Roukoz, Henri

Abstract Aims The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (EV ICD) has been shown to be safe and effective for patients at risk of sudden cardiac death, but little is known about EV ICD lead removal in humans. This analysis aimed to characterize the EV ICD lead removal experience thus far. Methods and results This was a retrospective analysis of lead removals from the EV ICD Pilot, Pivotal, and Continued Access Studies. Patients with a successful EV ICD implant who underwent lead removal were included. The main objective was lead removal success. Ancillary objectives included characterizing technique used, procedure complications, and reimplantation status. An EV ICD system was successfully implanted in 347 patients across the 3 studies (25.9% female; 53.4 ± 13.3 years; left ventricular ejection fraction: 39.7 ± 15.9). Of these patients, 29 (8.4%) underwent lead removal with a mean lead dwell time of 12.6 ± 14.3 months (0.2–58.4). The main reason for lead removal was lead dislodgement (n = 9, 31.0%). Lead removal was successful in 27/29 (93.1%) cases [100% (19/19) success rate <1 year and 80% (8/10) success rate >1 year post-implant]. Simple traction was used in 22/26 (84.6%) and extraction tools in 4/26 (15.4%) successful cases where technique was known. No complications were reported for any of the removal procedures. All 11 EV ICD reimplant attempts were successful. Conclusion Complete removal of the EV ICD lead was successful in 93.1% of cases, and simple traction was sufficient in most instances. Based on these results, lead removal from the substernal space was safe and achievable up to 3 years post-implant.

Abstract Background The extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) has recently emerged as a new option for guideline indicated ICD patients. Previous study results from the EV ICD Pilot and Pivotal studies have demonstrated that the device can provide safe and effective therapy through chronic follow up. However, less has been reported regarding EV ICD lead removal. Purpose To report on the experience of lead removal in the EV ICD Pivotal Study. Methods The EV ICD Pivotal study was an international, prospective, single-arm, premarket clinical study. Patients with a class I or IIa indication for a single-chamber ICD per ESC or ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines were enrolled. Lead removal summary data was reported. Results Of 316 patients with an implant attempt, (74.7% male, age 53.8±13.1 years, 82% primary prevention, LVEF of 38.9%±15.4%, and NYHA Class I [23.7%] or II/III [65.5%]) 299 were fully implanted; 17 (5.7%) of which had a lead removal procedure (14–752 days post-implant, at 13 sites) with 3 of them having been implanted for more than 1 year. Reasons for lead removal were lead dislodgement (n=7), infection (n=5), high impedance alert due to lead fracture (n=2), pacing indication (n=1), cardiac transplant (n=1), or scheduled sternotomy (n=1). New EV ICD leads were placed in 7/17 (41.2%) patients. No serious adverse events were adjudicated as related to the explant procedures. There was a single observation of incision site haemorrhage, that was resolved with wound care. Additional details on lead removal will be included at the time of presentation. Conclusions The EV ICD lead was successfully removed 14-752 days post implant. Nine patients were re-implanted with either extravascular or transvenous systems. Longer term extraction data collection is ongoing through the EV ICD Pivotal study and through the EV ICD post-approval study and will continue to provide additional insights.Lead removed 24 months post-implant.

Introduction: Cardiac arrhythmias are common in continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. The impact of axial vs. intrapericardial centrifugal LVAD pumps on arrhythmia incidence and associated clinical outcomes is unclear. Hypothesis: This multicenter study evaluated the impact of LVAD type (axial vs. centrifugal) on incidence of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, ICD shocks and mortality in LVAD patients. Methods: Analysis was done on 536 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at 5 US centers from 2008 to 2016. The groups were divided based on their LVAD type (axial - HeartMate II [HMII, n=433] vs. centrifugal - HeartWare (HW, n=103). Baseline characteristics as well as incidence of post-LVAD atrial arrhythmias (PL-AA), ventricular arrhythmias (PL-VA) and ICD shocks were analyzed in these groups. Multivariable Cox Regression analysis was used to identify predictors of survival. Results: Of 536 patients, 433 had HMII axial LVAD and 103 had HW centrifugal VAD implant. At baseline, HMII group had more males, higher proportion of CRT-D and higher prevalence of AA (Table 1A). Left ventricular dimensions were similar between groups. During a median follow-up of 537 days of LVAD support, incidence of PL-VA and ICD shocks were significantly higher in the HM2 group compared to HW group whereas incidence of PL-AA was not significantly different (Table 1A). In multivariable Cox Regression analysis, LVAD indication was the only variable that predicted survival (Table 1B). Type of LVAD (axial vs. centrifugal) was not associated with survival (HMII vs. HW - HR 1.04, P=0.48). Conclusions: In this multi-center continuous flow LVAD cohort, axial HM2 VAD patients had a higher incidence of PL-VA and ICD shocks. Type of LVAD (axial vs. centrifugal) was not associated with survival.

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia. Signal-processing approaches are widely used for the analysis of intracardiac electrograms (iEGMs), which are collected during catheter ablation from patients with AF. In order to identify possible targets for ablation therapy, dominant frequency (DF) is widely used and incorporated in electroanatomical mapping systems. Recently, a more robust measure, multiscale frequency (MSF), for iEGM data analysis was adopted and validated. However, before completing any iEGM analysis, a suitable bandpass (BP) filter must be applied to remove noise. Currently, no clear guidelines for BP filter characteristics exist. The lower bound of the BP filter is usually set to 3–5 Hz, while the upper bound (BP¯th) of the BP filter varies from 15 Hz to 50 Hz according to many researchers. This large range of BP¯th subsequently affects the efficiency of further analysis. In this paper, we aimed to develop a data-driven preprocessing framework for iEGM analysis, and validate it based on DF and MSF techniques. To achieve this goal, we optimized the BP¯th using a data-driven approach (DBSCAN clustering) and demonstrated the effects of different BP¯th on subsequent DF and MSF analysis of clinically recorded iEGMs from patients with AF. Our results demonstrated that our preprocessing framework with BP¯th = 15 Hz has the best performance in terms of the highest Dunn index. We further demonstrated that the removal of noisy and contact-loss leads is necessary for performing correct data iEGMs data analysis.

AbstractBackgroundCatheter ablation is associated with limited success rates in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently, existing mapping systems fail to identify critical target sites for ablation. Recently, we proposed and validated several techniques (multiscale frequency [MSF], Shannon entropy [SE], kurtosis [Kt], and multiscale entropy [MSE]) to identify pivot point of rotors using ex‐vivo optical mapping animal experiments. However, the performance of these techniques is unclear for the clinically recorded intracardiac electrograms (EGMs), due to the different nature of the signals.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the performance of MSF, MSE, SE, and Kt techniques to identify the pivot point of the rotor using unipolar and bipolar EGMs obtained from numerical simulations.MethodsStationary and meandering rotors were simulated in a 2D human atria. The performances of new approaches were quantified by comparing the “true” core of the rotor with the core identified by the techniques. Also, the performances of all techniques were evaluated in the presence of noise, scar, and for the case of the multielectrode multispline and grid catheters.ResultsOur results demonstrate that all the approaches are able to accurately identify the pivot point of both stationary and meandering rotors from both unipolar and bipolar EGMs. The presence of noise and scar tissue did not significantly affect the performance of the techniques. Finally, the core of the rotors was correctly identified for the case of multielectrode multispline and grid catheter simulations.ConclusionThe core of rotors can be successfully identified from EGMs using novel techniques; thus, providing motivation for future clinical implementations.

BackgroundThe MitraClip® system is a newer percutaneous device that has shown promising results but data on its safety and efficacy in low‐ and high‐surgical risk populations continues to evolve. We performed a systematic review of the published studies reporting the safety and efficacy of MitraClip® implantation for treatment of moderate to severe and severe mitral regurgitation (MR).MethodsReviewers independently searched for relevant articles in Medline and abstracted clinical information based on pre‐defined criteria and end‐points. Patients were classified as low‐ or high‐surgical risk for conventional mitral valve (MV) surgery based on Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, EuroSCORE, or surgeon discretion. Primary safety outcome was 30‐day mortality and primary efficacy outcomes were freedom from death, ≥3+ MR, and requirement for MV surgery during follow‐up.ResultsImmediate and long‐term outcomes of 16 studies, including 2980 patients (age 73.7 ± 0.6 years; 63.3% males) receiving the MitraClip®, were analyzed. Acute procedural success rate was 91.4% with a procedural mortality of 0.1%. Mortality at 30 days and long‐term (310 days) follow‐up was 4.2 and 15.8%, respectively and was significantly higher in the high‐risk group (P = 0.003 and 0.019, respectively). Incidence of major procedural adverse outcomes was relatively low with blood transfusion accounting for most events. At follow‐up, the number of patients with ≥3+ MR reduced from 96.3% to 14.7% (P < 0.001), and those with NYHA class III/IV reduced from 83.2% to 23.4% (P < 0.001).ConclusionMitraClip® implantation for moderate to severe or severe MR appears to be safe with a very low procedural mortality. There is significant improvement in functional outcomes although long‐term mortality is high, especially in high surgical risk patients. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.