Citations

Background— Ventricular tachycardia and premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) most frequently occur in the context of structural heart disease. However, the burden of idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (IVA) in the general population is unknown. Methods and Results— We identified incident cases of IVA between 2005 and 2013 from Olmsted County, Minnesota, using the Rochester Epidemiology Project database. For PVC cohorts, we included those with frequent (defined as ≥100 PVC/24 hours) symptomatic PVCs. We defined IVA-associated cardiomyopathy as a drop in ejection fraction of ≥10% from baseline. Between 2005 and 2013, we identified 614 individuals with incident IVA (229 [37.3%] were male; average age was 52.1±17.2 years). Of these, 177 (28.8%) had idiopathic ventricular tachycardia, 408 (66.5%) had symptomatic PVCs, and 29 (4.7%) had IVA-associated cardiomyopathy. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence rates in 2005 to 2007, 2008 to 2010, and 2011 to 2013 were 44.9 per 100 000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.0–51.8), 47.6 per 100 000 (95% CI, 40.8–54.5), and 62.0 per 100 000 (95% CI, 54.4–69.6), respectively. In idiopathic ventricular tachycardia, there was an increase in incidence rate with ages ( P <0.001) but not between sexes ( P =0.12). The age-adjusted incidence of symptomatic PVC was higher in females than in males (46.2 per 100 000 [95% CI, 40.9–51.6] versus 20.5 per 100 000 [95% CI, 16.8–24.3]; P <0.001). The small number of individuals with IVA-associated cardiomyopathy precluded any formal testing. Conclusions— The incidence of IVA is increasing. Furthermore, overall incidence increases with age. Although the rate of idiopathic ventricular tachycardia is similar across sexes, women have a higher incidence of symptomatic PVC.

BackgroundMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non‐MRI‐conditional cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been shown to be safe when performed under closely monitored protocols. However, the safety of MRI in patients with devices with a nearly depleted battery has not been reported.MethodsProspective data were collected between January 2008 and May 2015 in patients with non‐MRI‐conditional CIEDs undergoing clinically indicated MRI under institutional protocol. Patients who were pacemaker dependent were excluded. Patients whose devices were at elective replacement indicator (ERI) at the time of MRI or close to ERI (ERI or replacement for battery depletion within 3 months of scan) were identified through database review and analyzed for clinical events.ResultsMRI scans (n = 569) were performed in 442 patients. Of these, we identified 13 scans performed with a nearly depleted battery in nine patients. All scans with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs, n = 9) were uneventful. However, two scans with pacemakers close to ERI resulted in a power‐on‐reset (PoR) event. One scan with a pacemaker close to ERI that was programmed to DOO mode reached ERI during MRI and automatically changed to VVI mode. Additionally, one scan with a pacemaker at ERI did not allow programming. All pacemakers with events were implanted before 2005.ConclusionPatients with pacemakers and ICDs with a nearly depleted battery can safely undergo MRI when patients are not pacemaker dependent. Attention should be paid because old devices can result in PoR or ERI during MRI, which may lead to oversensing and inhibition of pacing.

BackgroundAutomated external defibrillators can provide life‐saving therapies to treat ventricular fibrillation. We developed a prototype unit that can deliver a unique shock waveform produced by four independent capacitors that is delivered through two shock vectors, with the rationale of providing more robust shock pathways during emergent defibrillation. We describe the initial testing and feasibility of this unique defibrillation unit, features of which may enable downsizing of current defibrillator devices.MethodsWe tested our defibrillation unit in four large animal models (two canine and two swine) under general anesthesia. Experimental defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were obtained by delivery of a unique waveform shock pulse via a dual‐vector pathway with four defibrillation pads (placed across the chest). DFTs were measured and compared with those of a commercially available biphasic defibrillator (Zoll M series, Zoll Medical, Chelmsford, MA, USA) tested in two different vectors. Shocks were delivered after 10 seconds of stable ventricular fibrillation and the output characteristics and shock outcome recorded. Each defibrillation series used a step‐down to failure protocol to define the defibrillation threshold.ResultsA total of 96 shocks were delivered during ventricular fibrillation in four large animals. In comparison to the Zoll M series, which delivered a single‐vector, biphasic shock, the energy required for successful defibrillation using the unique dual‐vector biphasic waveform did not differ significantly (P = 0.65).ConclusionsOur early findings support the feasibility of a unique external defibrillation unit using a dual‐vector biphasic waveform approach. This warrants further study to leverage this unique concept and work toward a miniaturized, portable shock delivery system.

BackgroundEchocardiographically detected patent foramen ovale (PFO) has been associated with stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). We sought to evaluate the relationship between echocardiographic characteristics and risk of stroke/TIA and mortality in CIED patients with PFO.MethodsIn 6,086 device patients, PFO was detected in 319 patients. A baseline echocardiogram was present in 250 patients, with 186 having a follow‐up echocardiogram.ResultsOf 250 patients with a baseline echocardiogram, 9.6% (n = 24) had a stroke/TIA during mean follow‐up of 5.3 ± 3.1 years; and 42% (n = 105) died over 7.1 ± 3.7 years. Atrial septal aneurysm, prominent Eustachian valve, visible shunting across PFO, baseline or change in estimated right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP)/tricuspid regurgitation (TR), or maximum RVSP were not associated with postimplant stroke/TIA (P > 0.05). An exploratory multivariate analysis using time‐dependent Cox models showed increased hazard of death in patients with increase in TR ≥2 grades (hazard ratio [HR] 1.780, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.447–2.189, P < 0.0001), or increase in RVSP by >10 mm Hg (HR 2.018, 95% CI 1.593–2.556, P < 0.0001), or maximum RVSP in follow‐up (HR 1.432, 95% CI 1.351–1.516, P < 0.0001). A significant increase (P < 0.001) in TR was also noted during follow‐up.ConclusionsIn patients with CIED and PFO, structural and hemodynamic echocardiographic markers did not predict future stroke/TIA. However, a significantly higher TR or RVSP was associated with higher mortality.

Advances in the field of defibrillation have brought to practice different types of devices that include the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with or without cardiac resynchronization therapy, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), and the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator. To ensure optimal use of these devices and to achieve best patient outcomes, clinicians need to understand how these devices work, learn the characteristics of patients who qualify them for one type of device versus another, and recognize the remaining gaps in knowledge surrounding these devices. The transvenous ICD has been shown in several randomized clinical trials to improve the survival of patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation and those with sustained ventricular tachycardia with syncope or systolic heart failure as a result of ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy despite receiving guideline-directed medical therapy. Important gaps in knowledge regarding the transvenous ICD involve the role of the ICD in patient subgroups not included, or not well represented, in clinical trials and the need to refine the selection criteria for the ICD in patients who are indicated for it. S-ICDs were recently introduced into the clinical arena as another option for many patients who have an approved indication for a transvenous ICD. The main advantage of the S-ICD is a lower risk of infection and lead-related complications; however, the S-ICD does not offer bradycardia or antitachycardia pacing. The S-ICD may be ideal for patients with limited vascular access, high infection risk, or some congenital heart diseases. However, more data are needed regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of the S-ICD in comparison to transvenous ICDs, the extent of defibrillation testing required, and the use of the S-ICD with other novel technologies, including leadless pacemakers. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators are indicated in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS width ≥130 ms, and New York Heart Association class II, III, or ambulatory IV symptoms despite treatment with guideline-directed medical therapy. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown that the cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator improves survival, quality of life, and several echocardiographic measures. One main challenge related to cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators is the 30% nonresponse rate. Many initiatives are underway to address this challenge including improved cardiac resynchronization therapy and imaging technologies and enhanced selection of patients and device programming.

VT Ablation in LVAD RecipientsBackgroundPatients with advanced heart failure (HF) are predisposed to ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), particularly following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). There is minimal evidence for appropriate management strategies.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the burden of VA and response to ablation performed either before or following LVAD implantation.MethodsWe created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent both VA ablation and Heart Mate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA, USA) LVAD implantation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent VA ablation before (pre‐LVAD) or after LVAD (post‐LVAD) implantation. Descriptive analyses assessed 6‐month arrhythmia burden in relation to LVAD implantation and VA ablation.ResultsA total of 9 patients underwent both LVAD implantation and VA ablation. There were 3 and 6 patients, respectively, in the pre‐LVAD and post‐LVAD cohorts. Among patients in the pre‐LVAD cohort, the median number of VAs tended to increase after ablation (9 vs. 72) and decreased after LVAD implantation (72 vs. 63). Similarly among patients in the post‐LVAD cohort, the median burden of VAs increased after LVAD implantation (1 vs. 22) and the median burden decreased after ablation (22 vs. 13). Two of 6 patients had substrate related to the LVAD inflow cannula site, while other substrate was not related directly to the cannula.ConclusionsIn patients with progressive HF and LVAD implantation, ablation is associated with reduced VA rates. In LVAD patients, most VAs arise from substrate unrelated to the inflow cannula site.