Scott, Luis R.

AbstractAimsThe MicraTM transcatheter pacing system (TPS) (Medtronic) is the only leadless pacemaker that promotes atrioventricular (AV) synchrony via accelerometer‐based atrial sensing. Data regarding the real‐world experience with this novel system are scarce. We sought to characterize patients undergoing MicraTM‐AV implants, describe percentage AV synchrony achieved, and analyze the causes for suboptimal AV synchrony.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records from 56 consecutive patients undergoing MicraTM‐AV implants at the Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona with a minimum follow‐up of 3 months were reviewed. Demographic data, comorbidities, echocardiographic data, and clinical outcomes were compared among patients with and without atrial synchronous ventricular pacing (AsVP) ≥ 70%.ResultsSixty‐five percent of patients achieved AsVP ≥ 70%. Patients with adequate AsVP had smaller body mass indices, a lower proportion of congestive heart failure, and prior cardiac surgery. Echocardiographic parameters and procedural characteristics were similar across the two groups. Active device troubleshooting was associated with higher AsVP. The likely reasons for low AsVP were small A4‐wave amplitude, high ventricular pacing burden, and inadequate device reprogramming. Importantly, in patients with low AsVP, subjective clinical worsening was not noted during follow‐up.ConclusionWith the increasing popularity of leadless pacemakers, it is paramount for device implanting teams to be familiar with common predictors of AV synchrony and troubleshooting with MicraTM‐AV devices.

Aims: The MicraTM transcatheter pacing system (TPS) (Medtronic) is the only leadless pacemaker that promotes atrioventricular (AV) synchrony via accelerometer-based atrial sensing. Data regarding the real-world experience with this novel system are currently lacking. We sought to characterize patients undergoing MicraTM -AV implants, describe percentage AV synchrony achieved, and analyze the causes for suboptimal AV synchrony. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, electronic medical records from 56 consecutive patients undergoing MicraTM -AV implants at the Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona with a minimum follow-up of 3 months were reviewed. Demographic data, comorbidities, echocardiographic data, and clinical outcomes were compared among patients with and without atrial synchronous-ventricular pacing (AsVP) ≥70%. Results: Fifty-six percent of patients achieved AsVP ≥70%. Patients with adequate AsVP had smaller body mass indices, a lower proportion of congestive heart failure and pulmonary hypertension. Echocardiographic parameters and procedural characteristics were similar across the two groups. Active device troubleshooting was associated with higher AsVP. The likely reasons for low AsVP were persistent atrial arrhythmias, small A4-wave amplitude, and inadequate device reprogramming. Importantly, in patients with low AsVP, subjective clinical worsening was not noted during follow-up. Conclusion: With the increasing popularity of leadless PM, it is paramount for device implanting teams to be familiar with common predictors of AV synchrony and troubleshooting with MicraTM -AV devices.

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.

Pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is a rare and serious complication of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for atrial fibrillation. However, it can be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic depending on the severity of the stenosis and the development of compensatory mechanisms. This study provides a detailed description and visualization of a unique type of venous collaterals that bypass the PV stenosis and drain directly in the left atrium alleviating PV stenosis sequelae. This study reports a case of a 61-year-old male who presented with mild dyspnea and fatigue 3 years post atrial fibrillation RFCA. After a thorough evaluation of the case, a redo-ablation was planned. As a part of the preablation workup, a transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), a ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan of the lungs, and a chest computed tomography angiogram (CTA) were performed. The TEE revealed total obstruction of the left superior PV, with no color Doppler flow detected. It also showed evidence of multiple collateral flows at the os of the left superior PV. The V/Q scan showed a large perfusion defect involving the entire left upper lobe consistent with a compromised left upper PV flow. The CTA with 3D volume rendering revealed the total occlusion of the left superior PV at its ostium. Moreover, the scan confirmed the pulmonary venous drainage via small collateral channels that was suggested by the TEE.

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a reliable method of treating patients with severe aortic stenosis, but is associated with postprocedure conduction defects.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients who developed advanced conduction defects post‐TAVR to those who did not.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective chart review of 243 patients who underwent balloon‐expandable TAVR with the Edwards Sapien valve to determine the incidence of advanced conduction defects in our cohort. We compared clinical outcomes including overall mortality, improvement in symptomatology, and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.ResultsAmong the 243 patients included in the study, 9.1% (22/243) required permanent pacemaker (PPM); 19.8% (48/243) developed left bundle branch block (LBBB), and 71.2% (173/243) did not develop any permanent advanced conduction defects. Overall 1‐year mortality was similar across all three groups. There was significant improvement in New York Heart Association functional capacity of all groups post‐TAVR, but this was much less in the PPM group (45.5% vs 68.8%, P = .04). Postprocedure from TAVR, patients with LBBB or PM were less likely to have improvement in their ejection fraction (net loss of −0.7% for LBBB and −5.7% for PPM compared to a net gain of 2.3% for no‐LBBB/PM (P = .02).ConclusionPatients who develop LBBB or require PM post‐TAVR with Edwards Sapien valves are less likely to improve New York Heart Association functional capacity and more likely to have no improvement or deterioration of their pre‐TAVR left ventricular ejection fraction.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation is a common clinical manifestation in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Medications used to treat atrial fibrillation, such as antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants, may have significant drug interactions with emerging COVID‐19 treatments. Common unintended nontherapeutic target effects of COVID‐19 treatment include potassium channel blockade, cytochrome P 450 isoenzyme inhibition or activation, and P‐glycoprotein inhibition. Drug‐drug interactions with antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants in these patients may lead to significant bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or severe bleeding. It is important for clinicians to be aware of these interactions, drug metabolism changes, and clinical consequences when choosing antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants for COVID‐19 patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this review is to provide a practical guide for clinicians who are managing COVID‐19 patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation.