Citations

VT Ablation in LVAD RecipientsBackgroundPatients with advanced heart failure (HF) are predisposed to ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), particularly following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). There is minimal evidence for appropriate management strategies.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the burden of VA and response to ablation performed either before or following LVAD implantation.MethodsWe created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent both VA ablation and Heart Mate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA, USA) LVAD implantation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent VA ablation before (pre‐LVAD) or after LVAD (post‐LVAD) implantation. Descriptive analyses assessed 6‐month arrhythmia burden in relation to LVAD implantation and VA ablation.ResultsA total of 9 patients underwent both LVAD implantation and VA ablation. There were 3 and 6 patients, respectively, in the pre‐LVAD and post‐LVAD cohorts. Among patients in the pre‐LVAD cohort, the median number of VAs tended to increase after ablation (9 vs. 72) and decreased after LVAD implantation (72 vs. 63). Similarly among patients in the post‐LVAD cohort, the median burden of VAs increased after LVAD implantation (1 vs. 22) and the median burden decreased after ablation (22 vs. 13). Two of 6 patients had substrate related to the LVAD inflow cannula site, while other substrate was not related directly to the cannula.ConclusionsIn patients with progressive HF and LVAD implantation, ablation is associated with reduced VA rates. In LVAD patients, most VAs arise from substrate unrelated to the inflow cannula site.

Percutaneous Pericardiotomy ToolIntroductionEpicardial procedures frequently require pericardial manipulation. We aimed to develop a nonsurgical percutaneous pericardial modification tool that may (1) facilitate epicardial‐based procedures by enabling adhesiolysis or (2) attenuate the myocardial constraining effect of the pericardium.MethodsThree novel devices were developed to enable pericardiotomy, all of which can be deployed in over‐the‐wire fashion following percutaneous epicardial access. The grasper permits us to seize the pericardial membrane providing leverage for incision. The scissors enables anterograde cutting maneuvers. The reverse‐slitter allows retrograde incisions; in addition, this device has a deflectable tip that increases the potential cutting area. We optimized these tools for safety by including electrodes to test for phrenic nerve stimulation as well as myocardial stimulation to determine directionality of the cutting devices. The base of the scissors and reverse‐slitter are also blunt ensuring that the cutting element is always away from the myocardium.ResultsFollowing 5 nonbeating heart bench test experiments for prototype development, 11 animal (9 canine, 2 swine) studies were performed. Of these 2 were proof‐of‐concept open chest studies; the remaining 9 were entirely closed‐chest, percutaneous procedures allowing for remodification of the prototypes. The tools successfully permitted incision of the pericardium in all studies. Hemodynamic measurements were assessed postincision and showed no compromise of systolic function. No coronary artery or phrenic nerve damage was seen in any study.ConclusionPercutaneous pericardiotomy is feasible and appears to be safe. It may provide leverage in epicardial‐based procedures and offer treatment options in disease processes characterized by pericardial restraint.

Introduction: The therapeutic trough range for mexiletine (0.8–2 mcg/mL) was largely established in the setting of arrhythmia prophylaxis following myocardial infarction. Objective: Describe the usage patterns of serum mexiletine concentrations and the impact of these concentrations on mexiletine dosing in modern practice for ventricular arrhythmia treatment. Methods: A single-center, retrospective analysis was conducted using the electronic medical record to identify serum mexiletine concentrations drawn between December 2004 and December 2014. The primary endpoint was the incidence of mexiletine concentrations drawn as troughs. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of mexiletine concentrations that prompted a dose change, association between adverse events and elevated concentrations, and association between baseline characteristics and mexiletine concentrations. Results: A total of 237 individual concentrations were included for analysis with 109 (46.0%) drawn appropriately as trough concentrations. Only 31 (13.1%) of the 237 concentrations drawn prompted a dose change. Mexiletine was primarily used for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias (96.2%), and 108 (45.6%) concentrations were drawn in an effort to assess efficacy. The median concentration was statistically different between patients with and without an adverse event (0.8 vs 0.7 mcg/mL, respectively; p = 0.017), but may not represent a clinical significance. Patients with hepatic dysfunction had higher median concentrations compared to those without hepatic dysfunction (1.30 vs 1.07 mcg/mL; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Mexiletine concentrations are often drawn at inappropriate times and seldom influence a dose change. This study suggests that routine monitoring of mexiletine concentrations may not be necessary; however, therapeutic drug monitoring may be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction or to confirm mexiletine absorption in patients where this represents a concern.

Background— Lead-related or valve-related endocarditis can complicate cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients with both CIED and prosthetic valves. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of transvenous lead extraction for CIED infection in patients with prosthetic valves. Methods and Results— We retrospectively screened 794 transvenous lead extraction procedures, between September 1, 2001 and August 31, 2012, at Mayo Clinic to identify patients with prosthetic valves who underwent lead extraction for infection. Demographic, clinical, and follow-up characteristics were analyzed. In total, 51 patients (6%) met the study inclusion criteria, of whom 20 had pocket infection and 31 had lead-related or valve-related, or both, endocarditis or bloodstream infection (mean age, 67 [18] years). Staphylococcal species were the most common pathogens, including Staphylococcus aureus in 20 cases (39%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci in 19 cases (37%). Overall, 127 transvenous leads (median lead age, 52 months) were extracted. Of these leads, 123 (97%) were removed completely. The in-hospital mortality rate was 9.8%; no deaths were attributable to the extraction procedure. Ninety-five percent of patients who survived had no evidence of recurrent device-related or valve-related infection. Conclusions— Transvenous lead extraction seems safe and curative in patients with CIED infection and prosthetic valves. Cure of infection can be achieved in the majority of patients with complete CIED removal and antimicrobial therapy and without valve surgery.

BackgroundMany patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (Aflutter) have concomitant sinus node dysfunction (SND). Ablation may result in injury to the sinus node complex or its blood supply resulting in sinus arrest and need for temporary pacing. We sought to characterize patients who develop acute SND (ASND) during/immediately after AF/Aflutter ablation.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of AF/Aflutter ablation patients between January 1, 2010 and February 28, 2015 to characterize those who required temporary pacemaker (TPM) implantation due to ASND (sinus arrest, sinus bradycardia <40 beats/min, or junctional rhythm with hemodynamic compromise) following atrial ablation.ResultsOf 2,151 patients, eight patients (<0.5%) with ASND manifesting as sinus arrest (n = 2), severe sinus bradycardia (n = 2), and junctional rhythm with hemodynamic compromise (n = 4) were identified (all male, age 66 ± 9.9 years, 4/8 [50%] persistent AF). AF ablation was performed in four, atypical Aflutter in one, and AF/Aflutter in three patients. The ablation set consisted of: pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (n = 6), roof line ablation (n = 6), mitral annulus‐left inferior PV line ablation (n = 5), left atrial appendage‐mitral annulus ablation (n = 1), cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 5), and isolation or ablation near the superior vena cava (SVC, n = 4). Patients with peri‐SVC ablation were more likely to develop ASND (P = 0.03). All patients received TPM; six received permanent pacemaker before discharge, performed 3.5 days postablation (range 2–6 days). At 3‐month device interrogation, all patients were atrially paced >50%.ConclusionASND is a rare complication of atrial ablation. It may be more common when peri‐SVC ablation is performed and may necessitate permanent pacemaker implantation.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Arrhythmias in Patients With CABackgroundCardiac amyloidosis (CA) is associated with increased atrial arrhythmias risk. The efficacy/safety of catheter‐based ablation therapy in patients with CA has not been adequately assessed.Methods and ResultsAll diagnosed CA patients who underwent atrial arrhythmia ablation therapy from 1995 to 2015 were reviewed. Arrhythmia recurrence, NYHA symptoms, and mortality were recorded. A total of 26 patients with CA and atrial arrhythmias were included; there were 7 light‐chain (AL), 17 wild‐type transthyretin (ATTRwt), and 2 mutated transthyretin (ATTRm) amyloidosis patients in total. Of which 13 underwent atrial arrhythmia ablation (CA‐A) and 13 underwent AV nodal ablation (CA‐AVN). In the CA‐A group, there were: 3 with atrial fibrillation (AF); 6 with atrial flutter (AFL); 2 with AF/AFL; and 2 with atrial tachycardia (AT). One‐year and 3‐year recurrence‐free survival were 75% and 60%, respectively. NYHA symptom improvement 6 months postablation was observed in both CA‐A and CA‐AVN groups: 7/10 (70%) and 4/8 (50%), respectively. Eleven patients with CA died (8 in CA‐AVN group vs. 3 in CA‐A group).ConclusionsCatheter‐based ablation for patients with CA appears to provide important symptomatic relief. However, mortality from the underlying disease remains a significant issue for the amyloid light‐chain subtype.