Liu, Michael B.

ABSTRACT Patients requiring permanent pacing after tricuspid valve intervention present challenges due to the need to cross tricuspid valve prostheses. We report three cases of successful dual coronary sinus (CS) lead implantation for biventricular pacing following a range of tricuspid interventions—surgical tricuspid annuloplasty, transcatheter edge‐to‐edge repair, and transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement. The approach avoided tricuspid valve traversal, was technically feasible and resulted in satisfactory pacing performance without procedural complications. Dual CS lead configurations were individualized based on CS anatomy and pacing characteristics. The degree of QRS narrowing achieved varied according to lead location and ventricular activation patterns, highlighting the importance of individualized lead placement strategies and device programming. Dual CS lead pacing may represent a viable alternative for biventricular pacing in selected patients with prior tricuspid valve interventions. Larger studies are needed to evaluate long‐term outcomes and define the optimal role of this approach among available pacing strategies in this patient population.

Background: AF in the setting of cardiac amyloidosis is associated with a high risk of TEs, irrespective of CHA2DS2-VASc score. While warfarin has been the traditional anticoagulant, DOACs offer a promising alternative, but their safety in this population remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of thromboembolic events (TEs), including stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major bleeding events in patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA) and atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with either warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Additionally, we aimed to explore whether DOACs are at least as effective as warfarin in protecting against TEs in this population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 422 patients with confirmed CA and AF from Mayo Clinic, with a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Data on anticoagulation therapy, baseline characteristics, and outcomes (TEs and bleeding) were collected. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests, t-tests, and Cox regression to assess the relationship between anticoagulation and TE. Results: Among 422 patients, 21 experienced a TE. The annual event rate was 0.83% for warfarin and 0.67% for DOACs, with no significant difference (HR 0.66, CI 0.22–2.01, p = 0.5). Patients with anticoagulation interruptions > 5 days had increased TE risk (HR 3.19, CI 0.97–10.5, p = 0.056). The bleeding rate was 9.9% over 4.3 years (2.33% per year), with no significant differences between anticoagulants. Conclusions: Both warfarin and DOACs have similar, low risks of TEs in CA and AF patients. However, anticoagulation interruptions were associated with increased TE risk, emphasizing the challenges in managing anticoagulation in this population.

AbstractObjectivesWe aimed to investigate the outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation in athletes.MethodsWe retrospectively identified endurance athletes who underwent catheter ablation at our institution (2004–2018). Endurance athletes were defined as participating in competitive athletics for at least 1500 lifetime hours in sports at the IB or IIA Bethesda classification or higher. Primary endpoints were freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 12, 24, and 36 months after the procedure. Secondary endpoints were defined as qualitative improvement in symptoms allowing athletes to return to their previous level of activity. Athletes were compared with a control group of nonathletes in a 3‐to‐1 matched analysis by age and sex.ResultsA total of 39 endurance athletes who underwent catheter ablation were identified during the study period. At 12 months, there was no difference in treatment outcomes for athletes versus nonathletes (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92–1.22; p = .40). Freedom from atrial arrhythmias was 35% less likely in athletes than nonathletes at 24 months (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50–0.83; p < .001) and 42% less likely at 36 months (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41–0.79; p < .001). Overall, 77% of the athletes were able to return to their previous level of activity following catheter ablation.ConclusionEndurance athletes with atrial fibrillation appear to have higher rates of atrial arrhythmia recurrence than nonathletes after catheter ablation, with higher rates of atypical flutter. The majority of athletes were able to return to their previous level of activity after ablation.

AbstractMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable imaging modality for the assessment of both cardiac and non‐cardiac structures. With a growing population of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), 50%–75% of these patients will need an MRI. MRI‐conditional CIEDs have demonstrated safety of MRI scanning with such devices, yet non‐conditional devices such as hybrid CIEDs which have generator and lead brand mismatch may pose a safety risk. In this retrospective study, we examined the outcomes of patients with hybrid CIEDs undergoing MRI compared to those patients with non‐hybrid CIEDs. A total of 349 patients were included, of which 24 patients (7%) had hybrid CIEDs. The primary endpoint was the safety of MRI for patients with hybrid CIEDs as compared to those with non‐hybrid devices, measured by the rate of adverse events, including death, lead or generator failure needing immediate replacement, loss of capture, new onset arrhythmia, or power‐on reset. Secondary endpoints consisted of pre‐ and post‐MRI changes of decreased P‐wave or R‐wave sensing by ≥50%, changes in pacing lead impedance by ≥50 ohms, increase in pacing thresholds by ≥ 0.5 V at 0.4 ms, and decreasing battery voltage of ≥ 0.04 V. The primary endpoint of any adverse reaction was present in 1 (4.2%) patient with a hybrid device, and consistent of atrial tachyarrhythmia, and in 10 (3.1%) patients with a non‐hybrid device, and consisted of self‐limited atrial and non‐sustained ventricular arrhythmias; this was not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in the secondary endpoints. This study demonstrates that MRI in patients with hybrid CIEDs does not result in increased patient risk or significant device changes when compared to those patients who underwent MRI with non‐hybrid CIEDs.