Citations

In humans, abnormal thickening of the left ventricle of the heart clinically defines hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), a common inherited cardiovascular disorder that can precede a sudden cardiac death event. The wide range of clinical presentations in HCM obscures genetic variants that may influence an individual's susceptibility to sudden cardiac death. Although exon sequencing of major sarcomere genes can be used to detect high-impact causal mutations, this strategy is successful in only half of patient cases. The incidence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in a managed research colony of rhesus macaques provides an excellent comparative model in which to explore the genomic etiology of severe HCM and sudden cardiac death. Because no rhesus HCM-associated mutations have been reported, we used a next-generation genotyping assay that targets 7 sarcomeric rhesus genes within 63 genomic sites that are orthologous to human genomic regions known to harbor HCM disease variants. Amplicon sequencing was performed on 52 macaques with confirmed LVH and 42 unrelated, unaffected animals representing both the Indian and Chinese rhesus macaque subspecies. Bias-reduced logistic regression uncovered a risk haplotype in the rhesus MYBPC3 gene, which is frequently disrupted in both human and feline HCM; this haplotype implicates an intronic variant strongly associated with disease in either homozygous or carrier form. Our results highlight that leveraging evolutionary genomic data provides a unique, practical strategy for minimizing population bias in complex disease studies.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation is a common clinical manifestation in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Medications used to treat atrial fibrillation, such as antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants, may have significant drug interactions with emerging COVID‐19 treatments. Common unintended nontherapeutic target effects of COVID‐19 treatment include potassium channel blockade, cytochrome P 450 isoenzyme inhibition or activation, and P‐glycoprotein inhibition. Drug‐drug interactions with antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants in these patients may lead to significant bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or severe bleeding. It is important for clinicians to be aware of these interactions, drug metabolism changes, and clinical consequences when choosing antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants for COVID‐19 patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this review is to provide a practical guide for clinicians who are managing COVID‐19 patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation.

AbstractBackground and objectivesMacroreentrant atrial tachycardias often occur following atrial fibrillation ablation, most commonly due to nontransmural lesions in prior ablation lines. Perimitral atrial flutter is one such arrhythmia which requires ablation of the mitral isthmus. Our objectives were to review the literature regarding ablation of the mitral isthmus and to provide our approach for assessment of mitral isthmus block.MethodsWe review anatomical considerations, ablation strategies, and assessment of conduction block across the mitral isthmus, which is subject to several pitfalls. Activation sequence and spatial differential pacing techniques are discussed for assessment of both endocardial and epicardial bidirectional mitral isthmus block.ResultsTraditional methods for verifying mitral isthmus block include spatial differential pacing, activation mapping, and identification of double potentials. Up to 70% of cases require additional ablation in the coronary sinus (CS) to achieve transmural block. Interpretation of transmural block is subject to six pitfalls involving pacing output, differentiation of endocardial left atrial recordings from epicardial CS recordings, identification of a slowly conducting gap in the line, and catheter positioning during spatial differential pacing. Interpretation of unipolar electrograms can identify nontransmural lesions. We employ a combined epicardial and endocardial assessment of mitral isthmus block, which involves using a CS catheter for epicardial recording and a duodecapolar Halo catheter positioned around the mitral annulus for endocardial recording.ConclusionsThe assessment of transmural mitral isthmus block can be challenging. Placement of an endocardial mapping catheter around the mitral annulus can provide a precise assessment of conduction across the mitral isthmus.

AbstractBackgroundLeadless cardiac pacing (LCP) has emerged as a new modality for permanent pacing. We sought to describe comparative outcomes between LCP and transvenous pacemakers.MethodsPatients receiving LCP (Micra [Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA] and Nanostim [St. Jude Medical/Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA]) between 2014 and 2017 at the Mayo Clinic Heart Rhythm Enterprise practice (Rochester, MN, USA; Jacksonville, FL, USA; and Scottsdale, AZ, USA) were identified. We identified 1:1 age‐ and sex‐matched controls receiving single‐chamber transvenous ventricular pacemakers (TVP). Statistical analyses were performed with JMP 13.0.0 (SAS, Institute Cary, NC, USA).ResultsNinety patients underwent LCP implantation (73 Micra and 17 Nanostim) with a median follow‐up duration of 62 (interquartile range 28‐169) days. Both groups had 100% successful device implant rates. There were no differences in procedure‐related major (0% vs 1%) or minor complications (8% vs 3%) in the LCP versus TVP groups (P > 0.05). Excluding Nanostim patients, there was a lower rate of device‐related revision or extraction in the Micra versus TVP groups (0% vs 5%, P = 0.028). Device endocarditis was more common in the TVP group (0% vs 3%, P = 0.04). Estimated longevity was greater for the LCP group (median 12.0 vs 10.0 years, P < 0.0001). An increase in severity of tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR) by ≥2 grades occurred in none of the LCP patients, and in 19% of the TVP patients (P = 0.017).ConclusionThere are no significant differences in procedural complications among patients receiving LCP versus TVP. The Micra group had lower rates of device‐related revision/extraction compared to the TVP group. Patients with leadless pacemaker were less likely to develop endocarditis or worsening TR.

Background: Recognition of rates and causes of hard, patient-centered outcomes of death and cerebrovascular events (CVEs) after heart rhythm disorder management (HRDM) procedures is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs in electrophysiology laboratories. Our primary aim was to assess and characterize death and CVEs (stroke or transient ischemic attack) after HRDM procedures over a 17-year period. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing HRDM procedures between January 2000 and November 2016 at the Mayo Clinic. Patients from all 3 tertiary academic centers (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) were included in the study. All in-hospital deaths and CVEs after HRDM procedures were identified and were further characterized as directly or indirectly related to the HRDM procedure. Subgroup analysis of death and CVE rates was performed for ablation, device implantation, electrophysiology study, lead extraction, and defibrillation threshold testing procedures. Results: A total of 48 913 patients (age, 65.7±6.6 years; 64% male) who underwent a total of 62 065 HRDM procedures were included in the study. The overall mortality and CVE rates in the cohort were 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.42) and 0.12% (95% CI, 0.09–0.16), respectively. Patients undergoing lead extraction had the highest overall mortality rate at 1.9% (95% CI, 1.34–2.61) and CVE rate at 0.62% (95% CI, 0.32–1.07). Among patients undergoing HRDM procedures, 48% of deaths directly related to the HDRM procedure were among patients undergoing device implantation procedures. Overall, cardiac tamponade was the most frequent direct cause of death (40%), and infection was the most common indirect cause of death (29%). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.76%, with the highest being in lead extraction procedures (3.08%), followed by device implantation procedures (0.94%). Conclusions: Half of the deaths directly related to an HRDM procedure were among the patients undergoing device implantation procedures, with cardiac tamponade being the most common cause of death. This highlights the importance of the development of protocols for the quick identification and management of cardiac tamponade even in procedures typically believed to be lower risk such as device implantation.

BackgroundAlthough sudden death (SD) is a rare complication after atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation, the risk factors leading to this SD remain unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate SD and its risk factors after ablate‐and‐pace strategy for rate control in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients during long‐term follow‐up.HypothesisMethodsFrom January 2005 to December 2009, we enrolled into this study 517 AF patients with AVJ ablation and right ventricular pacemaker implantation. Patients were divided into 2 groups, SD and non‐SD. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess potential risk factors for overall mortality and SD.ResultsDuring a mean follow‐up of 25.8 ± 18.6 months (range, 3 days to 63.8 months), 53 patients died (15 with SD). Cox proportional hazards models showed that the presence of congestive heart failure, New York Heart Association functional class, chronic renal failure, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia were risk factors that predicted overall mortality. For SD, the presence of dilated cardiomyopathy and mitral stenosis were associated risk factors. SD was exclusively seen in patients who had narrow QRS complex or right bundle branch block prior to AVJ ablation and pacemaker implantation; SD was not seen in any patient with preexisting complete left bundle branch block.ConclusionsDilated cardiomyopathy, mitral stenosis, and baseline QRS morphology should be examined as potential risk factors for SD after AVJ ablation and pacemaker implantation.

Background and Study Aims. The presence of an implantable electromechanical cardiac device (IED) has long been considered a relative contraindication to the performance of video capsule endoscopy (CE). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with IEDs. A secondary purpose was to determine whether IEDs have any impact on images captured by CE.Patients and Methods.A retrospective chart review of all patients who had a capsule endoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ, USA, or Rochester, MN, USA, (January 2002 to June 2010) was performed to identify CE studies done on patients with IEDs. One hundred and eighteen capsule studies performed in 108 patients with IEDs were identified and reviewed for demographic data, method of preparation, and study data.Results.The most common indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (77%), anemia (14%), abdominal pain (5%), celiac disease (2%), diarrhea (1%), and Crohn’s disease (1%). Postprocedure assessments did not reveal any detectable alteration on the function of the IED. One patient with an ICD had a 25-minute loss of capsule imaging due to recorder defect. Two patients with LVADs had interference with capsule image acquisition.Conclusions.CE did not interfere with IED function, including PM, ICD, and/or LVAD and thus appears safe. Additionally, PM and ICD do not appear to interfere with image acquisition but LVAD may interfere with capsule images and require that capsule leads be positioned as far away as possible from the IED to assure reliable image acquisition.