Friedman, Paul A.

RVOT Atypical VariantsBackgroundRight ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) arrhythmias are a common form of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structurally normal heart. The underlying mechanism is due to triggered activity. Mapping and ablation is relatively straightforward targeting the earliest point of activation. Previously reported causes of difficult ablation in the RVOT region include under recognized right ventricular cardiomyopathy/sarcoidosis, presence of endocavitary structures, close proximity to the coronary vasculature, and origin from non‐RVOT structures.Methods and ResultsWe identified all patients undergoing PVCs/sustained RVOT VT ablation from January 2013 to December 2013. This included 33 patients. Of these, we identified procedures that were considered difficult despite a single morphology arrhythmia being targeted and no underlying cardiomyopathy present. Difficulty was specifically considered when ablation at the earliest site of activation was not successful and eventual successful ablation was at a distance of greater than 15 mm from the early activation site. We identified 3 patients (n = 3, 100% male) with evidence of reentrant arrhythmia based on slow conduction zones necessary for the tachycardia/arrhythmia, mid diastolic signals during VT or preceding bigeminal PVCs, pace mapping from the site abnormal signals reproducing the arrhythmia morphology but with prominent conduction delay, the entire cycle length of the tachycardia or coupling interval for the PVCs being mapping, or based on reset characteristics.ConclusionIn patients with atypical forms of RVOT VT, careful mapping and ablation of the myocardial sleeves near the pulmonic valve can eliminate the arrhythmia.

Epicardial Access and ObesityIntroductionPercutaneous epicardial access for ablative therapies is an increasingly common technique utilized for refractory ventricular arrhythmias. There are, however few known data on obesity and complication rates associated with this procedure.Methods and ResultsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of subjects undergoing epicardial access at Mayo Clinic between January 2004 and June 2013. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic data were collected for each subject, who was then classified into body mass index (BMI) categories as underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese based on a BMI of <18.5, 18.5–24.99, 25–29.99, and ≥30, respectively. Events and complications were recorded, and procedural and clinical success rates were determined.There was no statistically significant difference in access approach, procedural or clinical outcomes, or complications among the BMI categories. Note that 95.1%, 91.7%, and 93.1% derived procedural success among the normal weight, overweight, and obese categories, respectively (P value = 0.81). Similarly, there was no difference in clinical outcomes with success rates of 68.3%, 66.7%, and 75.9% between the respective groups (P value = 0.54). At 5 years, there was a trend toward increased mortality among obese individuals (28.8%) compared to normal weight (8.8%) and overweight (9.8%) patients (P value = 0.139).ConclusionPercutaneous epicardial access, mapping, and ablation can be performed in obese individuals with similar outcomes to those of lower weight category. Obesity should not preclude the use of percutaneous epicardial access when clinically indicated.

BackgroundWe aimed to determine the long‐term outcomes of percutaneous lead extraction and stent placement in patients with pacemaker‐induced superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome.MethodsThe study retrospectively screened patients who underwent lead extraction followed by central vein stent implantation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA), from January 2005 to December 2012, to identify the patients with pacemaker‐induced SVC syndrome. Demographic, clinical, and follow‐up characteristics of those patients were collected from electronic medical records.ResultsSix cases were identified. The mean (standard deviation) age was 56 (15) years (male, 67%). All patients had permanent dual‐chamber pacemakers, with a mean 11‐year history of pacemaker placement. The entire device system was explanted in five patients; one patient had a 21‐year‐old pacemaker lead that could not be removed. Eight stents were implanted in six patients: five patients had one stent, one patient had three. A new pacemaker system was reimplanted through the stented vein in five patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients, without any complication. Symptoms rapidly resolved in all patients after stent deployment. The mean follow‐up duration was 48 months (range, 10–100 months). Three patients remained symptom free. Reintervention with percutaneous balloon venoplasty was successful in three patients with symptom recurrence.ConclusionPercutaneous stent implantation after lead removal followed by reimplantation of leads is a feasible alternative therapy for pacemaker‐induced SVC syndrome, although some cases may require repeat intervention.

Percutaneous Lead Revision for Cardiac PerforationIntroductionCardiac perforation is an infrequent but potentially life‐threatening complication associated with placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of percutaneous lead revision in patients who had lead perforation of the myocardium after CIED placement.Methods and ResultsWe reviewed records of 1,458 patients who underwent CIED lead extraction or repositioning. Of these, 31 (2.1%) had the procedure performed for lead perforation as a complication of CIED placement. Demographic, clinical, and follow‐up characteristics of the patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) patient age was 65 (23) years. Cardiac perforation was detected within 24 hours after implantation in 9 patients, within 1 month in 17, and greater than 1 month in 5. Pericardiocentesis was performed with a pigtail drainage catheter in place before the lead revision in 17 patients (55%) who had pericardial effusion, with or without hemodynamic compromise. All culprit leads were successfully managed with percutaneous lead removal (n = 3 [10%]), new lead placement (n = 12 [38%]), or lead repositioning (n = 16 [52%]). Of the 17 patients with pericardiocentesis before the reoperation, none had tamponade develop; in contrast, 3 of the remaining 14 patients had tamponade develop and required urgent pericardiocentesis. All patients survived without requiring open chest surgery.ConclusionPercutaneous removal or repositioning of the perforating lead is feasible and appears effective. Placement of a prophylactic pericardial drain catheter may reduce the incidence of urgent pericardiocentesis during or after a procedure.

IntroductionAbandoned cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) leads remain a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, largely due to in vitro data showing endocardial heating secondary to the radiofrequency field. We tested the hypothesis that abandoned CIED leads do not pose an increased risk of clinical harm for patients undergoing MRI.MethodsThis single‐center retrospective study examined the outcomes of patients who had device generators removed before MRI, rendering the device leads abandoned. Information was gathered through chart review. Data collected included lead model, pacing threshold before MRI, anatomic region examined, threshold data after generator reimplantation, and clinical patient outcome.ResultsPatients (n = 19, 11 men and eight women) ranged in age from 19 to 85 at the time of MRI. There was a mean of 1.63 abandoned leads at the time of imaging; none of the leads were MRI conditional. Of the three implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, two of three were dual coil. Most (31/35) of the scans performed were of the central nervous system, including head and spinal imaging. There were no adverse events associated with MRI in any of these patients with abandoned leads within 7 days of the scan. No lead malfunctions or clinically significant change in pacing thresholds were noted with generator reimplantation.ConclusionThe use of MRI in patients with abandoned cardiac device leads appears feasible when performed under careful monitoring, with no adverse events, although the experience is small. MRI did not affect the function of leads that were subsequently reconnected to a cardiac device.

Mitral Valve Injury with Catheter AblationIntroductionAn increasing number of catheter ablations involve the mitral annular region and valve apparatus, increasing the risk of catheter interaction with the mitral valve (MV) complex. We review our experience with catheter ablation‐related MV injury resulting in severe mitral regurgitation (MR) to delineate mechanisms of injury and outcomes.MethodsWe searched the Mayo Clinic MV surgical database over a 19‐year period (1993–2012) and the electrophysiologic procedures database over a 23‐year period (1990–2013) and identified 9 patients with catheter ablation related MV injury requiring clinical intervention.ResultsIndications for ablation included atrial fibrillation (AF) [n = 4], ventricular tachycardia (VT) [n = 3], and left‐sided accessory pathways [n = 2]. In all 4 AF patients, a circular mapping catheter entrapped in the MV apparatus was responsible for severe MR. In all 3 VT patients, radiofrequency energy delivery led to direct injury to the MV apparatus. In the 2 patients with accessory pathways, both mechanisms were involved (1 per patient). Six patients required surgical intervention (5 MV repair, 1 catheter removal). One patient developed severe functional MR upon successful endovascular catheter disentanglement that improved spontaneously. Two VT patients with persistent severe postablation MR were managed nonsurgically, 1 of whom died 3 months postprocedure.ConclusionCircular mapping catheter entrapment and ablation at the mitral annulus are the most common etiologies of MV injury during catheter ablation. Close surveillance of the MV is needed during such procedures and early surgical repair is important for successful salvage if significant injury occurs.

ECG Lead I and Outflow Tract ArrhythmiaIntroductionOutflow tract ventricular arrhythmia (OTVA) can be complicated to target for ablation when originating from either the periaortic or pulmonary valve (PV) region. Both sites may present with a small R wave in lead V1. However, the utility of lead I in distinguishing these arrhythmia locations is unknown.Methods and ResultsThirty‐six consecutive patients (mean age 41 ± 14 years, 13 male) underwent catheter ablation for OTVA. OTVA origin was determined from intracardiac electrogram tracings and electroanatomic maps. Observers blinded to results measured QRS waveform amplitude and duration from standard 12‐lead ECG tracings. Measurements with highest diagnostic performance were modeled into an algorithm. Sites of successful ablation were anterior right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT; n = 6), posterior RVOT (n = 4), PV (n = 18), and right coronary cusp (RCC; n = 8). Highest performing surface ECG discriminators were from lead I to V1 vectors: RCC, lead I R wave ≥ 1.5 mV, and V1 R wave ≥2.0 mV (sensitivity 87%, specificity 93%); PV, V1 R wave > 0 mV, and lead I R/(R+S) ≤ 0.75 (sensitivity 78%, specificity 72%); anterior RVOT, V1 R wave = 0 mV, and lead I R/(R+S) <0.4 (sensitivity 67%, specificity 97%); posterior RVOT, V1 R wave > 0 mV, and lead I R/(R+S) > 0.75 (sensitivity 75%, specificity 84%). Sequential algorithmic application of these criteria resulted in an overall accuracy of 72% in predicting site of OTVA origin.ConclusionsA relatively large R wave in lead I is seen with RCC origin but not PV origin. A sequential algorithm has limited but potentially significant value beyond assessment of lead I in approaching OTVA.

Background— A patent foramen ovale (PFO) may permit arterial embolization of thrombi that accumulate on the leads of cardiac implantable electronic devices in the right-sided cardiac chambers. We sought to determine whether a PFO increases the risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with endocardial leads. Methods and Results— We retrospectively evaluated all patients who had endocardial leads implanted between January 1, 2000, and October 25, 2010, at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Echocardiography was used to establish definite PFO and non-PFO cohorts. The primary end point of stroke/TIA consistent with a cardioembolic etiology and the secondary end point of mortality during postimplantation follow-up were compared in PFO versus non-PFO patients with the use of Cox proportional hazards models. We analyzed 6075 patients (364 with PFO) followed for a mean 4.7±3.1 years. The primary end point of stroke/TIA was met in 30/364 (8.2%) PFO versus 117/5711 (2.0%) non-PFO patients (hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% confidence interval, 2.33–5.25; P <0.0001). The association of PFO with stroke/TIA remained significant after multivariable adjustment for age, sex, history of stroke/TIA, atrial fibrillation, and baseline aspirin/warfarin use (hazard ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 2.19–4.96; P <0.0001). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between PFO and non-PFO patients (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77–1.07; P =0.25). Conclusions— In patients with endocardial leads, the presence of a PFO on routine echocardiography is associated with a substantially increased risk of embolic stroke/TIA. This finding suggests a role of screening for PFOs in patients who require cardiac implantable electronic devices; if a PFO is detected, PFO closure, anticoagulation, or nonvascular lead placement may be considered.