Search

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) significantly contribute to the prevention of sudden cardiac death in selected patients. However, it is essential to identify those who are likely to not have benefit from an ICD and to defer a pulse generator exchange. Easily implementable guidelines for individual risk stratification and decision making are lacking. This study investigates the 1-year mortality of patients who underwent an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator function (CRT-D) pulse generator replacement in a contemporary real-world tertiary hospital setting. The cause of death and patient- and procedure-related factors are stratified, and predictive values for 1-year mortality are evaluated. Patients with a follow-up of ≥365 days (or prior mortality) after an ICD or CRT-D exchange at the Leiden University Medical Center from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2021 were eligible. In total, 588 patients were included (77% male, 69 [60-76] years old, 59% primary prevention, 46% ischemic cardiomyopathy and 37% mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)). Patients undergoing a CRT-D replacement or upgrade had a significantly higher 1-year all-cause mortality (10.7% and 11.9%, respectively) compared to patients undergoing ICD (2.8%) exchange ( p = 0.002). LVEF ≤ 30%, New York Heart Association class ≥ 3, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤ 30 mL/min/m 2 and haemoglobin ≤ 7 mmol/L were independently associated with mortality within 1 year after pulse generator replacement. There is a growing need for prospectively validated risk scores to weight individualized risk of mortality with the expected ICD therapy benefit and to support a well-informed, shared decision-making process.

Introduction: Increasing survival of adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) patients comes at the price of a range of late complications-arrhythmias, heart failure, and valvular dysfunction. Transcatheter valve interventions have become a legitimate alternative to conventional surgical treatment in selected acquired heart disease patients. However, literature on technical aspects, hemodynamic effects, and clinical outcomes of percutaneous atrioventricular (AV) valve interventions in ACHD patients is scarce., Method: This is a descriptive cohort from CAHAL (Center of Congenital Heart Disease Amsterdam-Leiden). ACHD patients with severe AV valve regurgitation who underwent a transcatheter intervention in the period 2020-2022 were included. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data were collected from patient records., Results: Five ACHD patients with severe or torrential AV valve regurgitation are described. Two patients underwent a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER), one patient underwent a valve-in-valve procedure, one patient received a Cardioband system, and one patient received both a Cardioband system and TEER. No periprocedural complications occurred. Post-procedural AV valve regurgitation as well as NYHA functional class improved in all patients. The median post-procedural NYHA functional class improved from 3.0 (IQR [2.5-4.0]) to 2.0 (IQR [1.5-2.5]). One patient died 9 months after the procedure due to advanced heart failure with multiorgan dysfunction., Conclusion: Transcatheter valve repair is feasible and safe in selected complex ACHD patients. A dedicated heart team is essential for determining an individualized treatment strategy as well as pre- and periprocedural imaging to address the underlying mechanism(s) of AV regurgitation and guide the transcatheter intervention. Long-term follow-up is essential to evaluate the clinical outcomes of transcatheter AV valve repair in ACHD patients.