Killu, Ammar M.

AbstractIntroductionThe impact of mRNA‐based coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown.MethodsBIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID‐19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub‐analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID‐19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID‐19 vaccine and non‐vaccinated patients was also performed.ResultsFirst and second doses of the COVID‐19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID‐19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre‐ and postvaccination.ConclusionsThough we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED‐detected AAs following vaccination for COVID‐19 over a 3‐month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high‐risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.

AbstractIntroductionVentricular tachycardia storm or electrical storm (ES) is a common complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The factors contributing to ES and outcomes are less studied. The study aimed to determine the factors associated with ES and the probability of survival in patients undergoing LVAD in three tertiary centers over a span of 15 years.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2020. ES was defined as ≥3 episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia over a period of 24 h with no identifiable reversible cause. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 883 patients who underwent LVAD implantation were included in our study. ES occurred in 7% (n = 61) of patients with a median of 13 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–297 days) following surgery. We found 57% of patients (n = 35) developed ES within 30 days, while 43% (n = 26) patients developed ES at a median of 545 (IQR 152–1032) days after surgery. Following ES, 26% of patients died within 1 year. Patients with ES had a significant association with a history of ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks before the procedure. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.39–2.64, p < .001).ConclusionFollowing LVAD implantation, the rate of ES was 7% with majority of ES occurring within 30 days of LVAD. Risk factors for ES included pre‐implant history of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shock. ES was significantly associated with reduced survival compared to patients without ES.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and prognosis of right bundle branch block (RBBB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown. Hence, we sought to characterize the incidence of post-TAVR RBBB and determine associated risks of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation and mortality. METHODS: All patients 18 years and above without preexisting RBBB or PPM who underwent TAVR at US Mayo Clinic sites and Mayo Clinic Health Systems from June 2010 to May 2021 were evaluated. Post-TAVR RBBB was defined as new-onset RBBB in the postimplantation period. The risks of PPM implantation (within 90 days) and mortality following TAVR were compared for patients with and without post-TAVR RBBB using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling. The risks of PPM implantation (within 90 days) and mortality following TAVR were compared for patients with and without post-TAVR RBBB using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Of 1992 patients, 15 (0.75%) experienced new RBBB post-TAVR. There was a higher degree of valve oversizing among patients with new RBBB post-TAVR versus those without (17.9% versus 10.0%; P =0.034). Ten patients (66.7%) with post-TAVR RBBB experienced high-grade atrioventricular block and underwent PPM implantation (median 1 day; Q1, 0.2 and Q3, 4), compared with 268/1977 (13.6%) without RBBB. Following propensity score adjustment for covariates (age, sex, balloon-expandable valve, annulus diameter, and valve oversizing), post-TAVR RBBB was significantly associated with PPM implantation (hazard ratio, 8.36 [95% CI, 4.19–16.7]; P <0.001). No statistically significant increase in mortality was seen with post-TAVR RBBB (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.33–2.11]; P =0.69), adjusting for age and sex. CONCLUSIONS: Although infrequent, post-TAVR RBBB was associated with elevated PPM implantation risk. The mechanisms for its development and its clinical prognosis require further study.

Background: Catheter ablation is an effective tool to reduce ventricular tachycardia (VT) burden. There is a lack of robust data studying the characteristics and outcomes of VT ablation in patients with ischemic (ICM) versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). Aims: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ICM vs NICM on outcomes of VT ablation. Methods: A single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing catheter ablation for VT was conducted. Results: A total of 168 patients, undergoing 200 VT ablation procedures, were included in this study. NICM group (112 procedures) was compared to ICM group (88 procedures). Patients in the ICM group were older (66.6 ± 13.4 vs 58.9 ± 14.4 years) and had higher rates of prior myocardial infarction (65.9% vs 3.6) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (40.9% vs 1.8%). Overall, ICM group had more comorbidities like hypertension (80.7% vs 52.7%), diabetes mellitus (23.9% vs 12.5%), chronic kidney disease (45.5% vs 35.7%), stroke (17% vs 7.1%), and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (36.8 ± 13.2% vs 43.1 ± 14.7%). The ICM group had lower incidence of prior cardiac valvular surgery (9.1% vs 29.5%). The inducibility of VT (93% vs 93.5%; p= 1.0) and the number of different VT morphologies induced during the case (1.9 ± 1.5 vs 2.3 ± 2.5; p=0.19) was similar between the two groups. There was no acute mortality in either group. There was a non-significant trend towards greater VT recurrence in the NICM group (43.2% vs 33.3%, p= 0.19). However, patients with NICM had a lower VT-free survival as determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.05) [Figure]. Long term mortality was higher in ICM group when compared to NICM group (18.2% vs 8.9%, p<0.01). Conclusion: Patients undergoing VT ablation in the NICM group when compared to the ICM group were noted to be younger, had fewer comorbidities, and lower long-term mortality. However, they had significantly less VT-free survival, likely owing to more challenging substrate responsible for VT.

The Lewis lead is a modified ECG configuration that can enhance the amplitude of the atrial electrical activity and is useful when the atrial activity cannot be discerned in the standard ECG. The configuration involves applying the right arm electrode on the manubrium, left arm electrode to the 5th intercostal space on the right sternal border, left leg electrode over the right lower costal margin and right leg electrode in the standard position. The ECG is then interpreted in lead I and II. Herein we present a case where the Lewis lead aided in the diagnosis of complete heart block with underlying atrial fibrillation. Case Presentation: A 75 year old female with severe tricuspid regurgitation was admitted for tricuspid valve replacement. She had previous paroxysmal atrial fibrillation status post pulmonary vein isolation. The preoperative ECG revealed normal sinus rhythm. Postoperatively, ECG demonstrated a narrow complex ventricular rhythm at 70 beats per minute. No atrial activity could be clearly discerned (Image 1). The epicardial atrial wire placed intraoperatively was not functioning, therefore atrial electrogram could not be obtained. It was unclear from repeat ECGs if there was sinus arrest or atrial fibrillation in the atria. The Lewis lead was then utilized and revealed underlying atrial fibrillation (Image 1); together, this was consistent with atrial fibrillation and complete heart block with a junctional escape rhythm. The rhythm did not recover and there was progressive conduction system disease with widening of the QRS and episodes of severe bradycardia. She underwent pacemaker implantation. Discussion: By utilizing the Lewis lead we were able to establish the atrial rhythm and differentiate between atrial fibrillation and sinus arrest. The Lewis lead can also help narrow the differential for wide complex tachycardia by magnifying the p wave, thus making it easier to detect ventriculoatrial dissociation, a hallmark feature of ventricular tachycardia.

Abstract Aims ECG abnormalities are often the first signs of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) and we hypothesized that an artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced ECG could help identify patients with ARVC and serve as a valuable disease-detection tool. Methods and results We created a convolutional neural network to detect ARVC using a 12-lead ECG. All patients with ARVC who met the 2010 task force criteria and had disease-causative genetic variants were included. All case ECGs were randomly assigned in an 8:1:1 ratio into training, validation, and testing groups. The case ECGs were age- and sex-matched with control ECGs at our institution in a 1:100 ratio. Seventy-seven patients (51% male; mean age 47.2 ± 19.9), including 56 patients with PKP2, 7 with DSG2, 6 with DSC2, 6 with DSP, and 2 with JUP were included. The model was trained using 61 case ECGs and 5009 control ECGs; validated with 7 case ECGs and 678 control ECGs and tested in 22 case ECGs and 1256 control ECGs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the model were 77.3, 62.9, 3.32, and 99.4%, respectively. The area under the curve for rhythm ECG and median beat ECG was 0.75 and 0.76, respectively. Conclusion Our study found that the model performed well in excluding ARVC and supports the concept that the AI ECG can serve as a biomarker for ARVC if a larger cohort were available for network training. A multicentre study including patients with ARVC from other centres would be the next step in refining, testing, and validating this algorithm.

Abstract Background Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) may be performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). There is a paucity of data studying these two sedation strategies with respect to intraprocedural characteristics, and outcomes of VT ablation. Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of anesthesia techniques on VT inducibility and outcomes. Methods A single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing catheter ablation for scar-related VT, from 2016-2022, was conducted. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, medications, relevant laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, detailed procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Results One hundred sixty-eight patients who underwent a total of 200 VT ablation procedures were included. The patients undergoing GA had a greater burden of comorbidities including congestive heart failure (77.2% vs. 60.9%), hypertension (66.9% vs. 60.0%), atrial arrhythmias (50.7% vs. 43.8%), diabetes mellitus (21.3% vs. 9.4%), chronic kidney disease (44.1% vs. 31.3%), prior stroke (11.8% vs. 10.9%), myocardial infarction (31.6% vs. 29.7%), pre-existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (86.8% vs. 71.9%) and had a higher median number of antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline (2 vs. 1) [Figure 1]. There was a greater percentage of patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (58.1% vs. 51.6%) in the GA cohort. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was not different among the two groups (39.3 ± 13.9 vs. 42.5 ± 15.3). The GA group had more hemodynamic instability at baseline (p &lt; 0.01), and during VT induction (p &lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference in the number of VT induced, or tachycardia cycle length, in each group. Despite higher radiofrequency energy delivery time in the GA group as compared to the MAC group, the GA group had higher VT inducibility post-procedure and were more likely to be discharged on antiarrhythmic drugs. Even though the recurrence of VT was higher in the GA group compared to the MAC group (41.9% vs. 31.3%), the VT-free survival curves were not significantly different by Kaplan-Meier analysis (p=0.19) [Figure 2]. In a multivariate regression analysis, the sedation strategy was not an independent predictor of VT recurrence (p=NS). However, baseline hemodynamic instability was an independent predictor of VT recurrence after accounting for all intraprocedural characteristics (p=0.008). Conclusion Patients undergoing VT ablation under GA have more comorbidities and tend to be on more antiarrhythmic drugs. The GA group had more hemodynamic instability during the procedure and had greater overall VT recurrence, however, not significant in a time-based analysis. The greater overall recurrence in the GA group could be because they represent a sicker population, or the hemodynamics during the procedure preclude adequate ablation of the VT circuit elements.Figure 1Figure 2

Abstract Background Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has emerged as the mainstay of management for these sick patients. There is a lack of long-term data studying the characteristics and outcomes of VT ablation in females and the comparison with males. Purpose The purpose of the study was to assess the impact of sex on outcomes of catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia. Methods A single-center retrospective study of 200 procedures in 168 patients undergoing catheter ablation for scar-related VT under GA or MAC sedation was conducted. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, medications, relevant laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, structural data including echocardiograms and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, detailed procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Results Females undergoing VT ablation were younger (49.4 ± 15.6 vs. 65.5 ± 12.2 years) [Figure 1]. Females had a lower burden of comorbidities, including congestive heart failure (30.0 % vs. 82.5%), hypertension (27.5% vs. 74.4%), atrial arrhythmias (20.0% vs. 55.6%), chronic kidney disease (25.0% vs. 43.8%), prior myocardial infarction (15.0% & 35.0%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (0.0% & 23.8%). Females were on fewer antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline. During the procedure, males had a greater likelihood of undergoing general anesthesia (72.5% vs. 50.0%) and associated hemodynamic instability at baseline (30.0% vs. 12.5%). It was more likely for VT to be induced in males, and females required more induction medications. There was no difference in complication rates between males and females. A greater proportion of males were discharged and maintained on antiarrhythmic drugs after the procedure. There was no significant difference in VT recurrence or long-term mortality. Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, no difference was seen in long-term VT-free survival by sex (p=0.20) [Figure 2]. In a multivariate regression model, female sex had no bearing on the VT-free survival. Conclusion Females undergoing catheter ablation for VT are younger and have fewer comorbidities. They tend to be on fewer antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline, and after ablation. Interestingly, despite a healthier baseline profile, females do not experience less VT recurrence or mortality compared to males. Further study would be needed to investigate this association.Figure 1Figure 2

Abstract Background Catheter ablation has emerged as the first-line therapy for management of ventricular tachycardia (VT) over the last decade. There is a reluctance for older patients to be referred for catheter ablation with concerns for complications and poor outcomes. Purpose The purpose of the study was to assess the safety and outcomes of catheter ablation for VT in patients more than 74 years of age in comparison to younger patients. Methods A single-center retrospective study of 200 procedures in 168 patients undergoing catheter ablation for scar-related VT was conducted. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, medications, relevant laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, Holter, device electrograms, structural data including echocardiograms and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, detailed procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Results The mean age in the older cohort was 77.7 ± 3.7 years compared to 57.6 ± 13.1 years in the younger group (p &lt; 0.01) [Figure 1]. The geriatric patients had more males (93.6% vs. 75.8%) and had greater proportion of comorbidities including congestive heart failure (89.4% vs. 66.7%), hypertension (91.5% & 56.9%), atrial arrhythmias (66.0% vs. 43.1%), chronic kidney disease (68.1% vs. 31.4%), prior myocardial infarction (53.2% vs. 24.2%), and stroke (21.3% vs. 8.5%). The older patients were on more antiarrhythmic drugs at baseline. During the procedure, the number of cases with VT induction and hemodynamic stability was similar in older and younger groups. In cases where VT was induced, the older patients had a greater number of VTs induced (2.7 ± 3.0 vs. 1.9 ± 1.8), with slower cycle lengths (454.9 ± 122.6 vs. 379.3 ± 108.1 milliseconds). There was no difference noted in the procedural complications between the two groups. Older patients were more likely to be discharged on antiarrhythmic medications (87.2% vs. 71.2%) and had higher long-term mortality (29.8% vs. 7.8%). The older group was less likely to have a repeat ablation procedure (8.5% vs 24.2%). There was no difference in long-term VT-free survival rates among the two groups [Figure 2]. Conclusion Patients more than 74 years of age undergoing catheter ablation for structural VT have a greater comorbidity burden but demonstrate similar procedural complications and VT-free survival rates, when compared to the younger cohort.Figure 1Figure 2