Asirvatham, Samuel J.

BackgroundEchocardiographically detected patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). We sought to evaluate the relationship between echocardiographic characteristics and risk of stroke/TIA and mortality in CIED patients with PFO.MethodsIn 6,086 device patients, PFO was detected in 319 patients. A baseline echocardiogram was present in 250 patients, with 186 having a follow‐up echocardiogram.ResultsOf 250 patients with a baseline echocardiogram, 9.6% (n = 24) had a stroke/TIA during mean follow‐up of 5.3 ± 3.1 years; and 42% (n = 105) died over 7.1 ± 3.7 years. Atrial septal aneurysm, prominent Eustachian valve, visible shunting across PFO, baseline or change in estimated right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP)/tricuspid regurgitation (TR), or maximum RVSP were not associated with postimplant stroke/TIA (P > 0.05). An exploratory multivariate analysis using time‐dependent Cox models showed increased hazard of death in patients with increase in TR ≥2 grades (hazard ratio [HR] 1.780, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.447–2.189, P < 0.0001), or increase in RVSP by >10 mm Hg (HR 2.018, 95% CI 1.593–2.556, P < 0.0001), or maximum RVSP in follow‐up (HR 1.432, 95% CI 1.351–1.516, P < 0.0001). A significant increase (P < 0.001) in TR was also noted during follow‐up.ConclusionsIn patients with CIED and PFO, structural and hemodynamic echocardiographic markers did not predict future stroke/TIA. However, a significantly higher TR or RVSP was associated with higher mortality.

Background: Prophylactic exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) is often performed during cardiac surgery ostensibly to reduce the risk of stroke. However, the clinical impact of LAA closure in humans remains inconclusive. Methods: Of 10 633 adults who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery between January 2000 and December 2005, 9792 patients with complete baseline characteristics, surgery procedure, and follow-up data were included in this analysis. A propensity score–matching analysis based on 28 pretreatment covariates was performed and 461 matching pairs were derived and analyzed to estimate the association of LAA closure with early postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) (atrial fibrillation ≤30 days of surgery), ischemic stroke, and mortality. Results: In the propensity-matched cohort, the overall incidence of POAF was 53.9%. In this group, the rate of early POAF among the patients who underwent LAA closure was 68.6% versus 31.9% for those who did not undergo the procedure ( P <0.001). LAA closure was independently associated with an increased risk of early POAF (adjusted odds ratio, 3.88; 95% confidence interval, 2.89–5.20), but did not significantly influence the risk of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.58) or mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.13). Conclusions: After adjustment for treatment allocation bias, LAA closure during routine cardiac surgery was significantly associated with an increased risk of early POAF, but it did not influence the risk of stroke or mortality. It remains uncertain whether prophylactic exclusion of the LAA is warranted for stroke prevention during non–atrial fibrillation-related cardiac surgery.

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.