Friedman, Paul A.

BackgroundAutomated external defibrillators can provide life‐saving therapies to treat ventricular fibrillation. We developed a prototype unit that can deliver a unique shock waveform produced by four independent capacitors that is delivered through two shock vectors, with the rationale of providing more robust shock pathways during emergent defibrillation. We describe the initial testing and feasibility of this unique defibrillation unit, features of which may enable downsizing of current defibrillator devices.MethodsWe tested our defibrillation unit in four large animal models (two canine and two swine) under general anesthesia. Experimental defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were obtained by delivery of a unique waveform shock pulse via a dual‐vector pathway with four defibrillation pads (placed across the chest). DFTs were measured and compared with those of a commercially available biphasic defibrillator (Zoll M series, Zoll Medical, Chelmsford, MA, USA) tested in two different vectors. Shocks were delivered after 10 seconds of stable ventricular fibrillation and the output characteristics and shock outcome recorded. Each defibrillation series used a step‐down to failure protocol to define the defibrillation threshold.ResultsA total of 96 shocks were delivered during ventricular fibrillation in four large animals. In comparison to the Zoll M series, which delivered a single‐vector, biphasic shock, the energy required for successful defibrillation using the unique dual‐vector biphasic waveform did not differ significantly (P = 0.65).ConclusionsOur early findings support the feasibility of a unique external defibrillation unit using a dual‐vector biphasic waveform approach. This warrants further study to leverage this unique concept and work toward a miniaturized, portable shock delivery system.

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.

Advances in the field of defibrillation have brought to practice different types of devices that include the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), and the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. To ensure optimal use of these devices and to achieve best patient outcomes, clinicians need to understand how these devices work, learn the characteristics of patients who qualify them for one type of device versus another, and recognize the remaining gaps in knowledge surrounding these devices. The transvenous ICD has been shown in several randomized clinical trials to improve the survival of patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation and those with sustained ventricular tachycardia with syncope or systolic heart failure as a result of ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy despite receiving guideline-directed medical therapy. Important gaps in knowledge regarding the transvenous ICD involve the role of the ICD in patient subgroups not included, or not well represented, in clinical trials and the need to refine the selection criteria for the ICD in patients who are indicated for it. S-ICDs were recently introduced into the clinical arena as another option for many patients who have an approved indication for a transvenous ICD. The main advantage of the S-ICD is a lower risk of infection and lead-related complications; however, the S-ICD does not offer bradycardia or antitachycardia pacing. The S-ICD may be ideal for patients with limited vascular access, high infection risk, or some congenital heart diseases. However, more data are needed regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of the S-ICD in comparison to transvenous ICDs, the extent of defibrillation testing required, and the use of the S-ICD with other novel technologies, including leadless pacemakers. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS width ≥130 ms, and New York Heart Association class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms despite treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves survival, quality of life, and several echocardiographic measures. One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the 30% nonresponse rate. Many initiatives are underway to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologies and enhanced selection of patients and device programming.

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.

BackgroundAlthough sudden death (SD) is a rare complication after atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation, the risk factors leading to this SD remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate SD and its risk factors after ablate‐and‐pace strategy for rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients during long‐term follow‐up.HypothesisMethodsFrom January 2005 to December 2009, we enrolled into this study 517 AF patients with AVJ ablation and right ventricular pacemaker implantation. Patients were divided into 2 groups, SD and non‐SD. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess potential risk factors for overall mortality and SD.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 25.8 ± 18.6 months (range, 3 days to 63.8 months), 53 patients died (15 with SD). Cox proportional hazards models showed that the presence of congestive heart failure, New York Heart Association functional class, chronic renal failure, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia were risk factors that predicted overall mortality. For SD, the presence of dilated cardiomyopathy and mitral stenosis were associated risk factors. SD was exclusively seen in patients who had narrow QRS complex or right bundle branch block prior to AVJ ablation and pacemaker implantation; SD was not seen in any patient with preexisting complete left bundle branch block.ConclusionsDilated cardiomyopathy, mitral stenosis, and baseline QRS morphology should be examined as potential risk factors for SD after AVJ ablation and pacemaker implantation.

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.

Background The mechanisms of atrial fibrillation (AF) are highly divergent. The prevalence of AF increases significantly with age, and underling mechanisms might vary with age. Endothelial dysfunction may be associated with AF and atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation. We tested the hypothesis that the impact of endothelial dysfunction on arrhythmia recurrence following catheter ablation is age dependent. Methods and Results This study enrolled 92 participants with AF undergoing catheter ablation. Endothelial function was assessed by peripheral arterial tonometry before ablation, and the natural logarithmic transformation of reactive hyperemia index was calculated. Endothelial dysfunction was defined as a natural logarithmic transformation of reactive hyperemia index <0.618 (median). Participants were followed for atrial tachycardia, flutter, and fibrillation recurrence for a median of 14 months. The mean age was 57±10 years. There was significant interaction between age and endothelial dysfunction in association with recurrence of AF ( P =0.029) and any atrial arrhythmia ( P =0.015), and the risk associated with endothelial dysfunction for arrhythmia recurrence was higher in younger versus older participants. Participants were divided into 2 age groups at a threshold of 60 years. Among participants aged ≤60 years, multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed the independent association between endothelial dysfunction and increased risk of arrhythmia recurrence (hazard ratio for AF 4.18 [95% CI 1.33–15.82], P =0.014, and for any atrial arrhythmia 3.62 [95% CI 1.29–11.81], P =0.014). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that participants with endothelial dysfunction had significantly higher rates of recurrence of AF ( P =0.01) and any atrial arrhythmia ( P =0.002). Conclusions The risk associated with endothelial dysfunction for arrhythmia recurrence following catheter ablation was age dependent and was higher in younger participants.

BackgroundMany patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (Aflutter) have concomitant sinus node dysfunction (SND). Ablation may result in injury to the sinus node complex or its blood supply resulting in sinus arrest and need for temporary pacing. We sought to characterize patients who develop acute SND (ASND) during/immediately after AF/Aflutter ablation.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of AF/Aflutter ablation patients between January 1, 2010 and February 28, 2015 to characterize those who required temporary pacemaker (TPM) implantation due to ASND (sinus arrest, sinus bradycardia <40 beats/min, or junctional rhythm with hemodynamic compromise) following atrial ablation.ResultsOf 2,151 patients, eight patients (<0.5%) with ASND manifesting as sinus arrest (n = 2), severe sinus bradycardia (n = 2), and junctional rhythm with hemodynamic compromise (n = 4) were identified (all male, age 66 ± 9.9 years, 4/8 [50%] persistent AF). AF ablation was performed in four, atypical Aflutter in one, and AF/Aflutter in three patients. The ablation set consisted of: pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (n = 6), roof line ablation (n = 6), mitral annulus‐left inferior PV line ablation (n = 5), left atrial appendage‐mitral annulus ablation (n = 1), cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (n = 5), and isolation or ablation near the superior vena cava (SVC, n = 4). Patients with peri‐SVC ablation were more likely to develop ASND (P = 0.03). All patients received TPM; six received permanent pacemaker before discharge, performed 3.5 days postablation (range 2–6 days). At 3‐month device interrogation, all patients were atrially paced >50%.ConclusionASND is a rare complication of atrial ablation. It may be more common when peri‐SVC ablation is performed and may necessitate permanent pacemaker implantation.