Search

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications.To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia).Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255).The ATLAS trial.544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5).The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications.There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9;At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing.The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks.Boston Scientific.

Background: Left ventricular (LV) scar on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance has been correlated with life-threatening arrhythmic events in patients with apparently idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). We investigated the prognostic significance of a specific LV-LGE phenotype characterized by a ringlike pattern of fibrosis. Methods: A total of 686 patients with apparently idiopathic nonsustained VA underwent contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance. A ringlike pattern of LV scar was defined as LV subepicardial/midmyocardial LGE involving at least 3 contiguous segments in the same short-axis slice. The end point of the study was time to the composite outcome of all-cause death, resuscitated cardiac arrest because of ventricular fibrillation or hemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia and appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Results: A total of 28 patients (4%) had a ringlike pattern of scar (group A), 78 (11%) had a non-ringlike pattern (group B), and 580 (85%) had normal cardiac magnetic resonance with no LGE (group C). Group A patients were younger compared with groups B and C (median age, 40 vs 52 vs 45 years; P, SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and can be challenging to treat. Pharmacologically based rhythm control of AF has not proven to be superior to rate control. Ablation-based rhythm control was compared with rate control to evaluate if clinical outcomes in patients with HF and AF could be improved. Methods: This was a multicenter, open-label trial with blinded outcome evaluation using a central adjudication committee. Patients with high-burden paroxysmal (>4 episodes in 6 months) or persistent (duration Results: From December 1, 2011, to January 20, 2018, 411 patients were randomly assigned to ablation-based rhythm control (n=214) or rate control (n=197). The primary outcome occurred in 50 (23.4%) patients in the ablation-based rhythm-control group and 64 (32.5%) patients in the rate-control group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.49–1.03]; P =0.066). Left ventricular ejection fraction increased in the ablation-based group (10.1±1.2% versus 3.8±1.2%, P =0.017), 6-minute walk distance improved (44.9±9.1 m versus 27.5±9.7 m, P =0.025), and NT-proBNP demonstrated a decrease (mean change –77.1% versus –39.2%, P P =0.0036), as did the AF Effect on Quality of Life score (least-squares mean difference of 6.2 [95% CI, 1.7–10.7]; P =0.0005). Serious adverse events were observed in 50% of patients in both treatment groups. Conclusions: In patients with high-burden AF and HF, there was no statistical difference in all-cause mortality or HF events with ablation-based rhythm control versus rate control; however, there was a nonsignificant trend for improved outcomes with ablation-based rhythm control over rate control. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01420393.

ObjectiveAtrial fibrillation (AF) remains a highly prevalent arrhythmia with significant burden on morbidity and mortality. The impact of AF in the revascularised population remains incompletely described. Given the high prevalence of AF in the revascularised population, we sought to evaluate the incidence and prognosis in patients with pre-existing and new-onset AF following revascularisation.MethodsWe used the University of Ottawa Heart Institute Revascularisation Registry to identify patients who underwent revascularisation between August 2015 and March 2020, who were prospectively followed for an average of one year. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analysing the association between AF and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularisation and cerebrovascular accidents. Moreover, secondary outcomes include the individual components of MACE and bleeding.ResultsA total of 6704 patients underwent revascularisation and completed 1-year clinical follow-up. Median time to follow-up was 12.8 (IQR 11.2–15.9) months. One-year MACE occurred in 166 (21.8%) and 683 (11.5%) patients in AF and non-AF groups, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; pConclusionsPreprocedural and new-onset AF following revascularisation remains highly predictive 1-year MACE. AF should be considered in addition to traditional risk factors for adverse outcomes following revascularisation.

Patients who receive appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks have a subsequent adverse prognosis. Most data suggest that patients with inappropriate ICD shocks also have a subsequent adverse prognosis, although this is more controversial. The shocks may be an epiphenomenon, that is, a marker of underlying disease progression; however, it cannot be excluded that shocks cause direct myocardial damage. This latter question is difficult to clarify as the arrhythmia provoking the shock can also cause troponin release. Inappropriate shocks secondary to lead fracture are an ideal situation to examine this question; any troponin release in an otherwise well and hemodynamically stable patient, is likely due directly to the shocks.All patients with Fidelis lead fracture admitted to our institution with inappropriate shocks were included in this study. Troponin (I or T) was considered positive if the level was above the 99th percentile reference cutoff.Elevated troponin levels were recorded in 16 of 22 patients (73%). Patients with elevated troponin received a higher number of shocks (20.3 ± 30.1 vs 5.3 ± 4.8, P = 0.07) compared with patients with normal troponin. Very elevated troponin levels (0.8 mcg/L) were seen in five of 22 (22%) patients. The mean peak troponin level for these five patients was 7.06 ± 8.56 mcg/L; two patients had troponin levels that would be expected from a medium-sized myocardial infarction or severe myocarditis.Troponin elevation occurred in the majority of our patients after inappropriate ICD discharges secondary to lead fracture. This indicates that ICD shocks can cause myocardial injury.