Kusumoto, Fred

AbstractBackgroundMany advanced heart failure patients have both a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). This study examines incidence, clinical impact, and management of LVAD‐related EMI.MethodsWe performed a three‐center retrospective analysis of transvenous ICD implanted patients with LVAD implanted between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was EMI after LVAD implantation, categorized as LVAD‐related noise or telemetry interference.ResultsThe rate of LVAD‐related EMI among the 737 patients (mean age 58.6 ± 12.8 years) studied was 5.0%. Telemetry interference (1.5%) compromised ICD interrogation in all patients. This was resolved successfully with use of a metal shield, encased wand, radiofrequency tower, different ICD programmer or by increasing distance between ICD programmer and LVAD (n = 6). ICD replacement was required to reestablish successful communication in three patients. LVAD‐related noise (3.5%) led to oversensing (n = 4), inappropriate mode switches (n = 4), noise reversion (n = 3), inhibition of pacing (n = 2), inappropriate detection as atrial fibrillation (AF) (n = 2) and inappropriate detection as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (n = 2). This noise interference persisted (n = 3), resolved spontaneously (n = 16), resolved with programming change (n = 6) or required lead revision (n = 1).ConclusionsEMI from LVAD impacts ICD function, although, the incidence rate is low. Physicians implanting both, LVAD in patients with ICD (more common) or ICD in patients with LVAD, should be aware of possible interferences. Telemetry failure not resolved by metal shielding was overcome by ICD generator replacement to a different manufacturer. In most cases, LVAD‐related noise resolves spontaneously.

AbstractBackgroundThe subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) has a larger generator and its implantation involves more dissection and tunneling compared to traditional transvenous defibrillator system. Liposomal bupivacaine, an extended‐release bupivacaine with 72 h of duration has been used for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation. Our aim was to compare postoperative pain and opioid prescription patterns among patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation who received intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine and those who did not.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent subcutaneous ICD implantation from January 1, 2013 to March 30, 2018 at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were categorized into those who received liposomal bupivacaine and those who did not. Data on inpatient pain score, outpatient opioid prescription rates at discharge, and doses based on oral morphine equivalents (OME) were collected.ResultsA total of 104 patients underwent S‐ICD implantation. Intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine was used in 69% of patients. Patients who received intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine had similar mean inpatient pain scores (2.9 vs. 2.9, p = .786). There was also no difference in the rate of inpatient opioid administration (79.2% vs. 87.5%, p = .4139), outpatient opioid prescription (23.6% vs. 12.5%, p = .29), or mean OME (41.7‐mg vs. 16.6‐mg, p = .188) when comparing patients those who received intraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine and those who did not.ConclusionIntraprocedural liposomal bupivacaine administration was not associated with any significant impact on postoperative pain scores, inpatient opioid administration, and outpatient opioid prescription rates or OME amounts at discharge.

Background: It is unknown whether cryoballoon technology for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is a reasonable initial strategy for patients with persistent AF (perAF). Methods: 390 consecutive procedures using cryoballoon for initial AF ablation were evaluated and divided first by clinical presentation: paroxysmal AF (PAF) or perAF, and then whether PV potentials associated PV pacing (PV capture) were identified after ablation. Patients were followed for recurrent AF (median 20 months). Results: PV capture was identified in patients with PAF and perAF (PAF: 20.3% vs. perAF: 14.6%; p < 0.05). No patient charactieristic differences were identified between those patients with or without PV capture. The presence of PV capture was not associated with different outcomes in patients with PAF. However, in patients with perAF, the presence of PV capture was associated with long-term outcomes similar to patients with PAF and significantly better than patients with perAF without PV capture (p < 0.001). In patients with perAF and PV capture, a strategy of reisolation of the PVs only for recurrent AF resulted in 20/23 (87%) patients in sinus rhythm off antiarrhythmic medications at study completion. In patients with PV capture, specific electrophysiologic properties of PV tissue did not have an impact on AF recurrence. Conclusion: PV capture (and not specific PV electrophysiologic characteristics) was associated with decreased recurrent AF in patients with perAF. PV capture may identify those patients with perAF in whom PV isolation alone is sufficient at initial ablation procedure and also as the primary ablation strategy for recurrent AF.

Abstract Aims To develop quality indicators (QIs) that may be used to evaluate the quality of care and outcomes for adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We followed the ESC methodology for QI development. This methodology involved (i) the identification of the domains of AF care for the diagnosis and management of AF (by a group of experts including members of the ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force for AF); (ii) the construction of candidate QIs (including a systematic review of the literature); and (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs (using a modified Delphi method). Six domains of care for the diagnosis and management of AF were identified: (i) Patient assessment (baseline and follow-up), (ii) Anticoagulation therapy, (iii) Rate control strategy, (iv) Rhythm control strategy, (v) Risk factor management, and (vi) Outcomes measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). In total, 17 main and 17 secondary QIs, which covered all six domains of care for the diagnosis and management of AF, were selected. The outcome domain included measures on the consequences and treatment of AF, as well as PROMs. Conclusion This document defines six domains of AF care (patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor management, and outcomes), and provides 17 main and 17 secondary QIs for the diagnosis and management of AF. It is anticipated that implementation of these QIs will improve the quality of AF care.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has presented substantial challenges to patient care and impacted healthcare delivery, including cardiac electrophysiology practice throughout the globe. Based upon the undetermined course and regional variability of the pandemic, there is uncertainty as to how and when to resume and deliver electrophysiology services for patients with arrhythmia. This joint document from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, American Heart Association, and American College of Cardiology seeks to provide guidance for clinicians and institutions reestablishing safe electrophysiological care. To achieve this aim, we address regional and local COVID-19 disease status, the role of viral screening and serological testing, return-to-work considerations for exposed or infected health care workers, risk stratification and management strategies based on COVID-19 disease burden, institutional preparedness for resumption of elective procedures, patient preparation and communication, prioritization of procedures, and development of outpatient and periprocedural care pathways.