Friedman, Paul A.

BackgroundRecent studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of patients with pacemakers can be safely performed under careful monitoring, but they excluded patients with recently implanted devices. Patients with recent implants may be at a greater risk for complications during MRI imaging due to lack of lead and wound maturity.MethodsWe implemented a clinical protocol for MRI imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices, and prospectively collected data. For this study, we retrospectively analyzed two groups of patients: those with recently implanted (≤42 days) and nonrecently implanted (>42 days) leads at the time of MRI scanning. All devices were interrogated before and after scanning, and were reprogrammed during the scan as per protocol.ResultsOf the 219 scans (in 171 patients), eight included patients with recently implanted (range: 7–36 days) and 211 with only nonrecently implanted pacemaker leads. During the scan, there were no complications in the early or late group. In one patient imaged 79 days postimplant, frequent premature ventricular complexes were noted during the scan, requiring no action. No patient reported pain during or immediately after the procedure. No clinically significant changes in function were seen at subsequent follow up (average 104 days post‐MRI). Compared to patients with nonrecently implanted leads, there was no difference in any parameter between the two groups.ConclusionsWith a strong clinical indication and with careful monitoring, MRI imaging is feasible in patients with recently implanted pacemakers, although experience is limited.

BackgroundPatients with preexisting mild cognitive impairment or dementia may be at increased risk for developing cardiac device complications due to an impaired ability to follow postimplant care instructions. We sought to determine whether rates of infection, lead dislodgement, or appropriate or inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks are increased in this population.MethodsMedical charts of 561 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia who underwent pacemaker (PM) or ICD implantation between January 2002 and October 2009 at Mayo Clinic were identified. A total of 134 patients who were diagnosed with cognitive impairment or dementia before device implantation or within 1 year of implantation were compared with 134 matched controls. Information was collected on patient characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, ejection fraction, complications, device type, device therapy, and mortality. Device information was prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively reviewed.ResultsOf the 134 patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, 99 underwent PM implantation and 35 underwent ICD implantation. Compared to controls, there was no difference in patient characteristics, ejection fraction, or comorbidities except for diabetes, which was more prevalent in the cognitively impaired and demented group (18.7% vs 30.6%, P = 0.02). There was no difference in device therapy and complications (14.4% vs 5.8%, P = 0.268). However, there was a decreased survival in patients with cognitive impairment and dementia when compared to the control group (42% vs 67% at 5 years, P = 0.007).ConclusionPatients with cognitive impairment and standard device indications are not at increased risk for device complications and therapy but their survival is much lower than in matched controls. The cause of this lower survival is unknown but may be related to the underlying neurological disease. Presence of cognitive impairment should therefore be considered when contemplating implantation of a cardiac device.

BackgroundEndocardial ablation approaches targeting the retroatrial cardiac ganglia to treat atrial fibrillation (AF) have been proposed. However, the potential value using this approach is unknown. Disruption of the autonomic inputs with orthotropic heart transplant (OHT) provides a unique opportunity to study the effects of autonomic innervation on AF genesis and maintenance. We hypothesized that due to denervation, the risk of postoperative AF would be lower following OHT compared to surgical maze even though both groups get isolation of the pulmonary veins.Methods and ResultsWe reviewed 155 OHTs (mean age 52 ± 11 years, 72% males) and used 1:1 age‐, sex‐, and date‐of‐surgery‐matched two control groups from patients undergoing surgical maze or only coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Using conditional logistic regression we compared the odds of AF within 2 weeks following OHT versus controls. Postoperative AF occurred in 10/155 (6.5%) OHT patients. The conditional odds of postoperative AF were lower for OHT as compared to controls (vs maze: odds ratio [OR] 0.27 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13–0.57], vs CABG: OR 0.38 [0.17–0.81], P = 0.003; and on additional adjustment for left atrial enlargement, vs maze: OR 0.28 [0.13–0.60], vs CABG: OR 0.14 [0.04–0.47], P = 0.0009).ConclusionsRisk of postoperative AF is significantly lower with OHT as in comparison to surgical maze. As both surgeries entail isolation of the pulmonary veins but only OHT causes disruption of autonomic innervation, this observation supports a mechanistic role of autonomic nervous system in AF. The benefit of targeting the cardiac autonomic system to treat AF needs further investigation.

BackgroundOctogenarians (>80 years) have been underrepresented in clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).ObjectiveTo determine the benefit of CRT with or without a defibrillator in older elderly patients.MethodsWe retrospectively studied consecutive patients who received CRT at our institution from 2002 through 2008. New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and echocardiographic parameters were assessed before and after CRT. Thirty‐day complications after device implant were collected. Survival data were obtained from the national death and location database. Data were compared between those 80 years and younger and those older than 80 years.ResultsOf 728 patients identified, 90 (12.4%) were older than 80 years. After CRT, older and younger patients had similar improvements in NHYA class (P = 0.41), ejection fraction (P = 0.48), and mitral valve regurgitation (MR) severity (P = 0.42). In the older patients, defibrillator implantation was associated with comparable improvement in NYHA class, ejection fraction, and MR grade severity (P > 0.05), as in those without a defibrillator. Overall survival was worse in octogenarians than in the younger patients by Kaplan‐Meier estimates (P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed similar survival between the younger and older subjects (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.83–1.84; P = 0.31). The observed complication rate in all study subjects was 12.2%, with no difference between the two age groups.ConclusionOctogenarian patients who received CRT with or without a defibrillator for advanced heart failure had similar clinical benefits as younger patients. CRT should not be withheld from octogenarians meeting current selection guidelines.

Implanted cardiac devices, including pacemakers, defibrillators, and resynchronization devices, are known to develop thrombus on their intravascular leads. Patent foramen ovale (PFO) occurs in approximately one‐quarter of the adult population. It is unclear whether paradoxical cardioembolism and clinically relevant stroke occur in patients with implanted cardiac leads and PFO. We present a case series of four patients with cardioembolic stroke, presumed to arise from intravascular cardiac leads and associated PFO that required device closure of the PFO.(PACE 2013; 36:50–54)

Background— Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system efficacy is tested at implant by induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Defibrillation safety margin can be assessed without VF induction using upper limit of vulnerability methods, but these methods have required manual determination of T-wave timing. Methods and Results— To test the feasibility of an inductionless system of implant testing, a multicenter prospective study of an automated vulnerability safety margin system was conducted, which measured T-wave timing using an intracardiac electrogram during a ventricular pacing train. The system delivered up to 4 T-wave shocks of 18 J. Lack of VF induction by all 4 shocks was considered evidence of defibrillation adequacy. Patients subsequently underwent conventional defibrillation testing to meet a standard implant criterion. The 95% lower CI for defibrillation success at 25 J for noninduced patients was found using Bayesian statistics. Sixty patients were enrolled at 6 centers. Vulnerability testing and defibrillation success results were obtained from 54 patients. Vulnerability testing induced VF in 10 (19%) patients, of whom 2 required system revision. All patients not induced by vulnerability testing were successfully defibrillated twice at ≤25 J. The Bayesian credible interval was 97% to 100% for the population success rate of defibrillation at 25 J for automated vulnerability safety margin noninduced patients. Conclusions— An automated system identified all patients who failed conventional safety margin testing, while inducing only 19% of patients. Although limited by sample size, this study suggests the feasibility of automated implant testing that substantially reduces the need for VF induction in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.