Cha, Yong‐Mei

Background: Recognition of the causes of early mortality after transvenous lead removal (TLR) is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs. Objective: This study sought to determine the causes of early mortality after TLR and to further understand the circumstances surrounding death after TLR. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing TLR from January 1, 2001, to January 1, 2021 at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville). Causes of death were identified through a detailed chart review of the electronic health record from within the Mayo Clinic system and outside records when available. The causes of death were further characterized based on whether it was related to the TLR procedure. Results: A total of 2,319 patients were included in the study. The overall 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 3%. Among all 30-day deaths, infection was the most common primary cause of death (42%). This was followed by decompensated heart failure (17%), procedure-related death (10%), sudden cardiac arrest (7%), and respiratory failure (6%). The 30-day mortality rate directly due to complications associated with the TLR procedure was 0.3% due to vascular tear and cardiac perforation. A third of deaths (33%) occurred after discharge from index hospitalization, among which 43% were readmitted before their death, 35% died at home or a nursing facility, and 22% were discharged on comfort care and died in hospice. The main reasons for readmission prior to death were sepsis and decompensated heart failure. Conclusions: The majority (90%) of 30-day mortality after TLR was not due to complications associated with TLR procedures. The primary causes were infection and decompensated heart failure. This highlights the importance of further research to reduce postoperative mortality from these factors, including deaths after hospital discharge.

AbstractCardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing‐induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre‐procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow‐up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Background: Recognition of the causes of early mortality after atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation is essential for the improvement of patient safety. This study sought to determine the causes of early mortality (≤90 days) after AF ablation. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of AF ablation from January 1, 2013, to December 1, 2021 at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville). Causes of death were identified through a comprehensive chart review of the electronic health record from within the Mayo Clinic system and outside records when available. Results: A total of 6723 patients were included in the study. The 90-day all-cause mortality rate was 0.22% (n=15). Among all 90-day deaths, majority of the deaths (73.3%) did not have a direct relationship with the procedure. Sudden death was the most common cause of early death (20%), followed by peri-procedural stroke (13%), respiratory failure (13%), atrioesophageal fistula (13%), infection (7%), heart failure (7%), and traumatic brain injury (7%). The 90-day mortality rate directly due to AF ablation procedural complications was 0.06% (n=4). Conclusions: AF ablation procedure has a 90-day mortality of 0.22%, and the most common cause of early mortality was sudden death. The majority (73.3%) of early mortality was not directly associated with a procedural complication, and the mortality rate due to complications associated with the AF ablation procedure was low at 0.06%. Further studies are required to investigate causes and risk factors associated with sudden death in this patient population.

AbstractIntroductionData regarding ventricular tachycardia (VT) or premature ventricular complex (PVC) ablation in patients with aortic valve (AV) intervention (AVI) is limited. Catheter ablation (CA) can be challenging given perivalvular substrate in the setting of prosthetic valves. We sought to investigate the characteristics, safety, and outcomes of CA in patients with prior AVI and ventricular arrhythmias (VA).MethodsWe identified consecutive patients with prior AVI (replacement or repair) who underwent CA for VT or PVC between 2013 and 2018. We investigated the mechanism of arrhythmia, ablation approach, perioperative complications, and outcomes.ResultsWe included 34 patients (88% men, mean age 64 ± 10.4 years, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 35.2 ± 15.0%) with prior AVI who underwent CA (22 VT; 12 PVC). LV access was obtained through trans‐septal approach in all patients except one patient who had percutaneous transapical access. One patient had combined retrograde aortic and trans‐septal approach. Scar‐related reentry was the dominant mechanism of induced VTs. Two patients had bundle branch reentry VTs. In the VT group, substrate mapping demonstrated heterogeneous scar that involved the peri‐AV area in 95%. Despite that, the site of successful ablation included the periaortic region only in 6 (27%) patients. In the PVC group, signal abnormalities consistent with scar in the periaortic area were noted in 4 (33%) patients. In 8 (67%) patients, the successful site of ablation was unrelated to the periaortic area. No procedure‐related complications occurred. The survival and recurrence‐free survival rate at 1 year tended to be lower in VT group than in PVC group (p = .06 and p = .05, respectively) with a 1‐year recurrence‐free survival rate of 52.8% and 91.7%, respectively. No arrhythmia‐related death was documented on long‐term follow‐up.ConclusionCA of VAs can be performed safely and effectively in patients with prior AVI.

Background: Left bundle area branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indication CRT. Methods: We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications of CRT were included. Two reviewers performed the study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios with the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 index, with I 2 > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity. Results: Ten studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time [mean difference (MD) 9.68, 95% CI 4.49-14.87, I 2 =95%, P<0.01, minutes] as well as a shorter procedure time (MD 33.68, 95% CI 17.80-49.55, I 2 =73%, P<0.01, minutes) during implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRSd (MD 25.13, 95%CI 20.06-30.20, I 2 = 51%, P<0.01, milliseconds) a greater left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (MD 5.80, 95% CI 4.81-6.78, I 2 =0%, P<0.01, percentage) and a greater ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) reduction (MD 2.11, 95% CI 0.12-4.10, I 2 =18%, P=0.04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function (NYHA) class with LBBP (MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.05-0.68, I 2 =61%, P=0.02).LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality [Risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.90, I 2 =0%, p=0.02] driven by reduced heart failure hospitalizations (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82, I 2 =0%, p=0.01). However, all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.21-4.68, I 2 =0%, p=0.87). Conclusion: Compared to BVP, LBBP is associated with, a greater improvement in LV systolic function, and a lower rate of heart failure-related hospitalization. Dedicated randomized controlled trials and larger patient populations are needed to further elucidate the long-term safety and efficacy of LBBP CRT.

AbstractBackgroundThe incidence and impact of noise in a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S‐ICD) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is not well established.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of patients implanted with LVAD and with a pre‐existing S‐ICD between January 2005 and December 2020 at the three Mayo Clinic centers (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida).ResultsOf the 908 LVAD patients, a pre‐existing S‐ICD was present in 9 patients (mean age 49.1 ± 13.7 years, 66.7% males), 100% with Boston Scientific third‐generation EMBLEM MRI S‐ICD, 11% with HeartMate II (HM II), 44% with HeartMate 3 (HM 3), and 44% with HeartWare (HW) LVAD. The incidence of noise from LVAD‐related electromagnetic interference (EMI) was 33% and was only seen with HM 3 LVAD. Multiple measures attempted to resolve noise, including using alternative S‐ICD sensing vector, adjusting S‐ICD time zone, and increasing LVAD pump speed, were unsuccessful, necessitating S‐ICD device therapies to be turned off permanently.ConclusionsThe incidence of LVAD‐related S‐ICD noise is high in patients with concomitant LVAD and S‐ICD with significant impact on device function. As conservative management failed to resolve the EMI, the S‐ICDs had to be programmed off to avoid inappropriate shocks. This study highlights the importance of awareness of LVAD‐SICD device interference and the need to improve S‐ICD detection algorithms to eliminate noise.

AbstractAimsIntraoperative defibrillation testing (DT) during implant or replacement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been a matter of debate for many years. This debate was put to rest by the Simple and Nordic ICD trials, and the practice of testing during new implantations has essentially been almost abandoned. Old registries demonstrated an increased incidence of significant findings in DT during replacements. The aim of the present study was to evaluate frequency of significant findings and safety of DT in subjects undergoing device replacement.Methods and resultsA prospective observational multi-centre study included consecutive patients undergoing ICD generator replacement. The primary outcome was a failure to terminate induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a single shock 10 J below the maximal capacity of the device. Secondary outcomes included complications of DT. Patients were followed-up at 1- and 6-months post-procedure. A total of 92 patients were eligible, and consented to the study, of which 84 underwent DT during battery replacement. The median age was 68 years and 79.8% were males. Induction of VF was successful in 84 patients as was a successful conversion on the first attempt in all. There were no procedure-related complications. During follow up one patient had two appropriate ICD shock events. In four patients, ICD programming was changed. None suffered inappropriate shock. There was no evidence of lead malfunction. Two deaths occurred, none of which was related to arrhythmia.ConclusionThe present study found DT was not associated with complications in patients undergoing ICD generator replacement but produced no clinically important information.

Abstract A 70‐year‐old woman with longstanding persistent atrial fibrillation underwent Micra leadless pacemaker implantation and atrioventricular nodal ablation. No postprocedural complications were noted. She subsequently underwent surgical mitral valve replacement 4 years later. During the surgery, Micra tine perforation of the right ventricular free wall was seen. No device revision was performed due to her asymptomatic status and stable pacemaker position/function. Pericardial effusion is a known complication of Micra implantation. The incidence of tine perforation is unknown as many patients may be asymptomatic. The clinical consequences regarding adverse events, device functionality, and explantation/extraction risk profile remain to be determined.

AbstractIntroductionCardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) characterized by infiltration of noncaseating granulomas involving the heart with highly variable clinical manifestations that can include conduction abnormalities and systolic heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown significant promise in NICM, though little is known about its efficacy in patients with CS.ObjectiveTo determine if CRT improved cardiac remodeling in patients with CS.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all patients with a clinical or histological diagnosis of CS who underwent CRT implantation at the Mayo Clinic enterprise from 2000 to 2021. Baseline characteristics, imaging parameters, heart failure hospitalizations and need for advanced therapies, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed.ResultsOur cohort was comprised of 55 patients with 61.8% male and a mean age of 58.7 ± 10.9 years. Eighteen (32.7%) patients had definite CS, 21 (38.2%) had probable CS, while 16 (29.1%) had presumed CS, and 26 (47.3%) with extracardiac sarcoidosis. The majority underwent CRT‐D implantation (n = 52, 94.5%) and 3 (5.5%) underwent CRT‐P implantation with 67.3% of implanted devices being upgrades from prior pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators. At 6 months postimplantation there was no significant improvement in ejection fraction (34.8 ± 10.9% vs. 37.7 ± 14.2%, p = .331) or left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (58.5 ± 10.2 vs. 57.5 ± 8.1 mm, p = .236), though mild improvement in left ventricular end systolic diameter (49.1 ± 9.9 vs. 45.7± 9.9 mm, p < .0001). Within the first 6 months postimplantation, 5 (9.1%) patients sustained a heart failure hospitalization. At a mean follow‐up of 4.1± 3.7 years, 14 (25.5%) patients experienced a heart failure hospitalization, 11 (20.0%) underwent cardiac transplantation, 1 (1.8%) underwent left ventricular assist device implantation and 7 (12.7%) patients died.ConclusionsOur findings suggest variable response to CRT in patients with CS with no overall improvement in ventricular function within 6 months and a substantial proportion of patients progressing to advanced heart failure therapies.