Chang, Philip M.

Background The objective of this international multicenter study was to investigate both early and late outcomes of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with a systemic right ventricle (SRV) and to identify predictors for congestive heart failure readmissions and mortality. Methods and Results This retrospective international multicenter study included 13 centers. The study population comprised 80 adult patients with SRV (48.9% women) with a mean age of 45±14 (range, 18–77) years at initiation of CRT. Median follow‐up time was 4.1 (25th–75th percentile, 1.3–8.3) years. Underlying congenital heart disease consisted of congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries and dextro‐transposition of the great arteries in 63 (78.8%) and 17 (21.3%) patients, respectively. CRT resulted in significant improvement in functional class (before CRT: III, 25th–75th percentile, II–III; after CRT: II, 25th–75th percentile, II–III; P =0.005) and QRS duration (before CRT: 176±27; after CRT: 150±24 milliseconds; P =0.003) in patients with pre‐CRT ventricular pacing who underwent an upgrade to a CRT device (n=49). These improvements persisted during long‐term follow‐up with a marginal but significant increase in SRV function (before CRT; 30%, 25th–75th percentile, 25–35; after CRT: 31%, 25th–75th percentile, 21–38; P =0.049). In contrast, no beneficial change in the above‐mentioned variables was observed in patients who underwent de novo CRT (n=31). A quarter of all patients were readmitted for heart failure during follow‐up, and mortality at latest follow‐up was 21.3%. Conclusions This international experience with CRT in patients with an SRV demonstrated that CRT in selected patients with SRV dysfunction and pacing‐induced dyssynchrony yielded consistent improvement in QRS duration and New York Heart Association functional status, with a marginal increase in SRV function.

ICD Characteristics and Survival in Young PatientsIntroductionIndications for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in young patients have expanded and differ from those in older adults. We sought to provide descriptive characteristics and data regarding ICD therapy and outcomes among younger and older ICD recipients.Methods and ResultsDemographics, device type and programming, remotely transmitted data, shock events, and survival were compared among younger (≤30 years) and older (>30 years) cohorts with ICDs from a single manufacturer followed on a remote network. The younger cohort included 904 patients (1.6% of all implants). This group had more females (46% vs. 25%; P < 0.01), single‐coil leads (21% vs. 4%; P < 0.01), and single‐chamber devices (46% vs. 34%; P < 0.01). Shock incidence was higher (40% younger vs. 32% older at 4 years; P < 0.01) and survival was better over comparable follow‐up (88% vs. 72%; P < 0.01). Remote monitoring was associated with improved survival in both groups (93% vs. 86% ≤ 30 years, P < 0.01; 73% vs. 66% > 30 years, P < 0.01). Shock for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) was more frequent in younger patients (12% vs. 5%; P < 0.01); 39% of all shocks were inappropriate. A 10‐fold increased risk of mortality was seen among young patients with shocks for atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF/AFL).ConclusionsDifferences in survival, shock incidence, and prognostic significance of VT/VF and AF/AFL exist between younger and older ICD recipients. These suggest distinct differences in myocardial substrates and diseases that ultimately impact ICD management.