Citations

Background The decision to initially implant an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is informed by robust randomized controlled trials, but no such data exist to guide the decision to replace an ICD generator. In this study, we aimed to determine outcomes after ICD generator replacement. Methods All patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent ICD generator replacement from 2001 to 2011 at Mayo Clinic, MN, or Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, MA, were included. Outcomes included (1) appropriate therapy after generator replacement and (2) death before appropriate therapy after generator replacement. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to determine the associations between patient characteristics and outcomes. Results In 1421 patients undergoing ICD generator replacement (mean±SD age 69.6±12.1 years, 81% male), appropriate therapy occurred after replacement in 435 patients (30.6%) over a mean follow-up of 2.7±2.6 years. Associated factors included lower left ventricular ejection fraction and history of appropriate therapy before generator replacement. Death before appropriate ICD therapy occurred in 336 (23.7%) patients. Older age, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and noncardiac comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, chronic lung disease, peripheral vascular disease, lower hemoglobin, and lower glomerular filtration rate, were associated with greater risk of death before appropriate therapy. A progressive increase in mortality was observed with aggregation of these noncardiac comorbidities. Conclusions The decision to replace the ICD should take into consideration not only left ventricular ejection fraction and history of ventricular arrhythmias, but also comorbid illnesses that may impact the duration and the quality of life.

Background: Recognition of rates and causes of hard, patient-centered outcomes of death and cerebrovascular events (CVEs) after heart rhythm disorder management (HRDM) procedures is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs in electrophysiology laboratories. Our primary aim was to assess and characterize death and CVEs (stroke or transient ischemic attack) after HRDM procedures over a 17-year period. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing HRDM procedures between January 2000 and November 2016 at the Mayo Clinic. Patients from all 3 tertiary academic centers (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) were included in the study. All in-hospital deaths and CVEs after HRDM procedures were identified and were further characterized as directly or indirectly related to the HRDM procedure. Subgroup analysis of death and CVE rates was performed for ablation, device implantation, electrophysiology study, lead extraction, and defibrillation threshold testing procedures. Results: A total of 48 913 patients (age, 65.7±6.6 years; 64% male) who underwent a total of 62 065 HRDM procedures were included in the study. The overall mortality and CVE rates in the cohort were 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.42) and 0.12% (95% CI, 0.09–0.16), respectively. Patients undergoing lead extraction had the highest overall mortality rate at 1.9% (95% CI, 1.34–2.61) and CVE rate at 0.62% (95% CI, 0.32–1.07). Among patients undergoing HRDM procedures, 48% of deaths directly related to the HDRM procedure were among patients undergoing device implantation procedures. Overall, cardiac tamponade was the most frequent direct cause of death (40%), and infection was the most common indirect cause of death (29%). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.76%, with the highest being in lead extraction procedures (3.08%), followed by device implantation procedures (0.94%). Conclusions: Half of the deaths directly related to an HRDM procedure were among the patients undergoing device implantation procedures, with cardiac tamponade being the most common cause of death. This highlights the importance of the development of protocols for the quick identification and management of cardiac tamponade even in procedures typically believed to be lower risk such as device 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.