Search

Advanced heart failure (HF) therapies improve survival in patients with stage D HF. We sought to evaluate differences by race/ethnicity and sex in advanced HF therapy referrals and decision-making across a multicenter survey. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred for evaluation for advanced HF therapies at 9 centers (n = 515) across the United States. The median age was 58 years, and 73% were male. White patients comprised 55.7% of referrals, whereas non-White patients comprised 44.3%. Non-ischemic etiology was more common in non-White patients (66.6% vs 47.4% p = 0.0005), and ischemic etiology was more common in men (37.8% vs 20.4% p = 0.0005). The primary reason for referral differed by race/ethnicity but not sex, with ventricular arrhythmias (7.6% vs 3%, p = 0.024) and pulmonary hypertension (3.4% vs 0.4% p = 0.018) being more common in White patients, whereas worsening HF was less common (25.4% vs 35.9%; p = 0.009). White patients were offered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (60.3% vs 54.7 p = 0.039) and heart transplants (51.8% vs 33.1% p = 0.0007) more often than non-White patients. The preference not to pursue LVAD therapy was more common in non-White patients (17.6% vs 9.6%; p = 0.049). Men were more often declined for a heart transplant because of psychosocial contraindications (34% vs 15%, p = 0.005). In conclusion, in this multicenter analysis of referrals for advanced HF therapies, we observed significant differences by race, ethnicity, and sex in both referral characteristics and evaluation outcomes. Further investigation is warranted to better understand why rates of LVAD and transplantation may be lower in non-White patients who are referred for advanced therapies.

Background Therapies for advanced heart failure (AHF) improve the likelihood of survival in a growing population of patients with stage D heart failure (HF). Successful implementation of these therapies is dependent upon timely and appropriate referrals to AHF centers. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred to 9 AHF centers for evaluation for AHF therapies. Patients’ demographics, referring providers’ characteristics, referral circumstances, and evaluation outcomes were collected. Results The majority of referrals (n = 515) were male (73.4%), and a majority of those were in the advanced state of the disease: very low left ventricular ejection fraction ( Conclusions In this multicenter review of AHF referrals, HF cardiologists referred the most patients despite being a relatively small proportion of the overall clinician population. Late referral was prevalent in this high-risk patient population and correlates with worsened outcomes, suggesting a significant need for broad clinician education regarding the benefits, triggers and appropriate timing of referral to AHF centers for optimal patient outcomes.

Objectives The objective of this study was to describe the risk of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) complications in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Background Patients with LVADs are predisposed to ventricular arrhythmias and frequently have CIEDs before receiving their LVAD. However, the role of CIED procedures such as generator changes (GC) are unclear in this population, given the potential complications of bleeding and infection. Methods This was a retrospective, multicenter study from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2018. All patients with LVADs were screened and those who had a CIED GC, implantation, or revision were included in the study and followed until December 31, 2018. Results A total of 179 patients across 6 centers had a CIED procedure after LVAD implantation. The mean age was 59.5 ± 13.4, with the cohort comprising mostly men (78%), destination LVAD therapy (53.8%), and GC (66%). The 30-day primary composite endpoint of hematoma or device infection occurred in 34 (19%) patients. The secondary endpoints of rehospitalization within 30 days and appropriate device therapy during follow-up occurred in 40 (22%) and 42 (24%) patients respectively. Of the 126 patients without previous device therapy, 14.3% received appropriate therapy during follow-up. Conclusions In this large, multicenter cohort, we report the incidence of complications for CIED procedures in the LVAD population; specifically, LVAD patients are at increased risk of pocket hematomas, without downstream risk of infection, and do experience a high rate of appropriate device therapies.

This study sought to characterize septal substrate in patients with nonischemic left ventricular cardiomyopathy (NILVCM) undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation.The interventricular septum is an important site of VT substrate in NILVCM.The authors studied 95 patients with NILVCM and VT. Electroanatomic mapping using standard bipolar (1.5 mV) and unipolar (8.3 mV) low-voltage criteria identified septal scar location and size. Analysis of unipolar voltage was performed and scars quantified using graded unipolar cutoffs from 4 to 8.3 mV were correlated with delayed gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (DE-CMR), performed in 57 patients.Detailed LV endocardial mapping (mean 262 ± 138 points) showed septal bipolar and unipolar voltage abnormalities (VAs) in 44 (46%) and 79 (83%) patients, most commonly with basal anteroseptal involvement. Of the 59 patients in whom the septum was targeted, bipolar and unipolar septal VAs were seen in 36 (61%) and 54 (92%). Of the 35 with CMR-defined septal scar, bipolar and unipolar septal VAs were seen in 18 (51%) and 31 (89%). In 12 patients without CMR septal scar, 6 (50%) had isolated unipolar septal VAs on electroanatomic mapping, a subset of whom the septum was targeted for ablation (44%). In the graded unipolar analysis, the optimal cutoff associated with magnetic resonance imaging septal scar was 4.8 mV (sensitivity 75%, specificity 70%; area under the curve: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 0.90).Septal substrate by unipolar or bipolar voltage mapping in patients with NILVCM and VT is common. A unipolar voltage cutoff of 4.8 mV provides the best correlation with DE-CMR. A subset of patients with septal VT had normal DE-CMR or endocardial bipolar voltage with abnormal unipolar voltage.

Objectives This study was conceived to determine the safety and efficacy of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Background The S-ICD is a treatment option for patients with CHD in which a transvenous device is contraindicated due to anatomic considerations. However, efficacy in this group has not been determined. Methods A pooled analysis of 865 patients in the EFFORTLESS (Evaluation of Factors Affecting the Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness) registry (an international observational database) and a U.S. Investigational Device Exemption study were reviewed. Results Nineteen CHD patients versus 846 non-CHD patients with a median follow-up of 567 days and 639 days, respectively, were included. There were no deaths and no appropriate shocks for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in the CHD cohort, versus 26 deaths (3.1%, p = 0.42) and 111 appropriate shocks in 59 patients (7.1%) in the non-CHD cohort (p = 0.23). There were similar complication rates for the CHD versus non-CHD groups (10.5 vs. 9.6% [p = 0.89]), with inappropriate shocks for T-wave oversensing as the only complication in the CHD group (n = 2). The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar for both groups (10.5% vs. 10.9% [p = 0.96]). Successful defibrillation testing at 80J was comparable for the CHD versus non-CHD groups (100% vs. 98.5%). Conclusions The overall analysis of the CHD cohort from the pooled data of the Investigational Device Exemption study and the EFFORTLESS registry shows that the S-ICD is a safe option in CHD patients deemed to be at high risk for sudden cardiac death who do not have pacing indications. Further research to accurately define sudden cardiac death risk in the diverse anatomic substrates of CHD patients is warranted.