Cheung, Jim W

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.

Background Shock‐reduction implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator programming (SRP) was associated with fewer therapies and improved survival in randomized controlled trials, but real‐world studies investigating SRP and associated outcomes are limited. Methods and Results The BIOTRONIK CERTITUDE registry was linked with the Medicare database. We included all patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implanted between August 22, 2012 and September 30, 2021 in the United States. SRP was defined as programming to either a therapy rate cutoff ≥188 beats per minute or number of intervals to detection ≥30/40 for treatment. Among 6781 patients (mean 74±9 years; 27% women), 3393 (50%) had SRP. Older age, secondary prevention indication, and device implantation in the southern or western United States were associated with lower use of SRP. The cumulative incidence rate of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shocks was lower in the SRP group (5.1% shocks/patient year) compared with the non‐SRP group (7.2% shocks/patient year) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.73–0.96]; P =0.005). Over a median follow‐up of 2.9 years, 739 deaths occurred in the SRP group and 822 deaths occurred in the non‐SRP group (adjusted HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88–1.07]; P =0.569). SRP was associated with a lower all‐cause mortality among patients without ischemic heart disease compared with patients with ischemic heart disease (adjusted HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48–0.87] versus adjusted HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.92–1.14]; P interaction =0.004). Conclusions Adoption of SRP is low in real‐world clinical practice. Age, clinical variables, and geographic factors are associated with use of SRP. In this study, SRP‐associated decrease in mortality was limited to patients without ischemic heart disease.

Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA‐ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA‐ECMO. Methods and Results Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA‐ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA‐ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P ‐trend<0.001). In‐hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P =0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P =0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P =0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P <0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P =0.002), higher in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P =0.001), and higher 40‐day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P <0.001). Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA‐ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform‐specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Abstract Aims Post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is associated with stroke and mortality. It is unknown if POAF is associated with subsequent heart failure (HF) hospitalization. This study aims to examine the association between POAF and incident HF hospitalization among patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries. Methods and results A retrospective cohort study was conducted using all-payer administrative claims data that included all non-federal emergency department visits and acute care hospitalizations across 11 states in the USA. The study population included adults aged at least 18 years hospitalized for surgery without a prior diagnosis of HF. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to examine the association between POAF and incident HF hospitalization after making adjustment for socio-demographics and comorbid conditions. Among 76 536 patients who underwent cardiac surgery, 14 365 (18.8%) developed incident POAF. In an adjusted Cox model, POAF was associated with incident HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR) 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25–1.41]. In a sensitivity analysis excluding HF within 1 year of surgery, POAF remained associated with incident HF hospitalization (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.01–1.31). Among 2 929 854 patients who underwent non-cardiac surgery, 23 763 (0.8%) developed incident POAF. In an adjusted Cox model, POAF was again associated with incident HF hospitalization (HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.94–2.10), including in a sensitivity analysis excluding HF within 1 year of surgery (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.38–1.61). Conclusions Post-operative atrial fibrillation is associated with incident HF hospitalization among patients without prior history of HF undergoing both cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries. These findings reinforce the adverse prognostic impact of POAF and suggest that POAF may be a marker for identifying patients with subclinical HF and those at elevated risk for HF.