Kusumoto, Fred

AbstractBackgroundLeadless cardiac pacing (LCP) has emerged as a new modality for permanent pacing. We sought to describe comparative outcomes between LCP and transvenous pacemakers.MethodsPatients receiving LCP (Micra [Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA] and Nanostim [St. Jude Medical/Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA]) between 2014 and 2017 at the Mayo Clinic Heart Rhythm Enterprise practice (Rochester, MN, USA; Jacksonville, FL, USA; and Scottsdale, AZ, USA) were identified. We identified 1:1 age‐ and sex‐matched controls receiving single‐chamber transvenous ventricular pacemakers (TVP). Statistical analyses were performed with JMP 13.0.0 (SAS, Institute Cary, NC, USA).ResultsNinety patients underwent LCP implantation (73 Micra and 17 Nanostim) with a median follow‐up duration of 62 (interquartile range 28‐169) days. Both groups had 100% successful device implant rates. There were no differences in procedure‐related major (0% vs 1%) or minor complications (8% vs 3%) in the LCP versus TVP groups (P > 0.05). Excluding Nanostim patients, there was a lower rate of device‐related revision or extraction in the Micra versus TVP groups (0% vs 5%, P = 0.028). Device endocarditis was more common in the TVP group (0% vs 3%, P = 0.04). Estimated longevity was greater for the LCP group (median 12.0 vs 10.0 years, P < 0.0001). An increase in severity of tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR) by ≥2 grades occurred in none of the LCP patients, and in 19% of the TVP patients (P = 0.017).ConclusionThere are no significant differences in procedural complications among patients receiving LCP versus TVP. The Micra group had lower rates of device‐related revision/extraction compared to the TVP group. Patients with leadless pacemaker were less likely to develop endocarditis or worsening TR.

AbstractBackground: The utilization of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT‐D) has increased significantly, since its initial approval for use in selected patients with heart failure. Limited data exist as for current trends in implant‐related in‐hospital complications and cost utilization. The aim of our study was to examine in‐hospital complication rates associated with CRT‐D and their trends over the last decade.Methods and Results: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we estimated 378 248 CRT‐D procedures from 2003 to 2012. We investigated common complications, including mechanical, cardiovascular, pericardial complications (hemopericardium, cardiac tamponade, or pericardiocentesis), pneumothorax, stroke, vascular complications (consisting of hemorrhage/hematoma, incidents requiring surgical repair, and accidental arterial puncture), and in‐hospital deaths described with CRT‐D, defining them by the validated International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code. Mechanical complications (5.9%) were the commonest, followed by cardiovascular (3.6%), respiratory failure (2.4%), and pneumothorax (1.5%). Age (≥65 years), female gender (OR, 95% CI; P value) (1.08, 1.03‐1.13; 0.001), and the Charlson score ≥3 (1.52, 1.45‐1.60; <0.001) were significantly associated with increased mortality/complications.Conclusions: The overall complication rate in patients undergoing CRT‐D has been increasing in the last decade. Age (≥65), female sex, and the Charlson score ≥3 were associated with higher complications. In patients who underwent CRT‐D implantation, postoperative complications were associated with significant increases in cost.

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.

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2‐part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2‐part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.

Introduction: Our study assesses the utility of telemetry in identifying decompensation in patients with documented cardiopulmonary arrest. Methods: A retrospective review of inpatients who experienced a cardiopulmonary arrest from May 1, 2008, until June 30, 2014, was performed. Telemetry records 24 hours prior to and immediately preceding cardiopulmonary arrest were reviewed. Patient subanalyses based on clinical demographics were made as well as analyses of survival comparing patients with identifiable rhythm changes in telemetry to those without. Results: Of 242 patients included in the study, 75 (31.0%) and 110 (45.5%) experienced telemetry changes at the 24-hour and immediately preceding time periods, respectively. Of the telemetry changes, the majority were classified as nonmalignant (n = 50, 66.7% and n = 66, 55.5% at 24 hours prior and immediately preceding, respectively). There was no difference in telemetry changes between intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients and among patients stratified according to the American Heart Association telemetry indications. There was no difference in survival when comparing patients with telemetry changes immediately preceding and at 24 hours prior to an event (n = 30, 27.3% and n = 15, 20.0%) to those without telemetry changes during the same periods (n = 27, 20.5% and n = 42, 25.2%; P = .22 and .39). Conclusion: Telemetry has limited utility in predicting clinical decompensation in the inpatient setting.