Citations

Background Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) is increasingly used to treat structural valve degeneration. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, yet predictors specific to ViV-TAVR remain poorly defined. Objective To identify clinical and procedural predictors of PPI in patients undergoing ViV-TAVR. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive ViV-TAVR cases at the Mayo Clinic from 2012 to 2022. Clinical, ECG, procedural data and fluoroscopic measurements were analyzed, and propensity score matching was used to adjust for confounding. Predictors of PPI were identified using multivariable logistic regression. Results Among 261 patients, 24 (9.2%) required PPI. Balloon-expandable valves were used in 66.7% and self-expanding valves in 33.3%. Predictors of PPI included pre-procedural bifascicular block (OR 12.15, 95% CI: 2.52–68.89, p=0.003), greater septal implantation depth (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04–1.65, p=0.019), and post-procedural new left (OR 23.56, 95% CI: 4.91–48.52, p=0.0004) and right bundle branch blocks (OR 24.4, 95% CI: 3.82–30.51, p=0.001). Aortic regurgitation as the mechanism of prosthetic valve failure was associated with reduced PPI odds (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.10–0.76, p=0.014). Pacing requirement—defined as >90% ventricular pacing—increased from 25% at 3 months to 56.25% at 12 months. At a median follow-up of 962.5 days (IQR 481.5–1555.3), adjusted mortality was significantly higher in the PPI group (aOR 9.4, 95% CI: 1.9–60.4, p=0.028). Conclusion Bifascicular block, greater septal depth, and new bundle branch blocks predict PPI post-ViV-TAVR, while aortic regurgitation appears protective. Risk stratification and procedural planning are critical.

ABSTRACT Background Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is a Class I indication for patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. However, disparities in the utilization of TLR have not been fully explored, particularly concerning demographic and socioeconomic factors. Objectives This study aims to examine whether disparities exist among patients hospitalized for CIED infections with respect to the utilization of TLR, focusing on sex, race, and income characteristics. Methods We utilized the 2019 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to assess patients hospitalized with CIED infections and identify those who underwent TLR. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine risk factors for TLR utilization, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic characteristics. Results A total of 56 709 patients were hospitalized for CIED infection in the United States in 2019, of which 9867 (17.4%) underwent TLR. On an adjusted analysis, females and Black patients were found to have lower odds of undergoing TLR compared to males and White patients (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.59–0.78; p < 0.01; and OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.39–0.57; p < 0.01, respectively). Hispanic patients also had reduced odds of TLR (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58–0.93; p = 0.01). No significant associations were observed between income or insurance status and the likelihood of receiving TLR after adjustment. Conclusions This study identified significant disparities in the utilization of TLR among patients hospitalized for CIED infections. Female, Black, and Hispanic patients were significantly less likely to receive TLR.

ABSTRACT Background A novel individualized antitachycardia pacing (IATP) algorithm using the post‐pacing interval for real‐time control has been introduced. Performance information is limited to a small safety and feasibility study with additional single‐center and case studies. A larger‐scale analysis is needed to better understand algorithm performance. Methods Deidentified remote monitoring transmissions from devices with the IATP therapy applied were randomly selected. Rhythms were classified and effects of the novel algorithm were assessed. For monomorphic ventricular tachycardias (MVTs) proportions of successful therapy, shock‐free episodes, and acceleration were calculated using generalized estimating equations to correct for multiple episodes and compute statistics of the algorithm's performance. Results There were 2259 MVT episodes in 336 patients. IATP succeeded in 87.1% of MVT episodes with 89.9% of MVT episodes ultimately free of shock therapy. Based on multivariate analysis, significant factors in therapy success were programming of at least the recommended number of sequences (90% at least recommended vs 73%, p = 0.00088) and female sex (95% for females vs 86%, p = 0.002). A trend to higher success was found for MVT with a cycle length of 320 ms or greater (90% vs. 83%, p = 0.10). The IATP accelerated 3.6% of MVT episodes. None of the available factors was significantly associated with acceleration in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions The IATP algorithm succeeded in a large proportion of MVT episodes and with low acceleration in patients randomly selected from remote monitoring transmissions. Using at least the recommended number of sequences had the strongest association with successful therapy.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe factors contributing to sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) >30 days after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are not well‐established.ObjectivesThis study aimed to predict the factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD implantation and develop a predictive score to identify patients with an increased risk of late sustained VAs after the procedure.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study on a training cohort of 623 patients and a validation cohort of 157 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at the Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) from January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2020. Late sustained VAs were defined as ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring >30 days after the LVAD procedure. Detailed chart reviews of the electronic health records within the Mayo Clinic and outside medical records were performed.ResultsA total of 780 patients were included in our study. Late sustained VAs occurred in 30% (n = 232) of the patients. The significant factors associated with late sustained VAs after LVAD were the history of VAs prior to LVAD (34.1% vs. 23.0%, p < 0.01), implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) (87.9% vs. 77.6%, p < 0.01) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in situ (43.5% vs. 33.6%, p = 0.008), VT ablation prior to LVAD (5.2% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.010), use of amiodarone (49.1% vs. 38.7%, p = 0.007), use of mexiletine (15.5% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.01), and higher left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD) on echocardiography prior to LVAD implantation (71.4 vs. 68.7 mm, p = 0.002). During follow‐up, the patients who developed late sustained VAs after LVAD had lower survival than those who did not (HR = 1.96, 95% CI:156–2.4, p < 0.001). The average time from LVAD to orthotopic heart transplant was longer among late sustained VAs patients (23 vs. 14 months, p < 0.01). The “VIN” risk score was created to identify four risk groups: low (scores 0), intermediate (score 1), high (score 2), and very high (score 3). The rates of late VA's in the training cohort at 1 year were 9.5%, 14%, 18%, and 25% which was almost similar to the risk of late VA's at validation cohort 10%, 12%, 20%, and 63%, respectively.ConclusionsLate sustained VAs occurred in 30% of the patients who received LVAD and were associated with lower survival. The VIN risk score was developed and validated to stratify patients into low, intermediate, high, and very high risk of late sustained VAs.

Introduction: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common complication of right ventricle lead extraction (RVLE) in 5 to 10% of cases. This study aims to identify clinical outcomes such as predictors of heart failure hospitalization, need for tricuspid valve intervention, and death among patients with new severe TR after device lead removal (DLR). Methods: Patients who underwent DLR (pacemaker/ICD) between 3/1997 and 3/2024 were identified. Those who had an echocardiogram before and after RVLE with evidence of new severe TR were included. Cox univariable regression controlling for current age was used to assess association with death. Prentice Williams Peterson total time (PWPTT) Cox univariable regression was used to determine the rate of heart failure hospitalization up to three events per subject. Bivariable cox regression was used to control for ejection fraction for ICD and coil removal. Analysis was conducted using Stata IC16. Results: We identified 2,122 people who underwent RVLE, of whom 90 (4.24%) developed new severe TR and were included in the analysis. There were 68 hospitalizations among 38 people at a median of 2 years following lead extraction (IQR 0.57 to 4.5 years). The rate of hospitalization was 11.60 [9.14 to 14.71] per 100 person-years. Removal of an ICD was associated with increased hospitalization (HR 5.48 p<0.001) but not mortality (HR 1.21, p=0.707). Removal of a single coil ICD lead was associated with increased hospitalization rate (HR 3.01, p=0.031) but not mortality (HR =0.51, p=0.380). Removal of dual coil ICD lead was associated with more than a tenfold increase in hospitalization rate (HR 11.55, p=0.001) and four times the mortality rate (HR 4.05, p=0.031) (Figures 1&2). The presence of an abandoned (pacemaker/ICD) lead was associated with increased hospitalization (HR 5.75, p=0.004) and mortality (HR4.95, p=0.034). There was no change in hospitalization rate following tricuspid valve replacement (HR 1.33, p=0.716, n=18). Conclusion: Among people with new severe TR following DLR, the characteristics of the leads are strongly correlated with morbidity and mortality.

Background: The optimal timing of pacemaker reimplantation following transvenous lead removal (TLR) of infected cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) remains unclear. Objective: Our study aimed to assess the impact of timing to pacemaker reimplantation after TLR of infected CIED on hospital outcomes. Method: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, patients aged ≥18 years who underwent new pacemaker implantation with percutaneous approach following TLR of infected CIED from 2017 to 2020 were identified. The study population was stratified based on the timing of pacemaker reimplantation following TLR of infected CIED: early (<5 days) vs delayed (≥5 days). Weighted-propensity-score matched conditional multivariable logistic regressions were performed to determine the impact of the timing on various outcomes. Results: In our study, 469 (66.9%) patients received early device reimplantation, and 232 (33.1%) patients received delayed device reimplantation (≥5 days). Post-procedurally, patients in the delayed group had a higher risk of prolonged hospital stay (95% CI OR: 42.37 (6.36 – 282.11); p<0.01) and non-home discharge (95% CI OR: 2.00 (1.35 – 2.95), p<0.01). There was no significant difference between both groups in the early mortality, 30-day readmission, and procedural complications. Conclusion: Our study suggests that time-to-device reimplantation from TLR of infected CIED did not affect the overall short-term in-hospital outcomes. However, delayed device reimplantation was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay and non-home discharge.

AbstractBackgroundComplications associated with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices may necessitate device and lead removal. An open approach to removal may be electively chosen in cases with high risk of complications or those requiring additional concomitant cardiac surgery. This study aimed to investigate outcomes of patients who underwent elective open lead extractions (OLE) at two large tertiary care centers.MethodsThe records of 29 patients undergoing elective OLE were analyzed through retrospective chart review.Results69 total leads were extracted from 29 patients (77% completely, 23% partially). The average age of the oldest leads was 13.3 ± 11.3 years. Infective endocarditis with severe valvular insufficiency requiring valvular intervention (41%)—an infectious etiology, and tricuspid valve intervention to correct RV lead‐related severe TR (38%)—a noninfectious etiology, were the most common reasons for OLE. 38% of the patients had additional co‐primary or secondary indications for open extraction, such as CABG and pericardiectomies. The rate of major complications and procedural failure was 3% each (1/29). 30‐day survival was 100%, and 1‐year survival was 92%. The average length of hospital stay was 15 days and higher among those undergoing OLE for infectious indications.ConclusionOpen lead extractions offered a similar clinical success rate (97%) to transvenous extractions in this cohort and may be a viable alternative for those necessitating valvular intervention or when the risk of complications from TLE is considered very high.

AbstractIntroductionThe impact of mRNA‐based coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown.MethodsBIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID‐19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub‐analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID‐19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID‐19 vaccine and non‐vaccinated patients was also performed.ResultsFirst and second doses of the COVID‐19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID‐19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID‐19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre‐ and postvaccination.ConclusionsThough we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED‐detected AAs following vaccination for COVID‐19 over a 3‐month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high‐risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.