Hayes, David L.

Background —In a previous randomized trial, the 12F laser sheath removed pacing leads via the implant vein more successfully than traditional mechanical tools alone. Two larger sizes of laser sheath, the 14F and 16F models, were developed to extract defibrillator leads and large-diameter pacing leads implanted for the chronic. These devices use pulsed ultraviolet laser light to core though fibrotic tissue grown over the lead body to free the lead from the vasculature. A mandatory prospective registry studied the safety and effectiveness profiles of the larger laser sheaths vis-à-vis the 12F laser sheath. Methods and Results —In this study, 863 patients underwent extraction of 1285 leads at 52 sites. Patients treated with the 14F device tended to have older leads than the 12F population; the 16F population, which comprised mostly defibrillator patients, were younger, had younger leads, and were more often male than the 12F population. Clinical success (extracting the entire lead or the lead body minus the distal electrode) was observed in 91% to 92% of cases for all device sizes. The overall complication rate was 3.6%, with 0.8% perioperative mortality. Incidence of complications was independent of laser sheath size. Conclusions —The 14F and 16F laser sheaths offer an extraction option for larger long-term transvenous pacemaker and defibrillator leads that is as safe and effective as the 12F laser sheath.

Abstract Aims For patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA), initial single-chamber right ventricular (RV)-only pacing is standard. Given the deleterious effects of chronic RV-only pacing, the impact of an initial biventricular (BiV) pacing strategy post-ablation is of interest. Methods and results We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effect of BiV vs. RV-only pacing in patients undergoing AVNA for refractory atrial fibrillation. A search of multiple electronic databases identified 921 reports, which included four randomized controlled trials (n = 534). Mean New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was 2.3 and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 44%. When compared with RV-only pacing, BiV pacing was not associated with reduced mortality [risk ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40–1.82, P = 0.68]. In three studies comprised of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (mean EF 41 ± 3%), BiV pacing demonstrated a non-significant reduction in cardiac mortality (risk ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.25–1.39; P = 0.23). Compared with RV-only pacing, BiV pacing was associated with significant improvement in symptoms [Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) 2.72 points fewer, 95% CI 1.45–3.99] and increased LVEF (+2.6%, 95% CI 1.69–3.44), but no significant change in 6 min walk distance (6MWD) (5.02 ms more, 95% CI −1.56 to 11.59; P = 0.13). Conclusions In patients with refractory AF undergoing AVNA, BiV pacing was not associated with significantly improved survival when compared with RV-only pacing. A modest, but significant improvement in structural and functional response to BiV pacing was observed.

Abstract Aims This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of a baseline speckle tracking strain rate imaging-derived discoordination index for response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods and results Ninety-seven patients with QRS ≥120 ms and left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction ≤35% were prospectively followed after CRT in the Mayo CRT Registry. The LV discoordination index (stretch/shortening or thinning/thickening during ejection) was calculated from three types of deformation, radial, circumferential, and longitudinal, using two-dimensional speckle tracking strain rate imaging. The benefit of CRT was evaluated by reverse remodelling (i.e. reduction of LV end-systolic volume ≥15% at 6-month follow-up) and survival. The optimal cut-off value of the baseline discoordination index in discriminating responders from non-responders was determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Significant differences in baseline indices between responders and non-responders were noted for radial and circumferential discoordination indices. A mid-ventricular radial discoordination index (RDI-M) >38% best predicted responders, especially in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (area under the curve 0.86 for all patients, sensitivity 80%, and specificity 91%). Death occurred in 28 patients over a median follow-up of 3.2 years. When adjusted for confounding variables, lack of significant discoordination (RDI-M <38%) before CRT was associated with a particularly high mortality (hazard ratio 7.05, 95% confidence interval 2.45–26.0). Conclusion LV discoordination assessed by speckle tracking RDI-M imaging was able to predict reverse remodelling at 6 months and survival of patients who received CRT.

Background— Postmarket medical device surveillance in the United States depends largely on voluntary reporting of adverse events. Consequently, early safety signals may be missed, exposing patients to potentially hazardous products. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of using an automated safety surveillance tool to detect early signals that a marketed implantable cardiac device was underperforming. Methods and Results— For this purpose, we performed simulated prospective monthly full-cohort and propensity-matched comparative survival analyses on our 3-center database of Sprint Fidelis and Quattro Secure implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads, using a commercially available automated surveillance tool that was preset to trigger an alert if the log rank probability value was <0.05. During the study, 84 of 1035 Fidelis (8.1%) and 23 of 1675 Quattro (1.4%) leads failed. The simulated full-cohort analysis triggered a sustained alert for Fidelis leads beginning 13 months after the first implant and 2 years before Fidelis leads were removed from the market. Of the 1035 patients who had Fidelis leads, up to 969 (93.6%) were successfully matched to Quattro patients. In the propensity-matched analysis, the alert triggered 22 months after the first Fidelis implant and more than 1 year before the lead was recalled. Conclusions— An active automated safety surveillance system could have identified this implantable cardiovascular device problem substantially sooner than was achieved through existing postmarket surveillance methods. Such a tool, when applied to clinical registries and remote monitoring databases, may limit the exposure of large populations to underperforming and potentially hazardous cardiovascular devices.

Abstract We are in the midst of a rapidly evolving era of technology-assisted medicine. The field of telemedicine provides the opportunity for highly individualized medical management in a way that has never been possible before. Evolving medical technologies using cardiac implantable devices (CIEDs) with capabilities for remote monitoring permit evaluation of multiple parameters of cardiovascular physiology and risk, including cardiac rhythm, device function, blood pressure values, the presence of myocardial ischaemia, and the degree of compensation of congestive heart failure. Cardiac risk, device status, and response to therapies can now be assessed with these electronic systems of detection and reporting. This document reflects the extensive experience from investigators and innovators around the world who are shaping the evolution of this rapidly expanding field, focusing in particular on implantable pacemakers (IPGs), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (both, with and without defibrillation properties), loop recorders, and haemodynamic monitoring devices. This document covers the basic methodologies, guidelines for their use, experience with existing applications, and the legal and reimbursement aspects associated with their use. To adequately cover this important emerging topic, the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology (ISHNE) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) combined their expertise in this field. We hope that the development of this field can contribute to improve care of our cardiovascular patients.

Background— The objective of the present study was to investigate the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on cardiac autonomic function. Methods and Results— This prospective study included 45 consecutive patients with heart failure who received CRT devices with defibrillator and 20 age-matched, healthy control subjects. At baseline and 3 months and 6 months after CRT, we assessed New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6-minute walk distance, plasma sympathetic biomarker nerve growth factor, echocardiography, heart rate variability and cardiac presynaptic sympathetic function determined by iodine 123 metaiodobenzylguanidine scintigraphy. After CRT, NYHA class improved by 1 class ( P <0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction increased by 8% ( P <0.001). Along with improvement in the standard deviation of all normal-to-normal R-R intervals (85.63±31.66 ms versus 114.79±38.99 ms; P =0.004) and the standard deviation of the averaged normal-to-normal R-R intervals (82.62±23.03 ms versus 100.50±34.87 ms; P =0.004), the delayed heart/mediastinum (H/M) ratio increased (1.82 [0.58] versus 1.97 [0.59]; P =0.03), whereas the mean (SD) H/M washout rate was reduced (48% [19%] versus 37% [22%]; P =0.01). Twenty-two of 45 study patients responded to CRT, with a reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume index >15%. Compared with nonresponders, responders had a higher delayed H/M ratio (2.11 versus 1.48; P =0.003) and lower H/M washout rate (37% versus 62%; P =0.003) at baseline. Conclusions— CRT improved sympathetic function. Cardiac sympathetic reserve may be a marker for the reversibility of failing myocardial function.

Background— Sprint Fidelis (Fidelis) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are prone to fractures that have caused adverse events, primarily inappropriate shocks, and a few reported deaths. More than 100 000 patients have Fidelis leads. No independent multicenter long-term performance information exists for this lead, and single-center studies suggest that certain patients are at increased risk for Fidelis failure. Our aim was to assess the longevity of Fidelis leads and to evaluate clinical variables and adverse events associated with Fidelis failure. The results were compared with like data for Quattro Secure (Quattro) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads implanted at our centers. Methods and Results— This 3-center study included adults ≥18 years of age who received Fidelis or Quattro leads for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. From November 2001 to January 2009,1023 Fidelis and 1668 Quattro leads were implanted and followed up. The failure rate for Fidelis leads was 2.81%/y compared with 0.43%/y for Quattro leads ( P <0.0001). No deaths or injuries occurred as a result of lead failure, but 42% of fractures caused inappropriate shocks. The survival of Fidelis leads at 4 years was 87.0% (95% confidence interval, 83.6 to 90.1) compared with 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 97.9 to 99.4) for Quattro leads ( P <0.0001). Multivariate predictors of Fidelis failure were younger age (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.99), female gender (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 1.00), and cardiac disease ( P =0.041). Conclusions— Compared with Quattro leads, the survival of Fidelis leads continues to decline, and Fidelis failure is notably higher in younger patients, women, individuals with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia or channelopathies. These findings have significant implications for the management of patients who have Fidelis leads, and they demonstrate the importance of weighing clinical variables in assessments of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead performance.

Background— Outcome data for patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy–defibrillator (CRT-D) devices treated outside of clinical trials are lacking. No clinical trial has evaluated mortality after device implantation or after shock therapy in large numbers of patients with implanted devices that regularly transmit device data over a network. Methods and Results— Survival status in patients implanted with ICD and CRT devices across the United States from a single manufacturer was assessed. Outcomes were compared between patients followed in device clinic settings and those who regularly transmit remote data collected from the device an average of 4 times monthly. Shock delivery and electrogram analysis could be ascertained from patients followed on the network, enabling survival after ICD shock to be evaluated. One- and 5-year survival rates in 185 778 patients after ICD implantation were 92% and 68% and were 88% and 54% for CRT-D device recipients. In 8228 patients implanted with CRT-only devices, survival was 82% and 48% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. For the 69 556 ICD and CRT-D patients receiving remote follow-up on the network, 1- and 5-year survival rates were higher compared with those in the 116 222 patients who received device follow-up in device clinics only (50% reduction; P <0.0001). There were no differences between patients followed on or off the remote network for the characteristics of age, gender, implanted device year or type, and economic or educational status. Shock therapy was associated with subsequent mortality risk for both ICD and CRT-D recipients. Conclusions— Survival after ICD and CRT-D implantation in patients treated in naturalistic practice compares favorably with survival rates observed in clinical trials. Remote follow-up of device data is associated with excellent survival, but arrhythmias that result in device therapy in this population are associated with a higher mortality risk compared with patients who do not require shock therapy.

Background— Infection is a serious complication of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) placement and requires device removal for attempted cure. Methods and Results— We studied the rate, risk factors, and outcomes of CIED infection in 74 consecutive patients with bacteremia caused by Gram-positive cocci (GPC) other than Staphylococcus aureus between 2001 and 2007. CIED infection was defined as the presence of signs of infection at the generator site, lead vegetations seen on echocardiography, or microbiological growth from device cultures. Twenty-two (30%) of 74 patients with non– S aureus GPC bacteremia had CIED infections. Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) accounted for 73% of CIED infections. The rate of CIED infection in patients with CoNS bacteremia was almost 2-fold that of non-CoNS GPC bacteremia (36% versus 20%, P =0.13). The number of leads, the presence of abandoned leads, and prior generator replacement were associated with CIED infection. Among 33 patients without identifiable CIED infection at initial evaluation who did not undergo device removal, 5 (15%) had relapsing bacteremia within 12 weeks of completing antibiotic therapy. CoNS accounted for all relapses, and none had evidence of CIED infection at relapse. Conclusions— Patients with a CIED and bacteremia caused by GPC other than S aureus frequently had evidence of underlying CIED infection on clinical evaluation that included transesophageal echocardiography. This was particularly true among those with CoNS bacteremia. No evidence of underlying CIED infections was identified in the subgroup of patients who did not have manifestations of CIED infection on initial evaluation but subsequently had relapsing bacteremia caused by CoNS.