exclusion criterion was TLR for non-infectious reason. Study end-points were procedural complications and LP infection. Result: Of 132 publications reviewed, 13 studies with a total of 253 patients (74 ± 14 years of age, 69% males) were included. Amongst, 56.8% had systemic CIED infection and 43.2% had isolated pocket infection. Staphylococcus Aureus was the most common causative organism in 33% of the reported patients. Of 253 patients included, 105 patients (41.5%) underwent concomitant LP implantation during TLR procedure, and 36 patients (14.2%) had transvenous pacing as a bridge from TLR to LP implantation. During the LP implantation, 1 patient (0.4%) had an intra-procedural complication requiring sternotomy. Post-LP implantation, 2 patients (0.8%) developed groin hematoma, 2 patients (0.8%) developed femoral arteriovenous fistula, and 1 patient (0.4%) developed pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis. During a mean follow-up of 11.3 ±10.6 months, 3 patients (1.2%) developed pacemaker syndrome, 1 patient (0.4%) developed acute on chronic heart failure exacerbation, and only 1 patient (0.4%) developed LP-related infection requiring LP retrieval. Conclusion: This study suggests that LP implant is feasible and safe post-removal of infected CIED with cumulative adverse events at 4% and a reinfection rate of 0.4%.