Citations

Background: Diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging and relies largely on demonstration of elevated cardiac filling pressures (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure). Current guidelines recommend use of natriuretic peptides (N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide) and rest/exercise echocardiography (E/e′ ratio) to make this determination. Data to support this practice are conflicting. Methods: Simultaneous echocardiographic-catheterization studies were prospectively conducted at rest and during exercise in subjects with invasively proven HFpEF (n=50) and participants with dyspnea but no identifiable cardiac pathology (n=24). Results: N-Terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide levels were below the level considered to exclude disease (≤125 pg/mL) in 18% of subjects with HFpEF. E/e′ ratio was correlated with directly measured pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at rest ( r =0.63, P <0.0001) and during exercise ( r =0.57, P <0.0001). Although specific, current guidelines were poorly sensitive, identifying only 34% to 60% of subjects with invasively proven HFpEF on the basis of resting echocardiographic data alone. Addition of exercise echocardiographic data (E/e′ ratio>14) improved sensitivity (to 90%) and thus negative predictive value, but decreased specificity (71%). Conclusions: Currently proposed HFpEF diagnostic guidelines on the basis of resting data are poorly sensitive. Adding exercise E/e′ data improves sensitivity and negative predictive value but compromises specificity, suggesting that exercise echocardiography may help rule out HFpEF. These results question the accuracy of current approaches to exclude HFpEF on the basis of resting data alone and reinforce the value of exercise testing using invasive and noninvasive hemodynamic assessments to definitively confirm or refute the diagnosis of HFpEF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT01418248.

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.

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.