Lampert, Rachel

BACKGROUND: Whether vigorous exercise increases risk of ventricular arrhythmias for individuals diagnosed and treated for congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS) remains unknown. METHODS: The National Institutes of Health–funded LIVE-LQTS study (Lifestyle and Exercise in the Long QT Syndrome) prospectively enrolled individuals 8 to 60 years of age with phenotypic and/or genotypic LQTS from 37 sites in 5 countries from May 2015 to February 2019. Participants (or parents) answered physical activity and clinical events surveys every 6 months for 3 years with follow-up completed in February 2022. Vigorous exercise was defined as ≥6 metabolic equivalents for >60 hours per year. A blinded Clinical Events Committee adjudicated the composite end point of sudden death, sudden cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmia treated by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and likely arrhythmic syncope. A National Death Index search ascertained vital status for those with incomplete follow-up. A noninferiority hypothesis (boundary of 1.5) between vigorous exercisers and others was tested with multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among the 1413 participants (13% <18 years of age, 35% 18–25 years of age, 67% female, 25% with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, 90% genotype positive, 49% with LQT1, 91% were treated with beta-blockers, left cardiac sympathetic denervation, and/or implantable cardioverter defibrillator), 52% participated in vigorous exercise (55% of these competitively). Thirty-seven individuals experienced the composite end point (including one sudden cardiac arrest and one sudden death in the nonvigorous group, one sudden cardiac arrest in the vigorous group) with overall event rates at 3 years of 2.6% in the vigorous and 2.7% in the nonvigorous exercise groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio for experience of events for the vigorous group compared with the nonvigorous group was 0.97 (90% CI, 0.57–1.67), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.17 (90% CI, 0.67–2.04). The upper 95% one-sided confidence level extended beyond the 1.5 boundary. Neither vigorous or nonvigorous exercise was found to be superior in any group or subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals diagnosed with phenotypic and/or genotypic LQTS who were risk assessed and treated in experienced centers, LQTS-associated cardiac event rates were low and similar between those exercising vigorously and those not exercising vigorously. Consistent with the low event rate, CIs are wide, and noninferiority was not demonstrated. These data further inform shared decision-making discussions between patient and physician about exercise and competitive sports participation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02549664.

Introduction: The ICD Sports Registry demonstrated that many athletes with ICDs can participate in competitive sports without death, failure to defibrillate, or physical injury. However, sudden cardiac arrest is more prevalent and has worse outcomes in Black compared to White individuals in the general population and among athletes. Outcomes of sports participation for Black athletes with ICDs have not been described. Aim: To describe the risk of arrhythmia and efficacy of ICDs in Black athletes. Methods: This is a post-hoc subgroup analysis of the ICD Sports Registry, which enrolled athletes with ICDs age 10 to 60, participating in organized, competitive sports, and followed them prospectively for four years. The endpoints and methods are reported previously. Results: Among the 440 athletes, 15 were Black and 410 white. Among the Black athletes, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was the most common diagnosis (40%) and 87% were implanted for secondary prevention or syncope (vs 69% in White athletes). Most common sports were basketball (8), softball (4), and running (3), with 7 Black athletes competing on varsity/junior varsity/traveling teams. Among the Black athletes, there were no appropriate shocks during sports, among white athletes, 7% received an appropriate shock during sports. Among Black athletes, there was one appropriate shock event for ventricular tachycardia (7%), a VT storm in an athlete with idiopathic VF, non-sports-related. Among white athletes, 10% received appropriate shocks during non-sports activities. Two Black athletes (13%) received an inappropriate shock, one competition-related (sinus tachycardia) and the other for T wave oversensing at rest, vs 12% of white athletes. There were no sports-related deaths, arrests, or arrhythmia-related injuries in either group. Conclusions: Black athletes represented a small subset of the ICD Sports Registry. Reasons for this are unknown, but may include disparities in ICD implantation and/or in research recruitment/ participation. These Black athletes experienced both appropriate and inappropriate shocks as did white athletes. These data do not suggest a signal for harm for competitive sports participation for Black athletes with ICDs but larger studies are needed.

Importance Whether vigorous intensity exercise is associated with an increase in risk of ventricular arrhythmias in individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is unknown. Objective To determine whether engagement in vigorous exercise is associated with increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias and/or mortality in individuals with HCM. The a priori hypothesis was that participants engaging in vigorous activity were not more likely to have an arrhythmic event or die than those who reported nonvigorous activity. Design, Setting, and Participants This was an investigator-initiated, prospective cohort study. Participants were enrolled from May 18, 2015, to April 25, 2019, with completion in February 28, 2022. Participants were categorized according to self-reported levels of physical activity: sedentary, moderate, or vigorous-intensity exercise. This was a multicenter, observational registry with recruitment at 42 high-volume HCM centers in the US and internationally; patients could also self-enroll through the central site. Individuals aged 8 to 60 years diagnosed with HCM or genotype positive without left ventricular hypertrophy (phenotype negative) without conditions precluding exercise were enrolled. Exposures Amount and intensity of physical activity. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary prespecified composite end point included death, resuscitated sudden cardiac arrest, arrhythmic syncope, and appropriate shock from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. All outcome events were adjudicated by an events committee blinded to the patient’s exercise category. Results Among the 1660 total participants (mean [SD] age, 39 [15] years; 996 male [60%]), 252 (15%) were classified as sedentary, and 709 (43%) participated in moderate exercise. Among the 699 individuals (42%) who participated in vigorous-intensity exercise, 259 (37%) participated competitively. A total of 77 individuals (4.6%) reached the composite end point. These individuals included 44 (4.6%) of those classified as nonvigorous and 33 (4.7%) of those classified as vigorous, with corresponding rates of 15.3 and 15.9 per 1000 person-years, respectively. In multivariate Cox regression analysis of the primary composite end point, individuals engaging in vigorous exercise did not experience a higher rate of events compared with the nonvigorous group with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.01. The upper 95% 1-sided confidence level was 1.48, which was below the prespecified boundary of 1.5 for noninferiority. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this cohort study suggest that among individuals with HCM or those who are genotype positive/phenotype negative and are treated in experienced centers, those exercising vigorously did not experience a higher rate of death or life-threatening arrhythmias than those exercising moderately or those who were sedentary. These data may inform discussion between the patient and their expert clinician around exercise participation.

Introduction: Safety of vigorous exercise for individuals with appropriately-treated HCM remains debated. Physical activity practices in this population have not been described. The objective of this report is to describe physical activity pattern in HCM patients. Long term follow up which is ongoing will determine safety of vigorous exercise. Methods: The NIH-funded LIVE-HCM study prospectively enrolled individuals age 8-60 years with clinically overt HCM or patients with a positive genetic test for sarcomeric HCM. Participants (or parents, for children) answered surveys describing activity patterns. Vigorous exercise was defined as > 6 METS for > 60 hours per year. Clinical and demographic data were derived from medical record review. Results: Among 1798 participants, 745 (41%) reported exercising vigorously, including 296 competitive athletes, with 59 at high-school or college varsity level, 770 (43%) were exercising at moderate, and 283 (16%) at low levels. Of those working, 6% described jobs more active than walking, including 16 in protective services, and 11 in sports/coaching. Clinical/demographic data including imaging characteristics and treatments, are shown in Table, and were mostly similar amongst the exercise-groups. Conclusions: Many patients with HCM are engaged in vigorous exercise including competitive athletics. Prospective follow-up of this cohort is ongoing. Comparison of arrhythmic outcomes outcomes in vigorous exercisers vs moderate/low level exercisers will help determine the safety of exercise in HCM patients.

There is a growing appreciation for differences in epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of cardiovascular conditions by sex. Historically, cardiovascular clinical trials have under-represented females, but findings have nonetheless been applied to clinical care in a sex-agnostic manner. Thus, much of the collective knowledge about sex-specific cardiovascular outcomes result from post hoc and secondary analyses. In some cases, these investigations have revealed important sex-based differences with implications for optimizing care for female patients with arrhythmias. This review explores the available evidence related to cardiac arrhythmia care among females, with emphasis on areas in which important sex differences are known or suggested. Considerations related to improving female enrollment in clinical trials as a way to establish more robust clinical evidence for the treatment of females are discussed. Areas of remaining evidence gaps are provided, and recommendations for areas of future research and specific action items are suggested. The overarching goal is to improve appreciation for sex-based differences in cardiac arrhythmia care as 1 component of a comprehensive plan to optimize arrhythmia care for all patients.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) in appropriate patients undergoing ICD implantation. However, not all physicians who implant ICDs are trained to perform CRT-D. We examined the ICD Registry to assess whether use of CRT-D implantation varied by physician certification. We determined the certification of 2128 physicians who had submitted >=10 cases between April 2006 and June 2007. We excluded patients with a prior ICD, an epicardial lead, or aged ≤18 years, leaving 111,293 patients. Physicians were grouped into mutually exclusive categories reflecting highest current certification- Electrophysiology (EP), Cardiovascular Disease (CVD), Thoracic Surgery (TS), Internal Medicine (IM), Heart Rhythm Society alternative pathway (HRS), and Other. Patients were considered eligible for CRT-D if they met the following criteria: QRS duration >=120ms, LVEF ≪26>35%, and NYHA Class III-IV. We examined crude rates of CRT-D across physician categories and developed a logistic regression model to assess the association of physician certification and CRT-D implantation. Candidate variables included demographics, cardiac status, comorbidities, and physician volume. Odds ratios were converted to relative risks. 35,851 patients met all three eligibility criteria for CRT-D, and 28,932 (80.7%) had a CRT-D implanted. EP physicians implanted the majority of CRT-D (73.6%), with fewer CRT-D placed by CVD (20.6%), TS (0.9%), IM (0.8%), HRS (1.1%), or Other (3.1%). The crude rate of CRT-D implantation was highest among EP physicians and lower in all other categories: EP- 83.1%, CVD-75.8%, TS- 57.9%, IM- 76.5%, HRS- 77.1%, Other- 73.5% (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, CVD and TS physicians were less likely to implant CRT-D in eligible patients compared with EP physicians (EP: Ref; CVD: RR 0.92 (0.90 – 0.94); TS: RR 0.76 (0.71– 0.85)). CRT-D rates were comparable for other physician groups (IM RR 0.95 (0.87–1.01); HRS: RR 0.97 (0.90 –1.02); Other RR 0.97 (0.93–1.00)). Among eligible patients, use of CRT-D varies by physician certification. Given the benefits of CRT-D, clinicians should consider referring eligible patients to physicians with familiarity and expertise in CRT-D implantation.

Introduction: The safety of vigorous exercise for individuals with appropriately-treated LQTS remains unproven, and physical activity practices in this population have not been described. Methods: LIVE-LQTS prospectively enrolled individuals age 8-60 years with overt LQTS or gene mutation carriers. Participants (or parents, for children) answered surveys describing activity patterns. Vigorous exercise was defined as > 6 METS for > 60 hours per year. Clinical and demographic data were derived from medical record review. Results: Among 1554 participants, 804 (52%) reported exercising vigorously, 473 of these competitively, 577 (37%) exercising at moderate, and 173 (11%) at low levels. Seven percent of those working describe jobs more active than walking, including 10 in protective services and 19 in sports/coaching. Over 90% are genotype positive, 57% are phenotype positive at rest and an additional 16% have exercise-induced QT prolongation. Forty four percent have had documented ventricular arrhythmias or syncope. Eighty-four percent are appropriately treated with either beta-blockers, ICD, and/or sympathectomy, although among beta-blocked patients, only 60% are on the most effective agents. Among adults, BMI was significantly lower among the vigorous exercisers. Conclusion: While the high percentage of vigorous exercisers seen in this study may not represent all patients with LQTS due to self-selection for study participation, many patients with LQTS are engaged in vigorous exercise or competitive athletics. Prospective follow up of this cohort is ongoing and will determine safety of vigorous exercise through comparison of arrhythmic outcomes in vigorous exercisers vs moderate/low level exercisers.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.