Varosy, Paul D.

BACKGROUND: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry (LAAO) includes the vast majority of transcatheter LAAO procedures performed in the United States. The objective of this study was to develop a model predicting adverse events among patients undergoing LAAO with Watchman FLX. METHODS: Data from 41 001 LAAO procedures with Watchman FLX from July 2020 to September 2021 were used to develop and validate a model predicting in-hospital major adverse events. Randomly selected development (70%, n=28 530) and validation (30%, n=12 471) cohorts were analyzed with 1000 bootstrapped samples, using forward stepwise logistic regression to create the final model. A simplified bedside risk score was also developed using this model. RESULTS: Increased age, female sex, low preprocedure hemoglobin, no prior attempt at atrial fibrillation termination, and increased fall risk most strongly predicted in-hospital major adverse events and were included in the final model along with other clinically relevant variables. The median in-hospital risk-standardized adverse event rate was 1.50% (range, 1.03%–2.84%; interquartile range, 1.42%–1.64%). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (development C-index, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.65–0.70] and validation C-index, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.62–0.70]) with good calibration. The simplified risk score was well calibrated with risk of in-hospital major adverse events ranging from 0.26% to 3.90% for a score of 0 to 8, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A transcatheter LAAO risk model using National Cardiovascular Data Registry and LAAO Registry data can predict in-hospital major adverse events, demonstrated consistency across hospitals and can be used for quality improvement efforts. A simple bedside risk score was similarly predictive and may inform shared decision-making.

Abstract Remote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third-party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

AbstractRemote monitoring is beneficial for the management of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices by impacting morbidity and mortality. With increasing numbers of patients using remote monitoring, keeping up with higher volume of remote monitoring transmissions creates challenges for device clinic staff. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide cardiac electrophysiologists, allied professionals, and hospital administrators in managing remote monitoring clinics. This includes guidance for remote monitoring clinic staffing, appropriate clinic workflows, patient education, and alert management. This expert consensus statement also addresses other topics such as communication of transmission results, use of third‐party resources, manufacturer responsibilities, and programming concerns. The goal is to provide evidence‐based recommendations impacting all aspects of remote monitoring services. Gaps in current knowledge and guidance for future research directions are also identified.

AbstractIntroductionEsophageal injury is a well‐known complication associated with catheter ablation. Though novel methods to mitigate esophageal injury have been developed, few studies have evaluated temperature gradients with catheter ablation across the posterior wall of the left atrium, interstitium, and esophagus.MethodsTo investigate temperature gradients across the tissue, we developed a porcine heart–esophageal model to perform ex vivo catheter ablation on the posterior wall of the left atrium (LA), with juxtaposed interstitial tissue and esophagus. Circulating saline (5 L/min) was used to mimic blood flow along the LA and alteration of ionic content to modulate impedance. Thermistors along the region of interest were used to analyze temperature gradients. Varying time and power, radiofrequency (RF) ablation lesions were applied with an externally irrigated ablation catheter. Ablation strategies were divided into standard approaches (SAs, 10–15 g, 25–35 W, 30 s) or high‐power short duration (HPSD, 10–15 g, 40–50 W, 10 s). Temperature gradients, time to the maximum measured temperature, and the relationship between measured temperature as a function of distance from the site of ablation was analyzed.ResultsIn total, five experiments were conducted each utilizing new porcine posterior LA wall‐esophageal specimens for RF ablation (n = 60 lesions each for SA and HPSD). For both SA and HPSD, maximum temperature rise from baseline was markedly higher at the anterior wall (AW) of the esophagus compared to the esophageal lumen (SA: 4.29°C vs. 0.41°C, p < .0001 and HPSD: 3.13°C vs. 0.28°C, p < .0001). Across ablation strategies, the average temperature rise at the AW of the esophagus was significantly higher with SA relative to HPSD ablation (4.29°C vs. 3.13°C, p = .01). From the start of ablation, the average time to reach a maximum temperature as measured at the AW of the esophagus with SA was 36.49 ± 12.12 s, compared to 16.57 ± 4.54 s with HPSD ablation, p < .0001. Fit to a linear scale, a 0.37°C drop in temperature was seen for every 1 cm increase in distance from the site of ablation and thermistor location at the AW of the esophagus.ConclusionBoth SA and HPSD ablation strategies resulted in markedly higher temperatures measured at the AW of the esophagus compared to the esophageal lumen, raising concern about the value of clinical intraluminal temperature monitoring. The temperature rise at the AW was lower with HPSD. A significant time delay was seen to reach the maximum measured temperature and a modest increase in distance between the site of ablation and thermistor location impacted the accuracy of monitored temperatures.

Introduction: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The occurrence of device therapies after ICD implantation in contemporary clinical practice is not well described, especially in patient subgroups designated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2005 Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). Methods: The Longitudinal Study of ICDs assessed rates and correlates of device therapies (overall and those requiring shock) up to 3 years post-implant among 2540 patients with LVSD receiving first-time primary prevention ICDs in 7 US health care systems from 2006-2009. Implant data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry were linked to electronic longitudinal health care system data and a novel centrally adjudicated repository of device therapies abstracted from medical records. Proportional hazard models evaluated associations with device therapies by appropriateness, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Subjects were 26% women, 35% <65 years old, and 59% non-Hispanic white. Over a mean 26 months, 738 (29.1%) received at least 1 therapy (median 2). Estimated 3-year risk of any device therapy was 36% (24% appropriate, 12% inappropriate); for therapy requiring shock, corresponding values were 24%, 14%, 9%. The rate of appropriate therapy was higher in men than women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.43-2.35). The rate of inappropriate therapy was higher for subjects <65 than for those >=65 years (1.40, 1.04-1.88), and lower among 2009 implants compared to 2006 (0.66, 0.46-0.95). Regarding the 3 CMS CED patient subgroups, neither ejection fraction nor heart failure symptom severity was associated with device therapy; for LVSD etiology, the rate of inappropriate therapy was nominally but not significantly higher among subjects with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy of < 9 months duration (1.38, 0.88-2.18). Conclusions: In a representative cohort of primary prevention ICD patients in usual care, rates of device therapies were somewhat lower than in landmark trials, differed by some patient characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for CMS CED subgroups.

Introduction: The American College of Cardiology developed the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) AFib Ablation Registry to assess prevalence, demographics, procedural management and outcomes of patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AFib) ablation procedures. The objective of this registry’s first presentation is to summarize initial AFib Ablation Registry data regarding patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, and in-hospital adverse events and outcomes in those undergoing AFib ablation enrolled in the registry. Methods: Data were tabulated and summarized with simple proportions for categorical data, and mean ± standard deviation for continuous data. Results: A total of 31,345 patients who underwent AFib ablation were included in the registry (mean age 65.0 ± 10.4, 65.2% male, 57.6% paroxysmal AFib), with ablations performed at 120 hospitals, by 501 physicians. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of was 2.6 ± 1.6, and mean HAS-BLED score was 1.1 ± 0.9. Successful pulmonary vein isolation was able to be achieved in all veins in 94.5% of patients. The prevalence of any complication during procedural admission was 3.1%; the most common were hematoma (0.5%) and pericardial effusion requiring intervention (0.42%). The mean length of stay during the index admission (days) was 1.4 ± 7.6, and in-hospital death prevalence was 0.04% [FIGURE] . Conclusions: In conclusion, the NCDR AFib Ablation Registry is a large, national, multi-center, prospective cohort study to describe events outside the clinical trial or research setting, demonstrating successful pulmonary vein isolation in the majority of patients and a low prevalence of adverse events. Future studies from the registry will be able to help support and develop evidence-based guidelines for AFib ablation treatment and optimize patient outcomes.

Background Primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. Methods and Results We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy <9 months’ duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were <65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three‐year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68–2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. Conclusions In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups.

Objective Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have higher risk of sudden cardiac death; however, they may not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), in part due to higher risk of complications. We evaluated whether CKD is associated with greater risk of device-delivered shocks/antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies among patients receiving a primary prevention ICD. Methods We studied participants in the observational Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all delivered shocks/ATPs therapies and type of shock/ATP therapies (inappropriate or appropriate, determined by physician adjudication) within the 3 years. We evaluated the associations between CKD and time to first device therapy, burden of device therapy, and inappropriate versus appropriate device therapy, adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, laboratory values and medication use. Results Among 2161 participants, 1066 (49.3%) had CKD (eGFR 44±11 mL/min/1.73 m2) at ICD implantation. During mean of 2.26±0.89 years, 9.8% and 18.5% of participants had at least one inappropriate and appropriate shock/ATP therapies, respectively. CKD was not associated with time to first shock/ATP therapies (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05), overall burden of shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17) or inappropriate versus appropriate shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14) compared with not having CKD. Conclusions In adults receiving a primary prevention ICD, mild-to-moderate CKD was not associated with the timing, burden or appropriateness of subsequent device therapy. Potential concern for inappropriate ICD-delivered therapies should not preclude ICDs among eligible patients with CKD.