Isath, Ameesh

AbstractBackgroundPatients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA) have increased mortality, which can be explained in part by an increased risk of arrhythmias. The burden of arrhythmias in CA, their predictors, and impact on in‐hospital outcomes remains unclear. The role of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICD) in this population is also uncertain.MethodsWe queried the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) using ICD‐9‐CM codes 277.39 and 425.7 to identify CA. Twelve common arrhythmias were extracted using appropriate, validated ICD‐9‐CM codes. ICD implantation was identified using procedure ICD‐9 codes 37.94 to 37.98, 00.51 and 00.54.ResultsThere were a total of 145,920 CA hospitalizations between 1999 and 2014 in the United States and 56,199 (38.5%) of them were associated with arrhythmias. The prevalence of arrhythmias remained relatively constant from 41.5% in 1999 to 40.2% in 2014. The most common arrhythmia was atrial fibrillation (25.4%). In‐patient mortality was significantly higher in CA patients with arrhythmias (10.4% vs 6.5%, P < .001). ICD implantation was performed in 1,381 (0.94%) patients with CA and analysis revealed an incremental trend in implantation over the study period (0.48% in 1999 to 0.65% in 2014). In‐hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who underwent ICD implantation (3.7% vs 8%; P = .0078). CA patients with arrhythmias also had an increased cost of hospitalization and length of stay ($65,046 ± 1,079 vs $53,322 ± 687 and 8.3 ± 0.1 vs 7.4 ± 0.1 days, respectively; P < .0001).ConclusionCardiac arrhythmias are common in patients with CA and are associated with worse in‐hospital outcomes, increased length of stay, and cost of hospitalization.

Abstract Background Venous stenosis is a well-recognized complication of transvenous leads when patients require lead revisions or device upgrade. In these cases, balloon venoplasty or alternative venous access with subcutaneous tunneling can be performed. Purpose Compare the outcomes of venoplasty vs. tunneling in patients requiring additional transvenous lead implantation. Methods A single center retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing lead implantation/revision requiring venoplasty or tunneling from 2005–2017. Chi-squared and Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables. Results Ninety five patients met our inclusion criteria (60 venoplasty & 35 tunneling). There was no difference in procedure success rates (p-value=0.98). Tunneling was associated with less fluoroscopy time but higher incidence of acute complications (0% vs. 23%, p-value=0.002) most requiring invasive intervention and/or blood product transfusion. Long term outcomes were comparable and related to lead failure or infection. Outcomes for tunneling vs. venoplasty Variable Tunneling (n=35) Venoplasty (n=60) p-value Age Y 67 (23–84) 70 (29–91) 0.25 Male (%) 24 (69%) 41 (68%) 0.98 Number of existing leads 2.1 (1–4) 2.4 (0–4) 0.1 Age of oldest lead 7.0 (0–21) 7.2 (0–33) 0.73 Number of new leads 1.2 (1–3) 1.4 (1–3) 0.26 Fluoroscopy time (SD) min 29.2 (21.3) 39.7 (21.5) 0.012 Procedure success (%) 35 (100%) 55 (92%) 0.9 Acute complications (%) 8 (23%)1 0 (0%) 0.0002 Pocket hematoma/bleed 4 (11%)2 Hemothorax 2 (6%)3 Pericarditis 1 (3%) Lead compromise 1 (3%) Follow up M 18 (0–76) 28 (0–98) N/A Long term lead issues (%) 6 (17%) 10 (17%) 0.95 Long term complication requiring intervention 4 (11%) 8 (13%) N/A Procedure success: functional lead placed as a result of venoplasty or tunneling. 1Two patients required blood products. 2Two patients required invasive intervention. 3One patient required chest tube and the other ICU admission. Conclusions Balloon venoplasty is associated with similar rates of success and a less incidence of acute complications when compared subcutaneous tunneling. Acknowledgement/Funding NIH T32 Training Grant HL07111-40

AbstractIntroductionEmerging medical technology has allowed for monitoring of heart rhythm abnormalities using smartphone compatible devices. The safety and utility of such devices have not been established in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). We sought to assess the safety and compatibility of the Food and Drug Administration‐approved AliveCor Kardia device in patients with CIEDs.Methods and ResultsWe prospectively recruited patients with CIED for a Kardia recording during their routine device interrogation. A recording was obtained in paced and nonpaced states. Adverse clinical events were noted at the time of recording. Electrograms (EGMs) from the cardiac device were obtained at the time of recording to assess for any electromagnetic interference (EMI) introduced by Kardia. Recordings were analyzed for quality and given a score of 3 (interpretable rhythm, no noise), 2 (interpretable rhythm, significant noise) or 1 (uninterpretable). A total of 251 patients were recruited (59% with a pacemaker and 41% with ICD). There were no adverse clinical events noted at the time of recording and no changes to CIED settings. Review of all EGMs revealed no EMI introduced by Kardia. Recordings were correctly interpreted in 90% of paced recordings (183 had a score of 3, 43 of 2, and 25 of 1) and 94.7% of nonpaced recordings (147 of 3, 15 of 2, and 9 of 1).ConclusionThe AliveCor Kardia device has an excellent safety profile when used in conjunction with most CIEDs. The quality of recordings was preserved in this population. The device, therefore, can be considered for heart rhythm monitoring in patients with CIEDs.

AbstractBackgroundImplantable loop recorders (ILRs) are effective in achieving symptom‐rhythm correlation. However, diagnostic yield in routine clinical practice is not well established.MethodsPatients undergoing ILR implantation between April 2010 and May 2015 were included. All devices were enrolled in remote monitoring with automatic arrhythmia detection and P sense algorithms switched “ON.” Symptom‐rhythm correlation was assessed and changes in management were recorded.ResultsA total of 312 patients (57% male, age 53 ± 22 years; median CHADS2VaSc score = 1) were included in this study. ILRs were implanted for evaluation of syncope in 206 (66.0%), presyncope in 23 (7.4%), unexplained palpitations in 51 (16.3%), and cryptogenic stroke in 27 (8.7%) patients. ILR monitoring yielded a diagnosis that changed management strategy in 146 (46.8%) patients over a median of 12 (1‐42) months. Out of 163 (52.2%) patients with symptoms during the monitoring period, 100 (61.3%) had an arrhythmia. ILR was useful in ruling out an arrhythmic cause for symptoms in 63 (38.7%) patients. ILR results led to pacemaker implantation in 23 patients (7.4% overall and 11.2% of those with syncope) after median follow‐up of 3 months. A new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation was made in 38 (12.2%) patients, 11 of whom were initiated on oral anticoagulants. ILR results led to pacemaker implantation in 31 patients (9.9% overall and 19.0% of those with syncope) after median follow‐up of 3 months. A new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation was made in 38 (12.2%) patients, nine of whom were initiated on oral anticoagulants. Overall, ILR led to a change in management in 47% patients with a number needed to implant of 2.1 to change management.ConclusionILR monitoring is effective in achieving symptom‐rhythm correlation and results in changes in management in nearly half of implanted patients. Additional studies are needed to evaluate cost efficacy of ILR and the optimal monitoring duration.

AbstractBackgroundTransvenous lead implantation has multiple drawbacks and complications that can be overcome by epicardial lead placement. We aimed to design percutaneously implanted epicardial leads that are anchored through the transverse sinus (TS).Methods and resultsWe designed a novel multielectrode pacing device with four bipole electrode pairs. The device is advanced through the TS, with both ends externalized out of the pericardium. We tested the prototype in one proof‐of‐concept and 5 additional acute canine experiments.The TS device recorded ventricular and atrial electrograms. The median amplitude of near‐field ventricular electrograms was 3.3 mA (IQR 2.0–4.3) and of near‐field atrial electrograms was 2.1 mA (IQR 1.3–2.2). The median ventricular threshold (N = 30) was 1.1 mA (IQR 0.7–3.1) at a median pulse width of 0.5 ms (IQR 0.5–0.5). The median atrial threshold (N = 10) was 2.4 mA (IQR 1.1–7.8) at a median pulse width of 0.5 ms (IQR 0.5–0.9). Right and left ventricular and atrial pacing morphologies were noted while pacing electrodes adjacent to these chambers. Simultaneous left (LV) and right ventricular (RV) pacing showed reduction in QRS duration from 116 ms (RV) and 105 ms (LV) to 91 ms. On necropsy, the device was located in the TS in all animals. There were TS abrasions in one animal, and no other acute complications.ConclusionsThis study highlights a novel approach to epicardial pacing harnessing the unique anatomy of the transverse sinus as an anchoring point. Placement of this novel transverse sinus device was safe and feasible, with acceptable atrial and ventricular thresholds.