Citations

AbstractBackgroundMany advanced heart failure patients have both a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). This study examines incidence, clinical impact, and management of LVAD‐related EMI.MethodsWe performed a three‐center retrospective analysis of transvenous ICD implanted patients with LVAD implanted between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was EMI after LVAD implantation, categorized as LVAD‐related noise or telemetry interference.ResultsThe rate of LVAD‐related EMI among the 737 patients (mean age 58.6 ± 12.8 years) studied was 5.0%. Telemetry interference (1.5%) compromised ICD interrogation in all patients. This was resolved successfully with use of a metal shield, encased wand, radiofrequency tower, different ICD programmer or by increasing distance between ICD programmer and LVAD (n = 6). ICD replacement was required to reestablish successful communication in three patients. LVAD‐related noise (3.5%) led to oversensing (n = 4), inappropriate mode switches (n = 4), noise reversion (n = 3), inhibition of pacing (n = 2), inappropriate detection as atrial fibrillation (AF) (n = 2) and inappropriate detection as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and/or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (n = 2). This noise interference persisted (n = 3), resolved spontaneously (n = 16), resolved with programming change (n = 6) or required lead revision (n = 1).ConclusionsEMI from LVAD impacts ICD function, although, the incidence rate is low. Physicians implanting both, LVAD in patients with ICD (more common) or ICD in patients with LVAD, should be aware of possible interferences. Telemetry failure not resolved by metal shielding was overcome by ICD generator replacement to a different manufacturer. In most cases, LVAD‐related noise resolves spontaneously.

Introduction: Several chemotherapy agents, especially anthracyclines, are associated with the development of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. When chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy (CHIC) is associated with left bundle branch block (QRS >150 ms) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or lower, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often utilized to improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms. Hypothesis: CRT is associated with improvement in left ventricular strain in patients with CHIC. Methods: The study included 22 patients with CHIC and 44 age- and gender-matched controls with other types of NIC who underwent CRT implantation between 2004 and 2017. LVEF, left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), systolic strain rate (SRS), and early diastolic strain rate (SRE) were assessed at baseline and 6-18 months after CRT. CRT response was defined as LVEF improvement by >5% after CRT. Results: CRT responders had a significant improvement in left ventricular GLS as compared to CRT non-responders in the control group, but not in the CHIC group (Table 1). The mean change in LVEF after CRT was similar between the CHIC and control groups (10 ± 10% versus 11 ± 11%, p= 0.67). The mean change in GLS after CRT was also similar between the two groups (-2.15 ± 4.32 versus -3.57 ± 4.02, p= 0.19). The proportion of patients whose LVEF increased by more than 5% was similar between the two groups (59% in the CHIC group versus 68% in the control group, p= 0.46). The mean changes in LV myocardial systolic and early diastolic strain rates were similar between the CHIC and control groups. Mean SRS decreased by 0.13 ± 0.14 in the CHIC group and by 0.34 ± 1.28 in the control group (p=0.45). Mean SRE increased by 0.06 ± 0.18 in the CHIC group and by 0.07 ± 0.22 in the control group (p=0.86). Conclusions: CRT is associated with improvement in left ventricular strain in patients with CHIC. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the echocardiographic strain outcomes of CRT in CHIC.

Background The temporal incidence of high‐grade atrioventricular block (HAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is uncertain. As a result, periprocedural monitoring and pacing strategies remain controversial. This study aimed to describe the temporal incidence of initial episode of HAVB stratified by pre‐ and post‐TAVR conduction and identify predictors of delayed events. Methods and Results Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR at a single center between February 2012 and June 2019 were retrospectively assessed for HAVB within 30 days. Patients with prior aortic valve replacement, permanent pacemaker (PPM), or conversion to surgical replacement were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of delayed HAVB (initial event >24 hours post‐TAVR). A total of 953 patients were included in this study. HAVB occurred in 153 (16.1%). After exclusion of those with prophylactic PPM placed post‐TAVR, the incidence of delayed HAVB was 33/882 (3.7%). Variables independently associated with delayed HAVB included baseline first‐degree atrioventricular block or right bundle‐branch block, self‐expanding valve, and new left bundle‐branch block. Forty patients had intraprocedural transient HAVB, including 16 who developed HAVB recurrence and 6 who had PPM implantation without recurrence. PPM was placed for HAVB in 130 (13.6%) (self‐expanding valve, 23.7% versus balloon‐expandable valve, 11.9%; P <0.001). Eight (0.8%) patients died by 30 days, including 1 unexplained without PPM present. Conclusions Delayed HAVB occurs with higher frequency in patients with baseline first‐degree atrioventricular block or right bundle‐branch block, new left bundle‐branch block, and self‐expanding valve. These findings provide insight into optimal monitoring and pacing strategies based on periprocedural ECG findings.

Wenckebach phenomenon is a well-known electrophysiological character of the atrioventricular node (AVN). AVN-pacing during permanent pacemaker implantation is rare. We herein report the first case of Wenckebach phenomenon in a heart failure patient with chronic atrial fibrillation for more than 30 years during the His-bundle pacing (HBP) procedure. The patient’s symptoms improved significantly. AVN-pacing is available, and HBP is helpful for cardiac remodeling and clinical outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundSeveral chemotherapy agents are associated with the development of non‐ischemic cardiomyopathy (NIC). When chemotherapy‐induced cardiomyopathy (CHIC) is associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 35% or lower, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is often utilized to improve cardiac function and relieve symptoms.ObjectiveTo determine the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CRT in patients with CHIC.MethodsThe study included 29 patients with CHIC (CHIC group) and 58 patients with other types of NIC (control group) who underwent CRT implantation between 2004 and 2017. The primary endpoints were changes in LVEF, left ventricular end‐systolic diameter (LVESD), and left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD) at 6–18 months after CRT. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular global longitudinal strain (GLS), systolic strain rate (SRS), early diastolic strain rate (SRE), and overall survival.ResultsOut of 29 patients with CHIC, 62.1% received chemotherapy for lymphoma, 13.7% for breast cancer, and 24.1% for sarcoma. The agent implicated in 93.1% of the patients was an anthracycline. Half of the patients had LBBB. The mean baseline LVEF was 28% ± 8%. The mean baseline QRS duration was 146 ± 26 ms. Twenty‐eight patients had post‐CRT follow‐up data. CRT was associated with improvement in echocardiographic outcomes in the CHIC group and the control group. There was no difference in overall survival between the two groups (log‐rank p = .148).ConclusionCRT improves left ventricular function and reverses remodeling in patients with CHIC.

Background: Among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), women are less likely to receive catheter ablation and may have more complications and less durable results. Most information about sex-specific differences after ablation comes from observational data. We prespecified an examination of outcomes by sex in the 2204-patient CABANA trial (Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation). Methods: CABANA randomized patients with AF age ≥65 years or <65 years with ≥1 risk factor for stroke to a strategy of catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation versus drug therapy with rate/rhythm control agents. The primary composite outcome was death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest, and key secondary outcomes included AF recurrence. Results: CABANA randomized 819 (37%) women (ablation 413, drug 406) and 1385 men (ablation 695, drug 690). Compared with men, women were older (median age, 69 years versus 67 years for men), were more symptomatic (48% Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Severity Class 3 or 4 versus 39% for men), had more symptomatic heart failure (42% with New York Heart Association Class ≥II versus 32% for men), and more often had a paroxysmal AF pattern at enrollment (50% versus 39% for men) ( P <0.0001 for all). Women were less likely to have ancillary (nonpulmonary vein) ablation procedures performed during the index procedure (55.7% versus 62.2% in men, P =0.043), and complications from treatment were infrequent in both sexes. For the primary outcome, the hazard ratio for those who underwent ablation versus drug therapy was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.62–1.65) in women and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51–1.05) in men (interaction P value=0.299). The risk of recurrent AF was significantly reduced in patients undergoing ablation compared with those receiving drug therapy regardless of sex, but the effect was greater in men (hazard ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.51–0.82] for women versus hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.40–0.58] for men; interaction P value=0.060). Conclusions: Clinically relevant treatment-related strategy differences in the primary and secondary clinical outcomes of CABANA were not seen between men and women, and there were no sex differences in adverse events. The CABANA trial results support catheter ablation as an effective treatment strategy for both women and men. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00911508.

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.

Abstract Aims His–Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) utilizing His (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and wide QRS duration has not been well studied. We assessed the benefit of left bundle branch block (LBBB) correction during HPCSP in AF patients undergoing atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation with LBBB, compared with those with narrow QRS duration. Methods and results This is an observational study in consecutive patients with typical LBBB or narrow QRS duration in whom we attempted HPCSP after AVJ ablation for refractory AF with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 50%. Echocardiographic responses and clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and during 1 year of follow-up. A total of 178 patients were enrolled, of which 170 achieved AVJ ablation + permanent HPCSP (age 69.3 ± 10.1 years; LVEF 34.3 ± 7.7%), 133 (78.2%) patients had a narrow QRS duration, and 37 (21.2%) had an LBBB. The QRS duration changed from a baseline of 159.7 ± 16.6 ms to a paced QRS duration of 110.4 ± 12.7 ms in the LBBB cohort and from 95.6 ± 10.4 to 100.8 ± 14.5 ms (both P &lt; 0.001) in the narrow QRS cohort after AVJ ablation and pacing. Compared with the narrow QRS cohort, the LBBB cohort showed a greater absolute increase in LVEF (+22.3% vs. +14.2%, P &lt; 0.001), higher super responder rate (71.4% vs. 49.2%, P = 0.011), and greater New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement (−1.9 vs. −1.4, P &lt; 0.001) at 1 year. Conclusion Patients with LBBB have greater improvement in LVEF and NYHA class function than patients with narrow QRS from HPCSP after AVJ ablation.