Back to Authors

Patel, Harsh P.

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 2

Long‐Term Outcomes of Leadless Pacemaker vs. Transvenous Pacemaker in End‐Stage Renal Disease
Agarwal, Siddharth, Patel, Harsh P., Patil, Shivaraj, Gupta, Anshul , Patel, Divya, Asad, Zain Ul Abideen, Munir, Muhammad Bilal , Sugrue, A M, Tan, Nicholas Y. , Munoz, Freddy Del‐Carpio, Cha, Yong‐Mei, Deshmukh, Abhishek, Gupta, Anshul R , DeSimone, Christopher V , Munir, Muhammad Bilal , Agarwal, Siddharth , Patel, Divya, Asad, Zain Ul Abideen , Sugrue, Alan , Munoz, Freddy Del‐Carpio , Cha, Yong‐Mei , DeSimone, Christopher V. , Deshmukh, Abhishek

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology | May 26, 2026 | Volume: 37 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1599-1604

10.1111/jce.70364 Get It

ABSTRACT Background Patients with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing dialysis have an increased risk of pacemaker‐related complications due to limited vascular access and increased susceptibility to infection. Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) may mitigate these risks compared with conventional transvenous pacemakers (TPMs), but long‐term comparative data in this population remain limited. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, including adults (≥ 18 years) with ESRD on dialysis who underwent LPM or TPM implantation between May 2016 and December 2020. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed using demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes assessed over up to 5 years included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, device re‐intervention, device‐related complications, infection‐related hospitalization, pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy, and all‐cause mortality. Results After matching, 901 patients were included in each group with well‐balanced baseline characteristics. LPM implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of device re‐intervention compared with TPM (4.1% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.69; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between groups in all‐cause hospitalization (65.5% vs. 68.3%; p = 0.22), heart failure hospitalization (26.9% vs. 30.2%; p = 0.13), all‐cause mortality (37.5% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.34), device‐related complications (14.5% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.94), infection‐related hospitalization (1.6% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.35), or pacemaker‐induced cardiomyopathy (9.0% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.66). Conclusion In a large, propensity‐matched cohort of patients with ESRD on dialysis, LPMs were associated with fewer device re‐interventions and comparable long‐term clinical outcomes compared with TPMs.
Clinical Outcomes of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Agarwal, Siddharth, Patel, Harsh P., Patel, Rutvij, Patel, Divya, Mainigi, Naiya, Asad, Zain Ul Abideen, Munir, Muhammad Bilal , Siontis, Konstantinos C., Tan, Nicholas Y., Kowlgi, Gurukripa N. , Munoz, Freddy Del‐Carpio , Deshmukh, Abhishek, DeSimone, Christopher V , Munir, Muhammad Bilal , Kowlgi, Narayan G , Agarwal, Siddharth , Patel, Rutvij M. , Asad, Zain Ul Abideen , Siontis, Konstantinos C. , Tan, Nicholas Y. , Deshmukh, Abhishek , DeSimone, Christopher V.

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology | May 15, 2026 | Volume: 37 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1496-1503

10.1111/jce.70377 Get It

ABSTRACT Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and is associated with increased morbidity, heart failure (HF) exacerbations, and adverse long‐term outcomes. Although catheter ablation is an established rhythm‐control strategy, data comparing its long‐term clinical outcomes with anti‐arrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy in patients with HCM remain limited. Objective To compare long‐term clinical outcomes of catheter ablation versus medical therapy with AADs in patients with HCM and AF. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network, a global federated database of electronic health records. Adult patients with HCM and AF between January 2010 and December 2020 were identified and stratified according to treatment with catheter ablation or AAD therapy. Outcomes included all‐cause mortality, HF exacerbations, AAD‐related adverse events, all‐cause hospitalization, ischemic stroke, repeat ablation, need for cardioversion, need for long‐term AAD use, and atrioventricular nodal ablation. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results After PSM, 3144 patients were included (1572 in each cohort) with a mean follow‐up of approximately 3.4 years. Catheter ablation was associated with lower all‐cause mortality compared with AAD therapy (9.5% vs. 14.8%; HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.49–0.74; p < 0.001). Ablation was also associated with reduced risk of HF exacerbations (38.4% vs. 43.3%; HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71–0.88; p < 0.001) and fewer AAD‐related adverse events (8.4% vs. 11.2%; HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55–0.93; p = 0.011). Rates of all‐cause hospitalization (HR: 0.93; p = 0.11) and ischemic stroke (HR: 0.78; p = 0.10) were similar between groups. Conclusion In this large real‐world cohort of patients with HCM and AF, catheter ablation was associated with lower mortality, reduced HF hospitalizations, and decreased AAD therapy‐related adverse events, as compared with medical therapy. These findings suggest that catheter ablation may provide meaningful clinical benefits in selected patients with HCM and AF, although prospective studies are needed to confirm these observations.