Citations

Background : Lipid lowering therapy reduces mortality in patients with both ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies and recently has been shown to decrease ICD shocks. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of recurrent VT in patients with an ICD also reduces shocks following intervention. It is unclear if statin therapy after VT RFA will further impact ICD shock rates. Methods : All patients from 1993–2005 who underwent a RFA procedure for recurrent VT at the Mayo Clinic with an ICD were included. Patient records were extracted for medical and procedural details and all ICD interrogations were reviewed for VT recurrence and therapies. Results: 63 patients (age 62±15 years) were followed over 3.9±3.6 years. Comorbid diseases included: coronary artery disease 37(58%, 34 prior myocardial infarction), ARVD/C 6(10%), nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy 7(11%), moderate-severe valve disease 14(22%), hypertension 34(54%), and hyperlipidemia 35(56%). Ejection fraction was <0.35 in 34(56%). VT was induced in all patients (LV 55 (LVOT 1), RV 8 (RVOT 3) with multiple inducible VTs in 21(33%). VT was noninducible after RFA in 39(62%) patients. Dismissal medications included: statins 19(30%), beta blockers 40(66%), ACE/ARB 37(61%), diuretics 34(55%), and digoxin 23(37%). 5-year overall survival was 63%(95% CI 55–71). Age, diabetes, and renal insufficiency were associated with increased post ablation mortality, with no medication improving survival. 5-year survival free of ICD shocks was 31%(95% CI 24–38). Only statin therapy at discharge was associated with a decreased risk of ICD shocks [5(26%) versus 26(59%), p=0.020]. 7 additional patients received statins during follow-up, but not at discharge, of these 5(71%) had shocks. Conclusion : Statin use at discharge in patients with an ICD undergoing RFA for refractory VT significantly reduced recurrent ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks. Although the mechanism underlying the effects of statins on arrhythmic recurrence early after RFA requires further study, these data support aggressive therapy of the underlying substrate responsible for the VT.

Determining whether retrograde ventriculoatrial (VA) conduction is through the AV node (AVN) or an accessory pathway (AP) is critical for successful ablation of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). With introduction of ventricular extrastimuli (VEST), retrograde right bundle branch block (retro RBBB) may occur and result in abrupt VH interval prolongation. We hypothesized when retrograde conduction is via an AP, VA interval change is less than VH interval change, whereas with retrograde AVN conduction, VA interval change is equal to or greater than VH interval change. We retrospectively reviewed the electrophysiology (EP) studies of patients undergoing ablation for AVNRT (n=55) or AVRT (n=50). The intracardiac electrograms were reviewed for induction of retro RBBB and change in VH and VA intervals during VEST. Parahisian pacing, decremental pacing, arrhythmia diagnosis and ablation outcomes were reviewed. All results were found to be reproducible between two independent observers with inter and intra observer reliability scores of 1.00 for identification of retro RBBB and greater than 0.85 for measurement of VH and VA intervals. Of 105 patients, 84 (80%) had evidence of induced retro RBBB during VEST. The average VH interval increase with induction of retro RBBB was 53.7 ms for patients with retrograde AP conduction and 54.4 ms for patients with AVN conduction (p=ns). The average VA interval increase with induction of retro RBBB was 13.6 ms with AP conduction and 70.1 ms with AVN conduction (P < 0.001). All patients with a greater VH than VA interval change had a final diagnosis of AVRT and those with a VH change less than VA change had AVNRT, yielding sensitivity and specificity of 100%. Using a cutoff of 50 ms for change in VA interval with onset of retro RBBB to diagnose AVNRT accurately identified AVNRT in 100% and AVRT in 95%. Induction of retro RBBB during VEST is common during EP studies for SVT. The relative change in the VH and VA intervals during retro RBBB accurately differentiates retrograde AVN from retrograde AP conduction with strong predictive accuracy. The use of retro RBBB based intervals is a useful technique facilitating the diagnosis of SVT in the EP laboratory, even in the absence of inducible tachycardia.

AbstractBackgroundOptimal timing of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) re‐implantation following device removal due to infection is undefined. Multinational guidelines reflect this and include no specific recommendation for this timing, while others have recommended waiting at least 14 days in cases of CIED related infective endocarditis (CIED‐IE). The current work seeks to clarify this issue.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed institutional data at Mayo Clinic, Minnesota of patients aged ≥ 18 years who developed CIED‐IE from January 1, 1991 to February 1, 2016. CIED‐IE was defined as echocardiogram reported device lead or valvular vegetation. Regression analyses were used to relate the risk of clinical outcomes to the interval between CIED removal and re‐implantation and the location of vegetations.ResultsA total of 109 patients met study inclusion criteria. A majority (68.8%) of patients were men and the median age was 68.0 years. Transoesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) was performed in 95.4% of patients, with valve vegetations detected in 33.9% (n = 37). Survival analysis comparing patients in whom device re‐implantation was < 14 days vs. ≥14 days, and further categorized by those with and without valve vegetation, showed a significant difference (P = 0.028); patients with valve vegetation and reimplantation interval < 14 days had the lowest (58.7%) 12‐month survival. When adjusted for valve vegetation, longer time interval for reimplantation trended toward increased hospital length of stay (P = 0.079).ConclusionOur findings suggest that the recommended 14‐day delay between CIED extraction and re‐implantation in CIED‐IE patients is associated with a survival benefit, but longer length of hospital stay following re‐implantation.

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.