Search

Introduction: The role of secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) remains uncertain in spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) patients presenting with sudden cardiac arrest (SCA)., Methods: We aimed at assessing the outcomes following SCA and the role of ICD therapy in SCAD. The meta-analysis was performed using a meta-package for R version 4.0/RStudio version 1.2 and the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine method to establish the variance of raw proportions. Outcomes measured included-(1) incidence of ICD implantation, (2) appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy, (3) recurrence of SCAD and SCA, and (4) all-cause mortality., Results: Five studies, including 139 SCAD patients with SCA met study inclusion criteria. The mean age was 47.3 ± 12.8 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 43.8 ± 10.8%, 88% were female (12% had pregnancy-associated SCAD. Causes of SCA included ventricular arrhythmia (97.9%, n = 136) and pulseless electrical activity (2.1%, n = 3). Overall, 20% patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.1%-36.6%, I 2 = 68%) received ICD, of which 1.2% (95% CI: 0%-15.8%, I 2 = 0%) and 1% (95% CI: 0%-15.3%, I 2 = 0%) patients received appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, respectively, during follow-up period (4.1 ± 3.3 years). Incidence of recurrent SCAD was 9% (95% CI: 2.85%-17.5%, I 2 = 25%), and recurrent SCA was 3.85% patients (95% CI: 0.65%-8.7%, I 2 = 0%; one patient with appropriate ICD therapy). The pooled incidence of all-cause mortality was 6.2% (95% CI: 0.6%-15.1%, I 2 = 44%)., Conclusion: Although ICD therapy is beneficial in patients (all comers) presenting with cardiac arrest; the risk-benefit ratio of secondary prevention ICD arrest remains unclear. Patient-centered shared decision-making and risk-benefit ratio assessment should be performed before consideration for ICD implantation., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction reduces mortality secondary to malignant arrhythmias. Whether cardiac transplant patients considered high risk for sudden death (SD) derive similar benefits remains controversial., Methods: Systematic search, without language restriction, using PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from inception to June 4, 2020, for studies that had reported outcomes in patients who had ICD implanted after cardiac transplant. The outcomes studied were as follows: (a) SD and (b) appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies., Results: Seven studies (from 1983 through 2018) with a total of 338 cardiac transplant patients who received ICD met study inclusion criteria. The mean age was 48.37 ± 14.85 years, and 70.4% were men. The pooled incidence of SD was 16.3% (95% CI 6.2-29.0%; I 2   = 66%). Appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies were observed in 12.1% (95% CI 5.3-20.4; I 2   = 0%) and 3.5% (95% CI 0.11-9.58%; I 2   = 0%), respectively during the follow-up period (27.48 ± 24.27 months). The most common cause for SD was heart failure (15.6%), followed by electromechanical disassociation, malignant ventricular arrhythmias (4.7% each, respectively), and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) (3.1%). Furthermore, approximately 60% (10/17) of patients with appropriate ICD shocks had CAV., Conclusion: Despite, low incidence of arrhythmic mortality, there remains an increased burden of ventricular arrhythmias, as evident by a 12% appropriate ICD shock rates, suggesting ICD might be a practical decision in selected cardiac transplant patients deemed high risk of SD (i.e., patients with advanced CAV and left ventricular systolic dysfunction)., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: Cardiac sarcoidosis is a multisystem inflammatory disorder characterized by ventricular arrhythmias. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is used to prevent sudden cardiac death., Methods: We performed literature search for studies that addressed the outcome and complications of ICD in Cardiac Sarcoidosis (CS). Multiple search sites were reviewed from January 1, 2000 until December 1, 2018. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed studies' quality., Results: Ten studies with 585 patients qualified for the analysis. In the pooled analysis, 57% were male with mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 38.4%. Appropriate and inappropriate ICD treatments (AT and IAT) were reported in 39% and 15% of patients respectively over mean follow-up period of 25 months and mortality rate of 8%. A sub-analysis of four studies indicated that patients with appropriate therapy did not differ from the rest of CS population in LVEF% (mean difference (MD) = - 7.37%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 16.89 to 2.15, p = 0.12), age (MD = - 3.87 years, 95% CI - 10.19 to 2.46, p = 0.23), primary prevention (range difference (RD) = - 0.11, 95% CI - 0.31 to 0.10, p = 0.31) or secondary prevention indication (RD = 0.09, 95% CI - 0.12 to 0.3, p = 0.37). High degree AV block was more common in patients with AT (RD = 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14 p = 0.05)., Conclusions: ICD placement in CS is associated with high incidence of both appropriate and inappropriate therapy. High degree AV block appears to be predictive of appropriate ICD therapy.

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation., Background: Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience., Methods: A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs)., Results: Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, n = 18,009; AVP, n = 409; and CVC, n = 17,304). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC., Conclusions: CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Catheter ablation is proven to be an effective strategy for drug refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the appropriate timing of VT ablation and identifying the group of patients that may receive the greatest benefit remains uncertain. There is limited data on the effect on prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) in the prevention of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, electrical storm, and mortality., Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search through November 1, 2017, for all eligible studies comparing PCA + ICD versus ICD only in eligible patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clinical outcomes included all ICD therapies including ICD shocks and electrical storm. Additional outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and complications., Results: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 346) met inclusion criteria. PCA was associated with a significantly lower ICD therapies (OR 0.49; CI 0.28 to 0.87; p = 0.01) including ICD shocks [OR 0.38; CI 0.22 to 0.64; p = 0.0003) and electrical storm (OR 0.55; CI 0.30 to 1.01; p = 0.05) when compared with ICD only. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.77; CI 0.41 to 1.46; p = 0.42), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.49; CI 0.16 to 1.50; p = 0.21), and major adverse events (OR 1.45; CI 0.52 to 4.01; p = 0.47) between two groups., Conclusion: These results suggest prophylactic catheter ablation decreases ICD therapies, including shocks and electrical storm with no improvement in overall mortality. There is a need for future carefully designed randomized clinical trials.

Introduction: The rates of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections have risen over the past decade and are associated with increased hospitalizations and mortality. A number of preventative strategies have been developed including an antibiotic coated envelope, but it has yet to gain widespread use., Methods: A meta-analysis was performed on controlled studies of the antibiotic envelope. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies comparing infection rates with and without the use of an antibiotic envelope. Studies including both new implants and pulse generator replacements were included in the analysis., Results: Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 4,490 patients underwent CIED implantation, 1,798 with an antibiotic envelope and 2,692 without an envelope. In the pooled cohort, the envelope was associated with a 69% relative risk reduction in CIED infection (0.31 [0.17, 0.58] 95% CI, P = 0.0002). Propensity matched data from three studies were analyzed to ensure accurate comparison. In the risk-matched cohort, infections were significantly lower in the envelope group (3 vs. 26, P < 0.0003)., Conclusion: The use of antibiotic envelopes in CIED implant is associated with a significantly lower rate of infection., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients receiving hemodynamic support (HS) during ventricular tacchycardia (VT) ablation., Background: There are limited real-world data evaluating its effect of HS in ablation outcomes., Methods: An analysis of 1,655 patients from the International VT Ablation Center Collaborative group was performed. A total of 105 patients received HS with percutaneous ventricular assist device., Results: Patients in the HS group had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), higher New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and more implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks, VT storm, and antiarrhythmic drug use (all p < 0.05). The HS group also required significantly longer fluoroscopy, procedure, and total lesion time. Acute procedural success (71.8% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.04) was significantly lower and complications (12.5% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.03) and 1-year mortality (34.7% vs. 9.3%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the HS group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated HS as an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 5.01; 95% confidence interval: 3.44 to 7.20; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in VT recurrence between groups. In a subgroup analysis including LVEF ≤20% and NYHA functional class III to IV patients, acute procedural success (74.0% vs. 70.5%; p = 0.8), complications (15.6% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.2), VT recurrence (30.2% vs. 38.1%; p = 0.44), and 1-year mortality (40.0% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.2) were no different between the HS and no-HS groups., Conclusions: Patients requiring HS were sicker with multiple comorbidities and, as expected, had a significantly higher 1-year mortality than did those patients in the no-HS group. In patients with LVEF ≤20% and NYHA functional class III to IV, there was also no significant difference in clinical outcomes when compared with no HS. Further studies are needed to systematically evaluate patients undergoing VT ablation receiving HS., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pocket hematoma is a recognized complication after placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices and is associated with increased device infection, length of hospitalization, and morbidity especially with uninterrupted antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. We assessed the use of a post-surgical vest to decrease the incidence of pocket hematoma in patients undergoing device implantation with uninterrupted antiplatelet and anticoagulants., Methods: In this observational study, a vest was used by 20 consecutive patients who were compared to 20 age-, gender-, procedure-matched patients who received standard care. All patients were continued on antiplatelet and anticoagulants in the perioperative period. The pocket was assessed at post procedure day 0, 2, and 7, respectively., Results: There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between both groups. Baseline mean international normalized ratio (INR) was significantly higher in the vest group when compared with the control group (2.7 ± 0.4 vs. 2.2 ± 0.3 = <0.001). The incidence of pocket hematoma was significantly lower in the vest group than the control group (0 vs 30%, p = 0.02) at the end of 7 days. Control group had a total of six hematomas with one patient requiring evacuation and blood transfusion. The vest group had three hematomas on day 2 that resolved by day 7., Conclusions: The risk of moderate or large pocket hematoma is significantly reduced with the use of this vest in high-risk patients undergoing implantable devices on uninterrupted antiplatelet and anticoagulants.