Sroubek, Jakub

Background: Leadless pacemaker has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional transvenous pacemaker (PM) among elderly patients who are at high risk of complications. Objective: This study aims to assess and compare 5-year clinical outcomes of leadless PM versus transvenous single-chamber PM in elderly patients using a multi-national dataset. Methods: Using the TriNetX Analytics Research Network, we included patients aged ≥65 years who underwent leadless versus transvenous single-chamber PM implantation between 1/1/2014 and 1/1/2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed by using patient’s demographic, LVEF, cardiac comorbidities, and medications. The study outcomes included all-cause mortality and adverse cardiovascular events over a 5-year follow-up period. Results: After PSM, 7,501 patients in each group were analyzed. Leadless PM was associated with a significantly lower odds of 5-year all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.534; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.497-0.575), heart failure exacerbation (OR: 0.779, 95% CI: 0.721-0.841), major bleeding (OR: 0.666, 95% CI: 0.604-0.734), cardiac arrest (OR: 0.747, 95% CI: 0.646-0.864) and stroke (OR: 0.825, 95% CI: 0.750-0.908) compared to transvenous single-chamber PM. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in all-cause hospitalization (OR: 1.006, 95%CI: 0.938-1.079), cardiac thrombus (OR: 1.077, 95%CI: 0.791-1.465) or venous thromboembolism (OR: 1.028, 95%CI: 0.916-1.153). Conclusion: Leadless PM was associated with significantly improved mortality and cardiovascular outcomes compared to transvenous single-chamber PM in elderly patients. These findings support the strong consideration of leadless pacing as a strategy to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.

Background: Despite the optimal efficacy of catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT), recurrence of VT can occur post-procedurally. However, data on the high-risk population for VT recurrence and the in-hospital outcomes remain scarce. Objective: This study aimed to determine the predictors of 30-day readmission for recurrent VT after catheter ablation of VT and assess the in-hospital outcomes. Method: Using the all-payer, nationally representative Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified the patients aged ≥18 years who underwent catheter ablation for VT and were readmitted within 30 days because of recurrent VT from 2017 to 2020. We performed unweighted univariable and multivariable analyses to determine the outcomes and to identify the patient and hospital variables that were predictive of 30-day readmissions for recurrent VT. A p-value of <0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results: In our analysis, a total of 4,102 patients were discharged alive after VT ablation, of which 278 (6.8%) were readmitted within 30 days for recurrent VT. Recurrent VT was also the most common cause of 30-day readmission (47.7%, n=278/583). Compared to non-recurrent VT readmission, readmission due to recurrent VT had higher mortality during rehospitalization (7.55% vs 3.72%, p<0.01) and higher cumulative hospitalization cost ($57584 vs $37846, p<0.01). Via multivariable analysis, congestive heart failure (aOR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.07-3.17; P=0.03) and non-elective index admissions (aOR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.32-2.68; P<0.01) were the independent predictors of 30-day readmission for recurrent VT. Conclusion: Recurrent VT was the most common cause of 30-day readmission following VT ablation. Congestive heart failure and non-elective index admissions were the independent predictors of 30-day readmissions for recurrent VT. These highlight the importance of further research in ablation strategies to improve the efficacy of VT ablation.