Rea, Robert F.

Importance Reduced heart rate during exercise is common and associated with impaired aerobic capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but it remains unknown if restoring exertional heart rate through atrial pacing would be beneficial. Objective To determine if implanting and programming a pacemaker for rate-adaptive atrial pacing would improve exercise performance in patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence. Design, Setting, and Participants Single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover trial testing the effects of rate-adaptive atrial pacing in patients with symptomatic HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence at a tertiary referral center (Mayo Clinic) in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients were recruited between 2014 and 2022 with 16-week follow-up (last date of follow-up, May 9, 2022). Cardiac output during exercise was measured by the acetylene rebreathe technique. Interventions A total of 32 patients were recruited; of these, 29 underwent pacemaker implantation and were randomized to atrial rate responsive pacing or no pacing first for 4 weeks, followed by a 4-week washout period and then crossover for an additional 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was oxygen consumption (V̇ o 2 ) at anaerobic threshold (V̇ o 2,AT ); secondary end points were peak V̇ o 2 , ventilatory efficiency (V̇ e /V̇ co 2 slope), patient-reported health status by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OSS), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Results Of the 29 patients randomized, the mean age was 66 years (SD, 9.7) and 13 (45%) were women. In the absence of pacing, peak V̇ o 2 and V̇ o 2 at anaerobic threshold (V̇ o 2,AT ) were both correlated with peak exercise heart rate ( r = 0.46-0.51, P < .02 for both). Pacing increased heart rate during low-level and peak exercise (16/min [95% CI, 10 to 23], P < .001; 14/min [95% CI, 7 to 21], P < .001), but there was no significant change in V̇ o 2,AT (pacing off, 10.4 [SD, 2.9] mL/kg/min; pacing on, 10.7 [SD, 2.6] mL/kg/min; absolute difference, 0.3 [95% CI, −0.5 to 1.0] mL/kg/min; P = .46), peak V̇ o 2 , minute ventilation (V̇ e) /carbon dioxide production (V̇ co 2 ) slope, KCCQ-OSS, or NT-proBNP level. Despite the increase in heart rate, atrial pacing had no significant effect on cardiac output with exercise, owing to a decrease in stroke volume (−24 mL [95% CI, −43 to −5 mL]; P = .02). Adverse events judged to be related to the pacemaker device were observed in 6 of 29 participants (21%). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence, implantation of a pacemaker to enhance exercise heart rate did not result in an improvement in exercise capacity and was associated with increased adverse events. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02145351

Background : Lipid lowering therapy reduces mortality in patients with both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies and recently has been shown to decrease ICD shocks. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of recurrent VT in patients with an ICD also reduces shocks following intervention. It is unclear if statin therapy after VT RFA will further impact ICD shock rates. Methods : All patients from 1993–2005 who underwent a RFA procedure for recurrent VT at the Mayo Clinic with an ICD were included. Patient records were extracted for medical and procedural details and all ICD interrogations were reviewed for VT recurrence and therapies. Results: 63 patients (age 62±15 years) were followed over 3.9±3.6 years. Comorbid diseases included: coronary artery disease 37(58%, 34 prior myocardial infarction), ARVD/C 6(10%), nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy 7(11%), moderate-severe valve disease 14(22%), hypertension 34(54%), and hyperlipidemia 35(56%). Ejection fraction was <0.35 in 34(56%). VT was induced in all patients (LV 55 (LVOT 1), RV 8 (RVOT 3) with multiple inducible VTs in 21(33%). VT was noninducible after RFA in 39(62%) patients. Dismissal medications included: statins 19(30%), beta blockers 40(66%), ACE/ARB 37(61%), diuretics 34(55%), and digoxin 23(37%). 5-year overall survival was 63%(95% CI 55–71). Age, diabetes, and renal insufficiency were associated with increased post ablation mortality, with no medication improving survival. 5-year survival free of ICD shocks was 31%(95% CI 24–38). Only statin therapy at discharge was associated with a decreased risk of ICD shocks [5(26%) versus 26(59%), p=0.020]. 7 additional patients received statins during follow-up, but not at discharge, of these 5(71%) had shocks. Conclusion : Statin use at discharge in patients with an ICD undergoing RFA for refractory VT significantly reduced recurrent ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks. Although the mechanism underlying the effects of statins on arrhythmic recurrence early after RFA requires further study, these data support aggressive therapy of the underlying substrate responsible for the VT.

Background: Effect of CRT on the timing of regional myocardial strain is not fully described. We aimed to explore the effect of CRT on the timing of regional myocardial strain using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE). Methods: STE and tissue Doppler imaging were performed in 91 patients before and 6 month after CRT. Time to peak longitudinal strain (Tϵ) from the onset of QRS was measured in 16 segments from three apical views. Time to peak systolic tissue velocity (Tv) was also measured in 12 basal and mid segments. Reverse remodeling was defined as 10% reduction in end-systolic volume. Results: At baseline, Tϵ and Tv demonstrated specific pattern with earlier septal and delayed lateral contraction (Figure ). Tϵ in responders showed significantly earlier timing in mid inferoseptal (p=0.003) and anteroseptal segments (base, P=0.005, mid P=0.007) than in nonresponders, whereas the timing of free wall did not differ between responders and non-responders. After CRT, Tϵ in earlier segments (inferoseptal, anteroseptal and inferior wall) prolonged significantly (p<0.001), whereas other segments did not change timing. Accordingly, SD of Tϵ in 12 segments reduced after CRT (110±46 ms vs. 81±36 ms, p<0.001). Tv did not change in all segments and SD of Tv did not improve after CRT (43±16 vs. 46±16 ms, p=0.20). Conclusions: Simultaneous electrical activation of LV free wall and septum with CRT achieves mechanical synchronization by delaying the timing of earlier contracting segment rather than directly shortening the timing in lateral wall. This could be explained by the increased wall stress on the septum as it contracts simultaneously with the opposing LV free wall. Figure. Change in Regional Timing in Strain and Peak Velocity

AbstractObjectiveThis study sought to determine if single‐chamber operation and/or loss of rate response (RR) during elective replacement indicator (ERI) in patients with dual‐chamber pacemakers lead to increased symptom burden, healthcare utilization, and atrial fibrillation (AF).BackgroundDual‐chamber pacemakers often change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing mode and/or lose RR functionality at ERI to preserve battery. Single‐chamber pacing increases the incidence of heart failure, AF, and pacemaker syndrome suggesting these changes may be deleterious.MethodsA retrospective analysis of 700 patients was completed. Three comparisons were analyzed: Comparison 1: mode change and RR loss versus no change; Comparison 2: RR loss only versus no change; Comparison 3: mode change only versus no change (in patients with no RR programmed at baseline).ResultsIn Comparison 1, 121 (46%) patients with setting changes experienced symptoms (most often dyspnea and fatigue/exercise intolerance) versus 3 (4%) without setting changes (p < .0001). Similar results were noted in Comparisons 2 and 3 (p = .0016 and p = .0001, respectively). In Comparison 1, patients with setting change sought provider contact more than patients without setting changes (p = .0001). A significant difference was not noted in Comparison 2 or 3. Overall 14 (2%) patients were hospitalized, all of whom had setting changes.ConclusionsSetting changes at ERI including a change from dual‐ to single‐chamber pacing and/or loss of RR results in a significantly increased symptom burden and increased healthcare utilization.

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.

Introduction Lateral or posteriolateral coronary vein has been considered the optimal location of left ventricular (LV) lead placement for cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). However, the long-term clinical outcomes of CRT based on LV lead location have not been sufficiently addressed. Methods Seven hundred and eighteen CRT-P/CRT-D recipients from Jan 2002 to Dec 2008 were studied. At the CRT implant, the LV lead placement was prioritised as posterolateral/lateral (PL, 50%), anterior lateral (AL, 31%), anterior interventricular (AI, 12%) or middle cardiac veins (MC, 7%). NYHA class and echocardiography were assessed before and after CRT. Clinical outcomes of CRT were compared among 4 LV lead locations. Results Patient baseline demographics, except the gender (P=0.03), were similar among four groups. After CRT, the improvement in NYHA class, LV ejection fraction (EF), and LV diastolic diameter were significantly improved comparably across four LV lead locations (table). The increase in LVEF by >5% were 46%, 47%, 41% and 42% in PL, AL, AI and MC groups (p=0.87). Conclusion The present study suggests that LV lead positioned in the alternative coronary veins, other than posteriolateral or lateral location, achieve comparable benefit in improvement of HF symptoms, and LV function after CRT. Table Comparison of clinic outcomes before and after CRT in different LV lead locations Lateral vein (N=359) Anterolateral vein (N=226) middle cardiac vein (N=49) anterior interventricular vein (N=84) Pre-CRT Post-CRT Pre-CRT Post-CRT Pre-CRT Post-CRT Pre-CRT Post-CRT NYHA 3.02±0.46 2.34±0.81* 2.92±0.53 2.34±0.89* 3.10±0.45 2.70±0.85* 2.98±0.52 2.43±0.86* LVEF (%) 23.57±7.28 30.82±11.67* 24.19±7.96 30.44±12.06* 24.97±7.62 30.72±11.43* 22.45±7.25 28.40±11.73* LVEDD (mm) 65.71±9.12 63.00±9.73* 65.79±8.87 63.88±9.88* 65.39±9.32 62.61±10.25* 68.48±8.92 64.86±9.67* LVESD (mm) 57.91±9.89 52.83±11.68* 56.69±10.23 53.03±12.01* 56.18±11.56 52.24±13.11* 59.09±10.04 55.32±13.30 RVD (mm) 0.90±0.86 0.82±0.85 0.85±0.92 0.82±0.85 0.86±0.83 1.01±0.84 0.56±0.77 0.78±0.91 RV dysfunction 1.05±0.92 0.88±0.92* 1.03±0.93 0.93±0.91 1.06±0.97 1.06±0.90 0.74±0.86 0.79±0.96 MR (m/s) 1.54±0.78 1.30±0.75* 1.57±0.83 1.35±0.75* 1.53±0.71 1.15±0.70* 1.36±0.69 1.19±0.68 * P<0.05 compared to pre-CRT.

BackgroundPatients with preexisting mild cognitive impairment or dementia may be at increased risk for developing cardiac device complications due to an impaired ability to follow postimplant care instructions. We sought to determine whether rates of infection, lead dislodgement, or appropriate or inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks are increased in this population.MethodsMedical charts of 561 patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia who underwent pacemaker (PM) or ICD implantation between January 2002 and October 2009 at Mayo Clinic were identified. A total of 134 patients who were diagnosed with cognitive impairment or dementia before device implantation or within 1 year of implantation were compared with 134 matched controls. Information was collected on patient characteristics, comorbid medical conditions, ejection fraction, complications, device type, device therapy, and mortality. Device information was prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively reviewed.ResultsOf the 134 patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, 99 underwent PM implantation and 35 underwent ICD implantation. Compared to controls, there was no difference in patient characteristics, ejection fraction, or comorbidities except for diabetes, which was more prevalent in the cognitively impaired and demented group (18.7% vs 30.6%, P = 0.02). There was no difference in device therapy and complications (14.4% vs 5.8%, P = 0.268). However, there was a decreased survival in patients with cognitive impairment and dementia when compared to the control group (42% vs 67% at 5 years, P = 0.007).ConclusionPatients with cognitive impairment and standard device indications are not at increased risk for device complications and therapy but their survival is much lower than in matched controls. The cause of this lower survival is unknown but may be related to the underlying neurological disease. Presence of cognitive impairment should therefore be considered when contemplating implantation of a cardiac device.