Citations

Abstract Aims Pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation offers shorter procedural times and improved safety compared with thermal ablation, but the optimal anaesthesia strategy remains uncertain. Most centres in the USA use general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation, whereas monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation may be a safe and efficient alternative. Objectives To compare procedural efficiency and safety between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia for pulsed field ablation. Methods and results Consecutive adults who underwent pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation between 2024 and 2025 at Marshfield Clinic Health System were included. The anaesthesia approach was determined by operator preference. Procedural times, medication use, complications, and patient tolerance were recorded prospectively. Among 200 patients, 100 received monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation, and 100 received general anaesthesia. The mean age was 67 years, 42% were female, and the mean body mass index was 33 kilograms per square metre. Monitored anaesthesia care shortened case duration (77 vs. 95 min; P < 0.001) and laboratory time (118 vs. 153 min; P = 0.002) and required fewer adjunct medications (P < 0.001). Twenty-five procedures (25%) were challenging due to cough or motion but were all completed safely. Complications occurred in one monitored anaesthesia care case and six general anaesthesia cases (P = 0.054). Pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in all patients. Conclusion Monitored anaesthesia care without endotracheal intubation was safe, efficient, and resource-sparing compared with general anaesthesia for pulsed field atrial fibrillation ablation.

Introduction: Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in select patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The occurrence of device therapies after ICD implantation in contemporary clinical practice is not well described, especially in patient subgroups designated in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2005 Coverage with Evidence Development (CED). Methods: The Longitudinal Study of ICDs assessed rates and correlates of device therapies (overall and those requiring shock) up to 3 years post-implant among 2540 patients with LVSD receiving first-time primary prevention ICDs in 7 US health care systems from 2006-2009. Implant data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry were linked to electronic longitudinal health care system data and a novel centrally adjudicated repository of device therapies abstracted from medical records. Proportional hazard models evaluated associations with device therapies by appropriateness, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Subjects were 26% women, 35% <65 years old, and 59% non-Hispanic white. Over a mean 26 months, 738 (29.1%) received at least 1 therapy (median 2). Estimated 3-year risk of any device therapy was 36% (24% appropriate, 12% inappropriate); for therapy requiring shock, corresponding values were 24%, 14%, 9%. The rate of appropriate therapy was higher in men than women (adjusted hazard ratio 1.84, 95% confidence interval 1.43-2.35). The rate of inappropriate therapy was higher for subjects <65 than for those >=65 years (1.40, 1.04-1.88), and lower among 2009 implants compared to 2006 (0.66, 0.46-0.95). Regarding the 3 CMS CED patient subgroups, neither ejection fraction nor heart failure symptom severity was associated with device therapy; for LVSD etiology, the rate of inappropriate therapy was nominally but not significantly higher among subjects with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy of < 9 months duration (1.38, 0.88-2.18). Conclusions: In a representative cohort of primary prevention ICD patients in usual care, rates of device therapies were somewhat lower than in landmark trials, differed by some patient characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for CMS CED subgroups.

OBJECTIVE To determine whether burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) influences the risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate device therapies. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Seven US healthcare delivery systems. PARTICIPANTS Adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention. MEASUREMENTS Data on 24 comorbid conditions were captured from electronic health records and categorized into quartiles of comorbidity burden (0‐3, 4‐5, 6‐7 and 8‐16). Incidence of ICD therapies (shock and antitachycardia pacing [ATP] therapies), including appropriateness, was collected for 3 years after implantation. Outcomes included time to first ICD therapy, total ICD therapy burden, and risk of inappropriate vs appropriate ICD therapy. RESULTS Among 2235 patients (mean age = 69 ± 11 years, 75% men), the median number of comorbidities was 6 (interquartile range = 4‐8), with 98% having at least two comorbidities. During a mean 2.2 years of follow‐up, 18.3% of patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy and 9.9% experienced at least one inappropriate therapy. Higher comorbidity burden was associated with an increased risk of first inappropriate therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.14‐3.31] for 4‐5 comorbidities; HR = 2.25 [95% CI = 1.25‐4.05] for 6‐7 comorbidities; and HR = 2.91 [95% CI = 1.54‐5.50] for 8‐16 comorbidities). Participants with 8‐16 comorbidities had a higher total burden of ICD therapy (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 2.12 [95% CI = 1.43‐3.16]), a higher burden of inappropriate therapy (RR = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.67‐6.86]), and a higher risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate therapy (RR = 1.74 [95% CI = 1.07‐2.82]). Comorbidity burden was not significantly associated with receipt of appropriate ICD therapies. Patterns were similar when separately examining shock or ATP therapies. CONCLUSIONS In primary prevention ICD recipients, MCC burden was independently associated with an increased risk of inappropriate but not appropriate device therapies. Comorbidity burden should be considered when engaging patients in shared decision making about ICD implantation.

Background Primary prevention implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality in selected patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction by delivering therapies (antitachycardia pacing or shocks) to terminate potentially lethal arrhythmias; inappropriate therapies also occur. We assessed device therapies among adults receiving primary prevention ICDs in 7 healthcare systems. Methods and Results We linked medical record data, adjudicated device therapies, and the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Survival analysis evaluated therapy probability and predictors after ICD implant from 2006 to 2009, with attention to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups: left ventricular ejection fraction, 31% to 35%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy <9 months’ duration; and New York Heart Association class IV heart failure with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator. Among 2540 patients, 35% were <65 years old, 26% were women, and 59% were white. During 27 (median) months, 738 (29%) received ≥1 therapy. Three‐year therapy risk was 36% (appropriate, 24%; inappropriate, 12%). Appropriate therapy was more common in men (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–2.35). Inappropriate therapy was more common in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.68–2.87), but less common among patients ≥65 years old versus younger (adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54–0.95) and in recent implants (eg, in 2009 versus 2006; adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.95). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development analysis, inappropriate therapy was less common with cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator versus single chamber (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36–0.84); therapy risk did not otherwise differ for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups. Conclusions In this community cohort of primary prevention patients receiving ICD, therapy delivery varied across demographic and clinical characteristics, but did not differ meaningfully for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coverage With Evidence Development subgroups.

Background In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator ( ICD ) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual‐chamber devices. The superiority of dual‐chamber over single‐chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single‐ and dual‐chamber ICD s for primary prevention. Methods and Results We identified patients receiving a single‐ or dual‐chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all‐cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital‐level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single‐chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual‐chamber device. In a propensity‐weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59–1.38 [ P =0.65]), all‐cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.21 [ P =0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72–1.21 [ P =0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–1.53 [ P =0.17]). Conclusions Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual‐chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single‐chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual‐chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks.

Objective Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have higher risk of sudden cardiac death; however, they may not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), in part due to higher risk of complications. We evaluated whether CKD is associated with greater risk of device-delivered shocks/antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies among patients receiving a primary prevention ICD. Methods We studied participants in the observational Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all delivered shocks/ATPs therapies and type of shock/ATP therapies (inappropriate or appropriate, determined by physician adjudication) within the 3 years. We evaluated the associations between CKD and time to first device therapy, burden of device therapy, and inappropriate versus appropriate device therapy, adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, laboratory values and medication use. Results Among 2161 participants, 1066 (49.3%) had CKD (eGFR 44±11 mL/min/1.73 m2) at ICD implantation. During mean of 2.26±0.89 years, 9.8% and 18.5% of participants had at least one inappropriate and appropriate shock/ATP therapies, respectively. CKD was not associated with time to first shock/ATP therapies (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05), overall burden of shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17) or inappropriate versus appropriate shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14) compared with not having CKD. Conclusions In adults receiving a primary prevention ICD, mild-to-moderate CKD was not associated with the timing, burden or appropriateness of subsequent device therapy. Potential concern for inappropriate ICD-delivered therapies should not preclude ICDs among eligible patients with CKD.

Background Patient sex and age may influence rates of death after receiving an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator for primary prevention. Differences in outcomes other than mortality and whether these differences vary by heart failure symptoms, etiology, and left ventricular ejection fraction are not well characterized. Methods and Results We studied 2954 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.35 undergoing first‐time implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator for primary prevention within the Cardiovascular Research Network; 769 patients (26%) were women, and 2827 (62%) were aged >65 years. In a median follow‐up of 2.4 years, outcome rates per 1000 patient‐years were 109 for death, 438 for hospitalization, and 111 for heart failure hospitalizations. Procedure‐related complications occurred in 8.36%. In multivariable models, women had significantly lower risks of death (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.80) and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) and higher risks for complications (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.90) than men; patients aged >65 years had higher risks of death (hazard ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.86) and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49) than younger patients. Age and sex differences were generally consistent in strata according to symptoms, etiology, and severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, except the higher risk of complications in women, which differed by New York Heart Association classification ( P =0.03 for sex–New York Heart Association interaction), and the risk of heart failure hospitalization in older patients, which differed by etiology of heart failure ( P =0.05 for age–etiology interaction). Conclusions The burden of adverse outcomes after receipt of an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator for primary prevention is substantial and varies according to patient age and sex. These differences in outcome generally do not vary according to baseline heart failure characteristics.