Search

Aims Sudden cardiac arrest remains a major complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and is frequently related to ventricular fibrillation (VF). Incidence and impact of VF among patients hospitalized for AMI were evaluated. Methods and results Data from the FAST-MI programme consisting of 5 French nationwide prospective cohort studies between 1995 and 2015 were analysed, totally including 14 423 patients with AMI (66 ± 14 years, 72% males, 59% ST-elevation myocardial infarction). Overall, proportion of patients presenting in-hospital VF decreased from 3.9% in 1995 to 1.8% in 2015 (P < 0.001). One-year mortality decreased from 60.7% to 24.6% (P < 0.001). However, compared with patients who did not develop VF, the over-risk of 1-year mortality associated with VF was stable over time [hazard ratio (HR) 6.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.03–9.14 in 1995 and HR 6.64, 95% CI 4.20–10.49 in 2015, P = 0.52]. This increased mortality in the VF group was mainly related to fatal events occurring prior to hospital discharge, representing 86.2% of 1-year mortality, despite the very low rate of implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the VF group (2.6%). Conclusion This study demonstrates that in-hospital VF incidence and mortality in the setting of AMI have significantly decreased over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, VF remained steadily associated with approximately a 10-fold increased relative risk of in-hospital mortality, without an impact on post-discharge mortality. Beyond long-term cardiac defibrillation strategy, these results emphasize the need to identify in-hospital interventions to further reduce mortality in VF patients. Study registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00673036, NCT01237418, NCT02566200 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We sought to determine whether atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) has a positive impact on ICD shocks and hospitalizations compared with rate-slowing drugs.Methods and Results: This is a pooled analysis of data from 179 international centres participating in two randomized trials and one prospective observational research. The co-primary endpoints were all-cause ICD shocks and all-cause hospitalizations. Out of 3358 CRT-ICD patients (2720 male, 66.6 years), 2694 (80%) were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 664 (20%) had permanent AF-262 (8%) treated with AVJA (AF + AVJA) and 402 (12%) treated with rate-slowing drugs (AF + Drugs). Median follow-up was 18 months. The mean (95% confidence intervals) annual rate of all-cause ICD shocks per 100 patient years was 8.0 (5.3-11.9) in AF + AVJA, 43.6 (37.7-50.4) in AF + Drugs, and 34.4 (32.5-36.5) in SR patients, resulting in incidence rate ratio (IRR) reductions of 0.18 (0.10-0.32) for AF + AVJA vs. AF + Drugs (P < 0.001) and 0.48 (0.35-0.66) for AF + AVJA vs. SR (P < 0.001). These reductions were driven by significant reductions in both appropriate ICD shocks [IRR 0.23 (0.13-0.40), P < 0.001, vs. AF + Drugs] and inappropriate ICD shocks [IRR 0.09 (0.04-0.21), P < 0.001, vs. AF + Drugs]. Annual rate of all-cause hospitalizations was significantly lower in AF + AVJA vs. AF + Drugs [IRR 0.57 (0.41-0.79), P < 0.001] and SR [IRR 0.85 (073-0.98), P = 0.027].Conclusion: In AF patients treated with CRT, AVJA results in a lower incidence and burden of all-cause, appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks, as well as to fewer all-cause and heart failure hospitalizations.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT00147290, NCT00617175, NCT01007474. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Studies have shown that remote patient monitoring (RPM) of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is at least comparable to in-clinic follow-up with regard to clinical outcomes and might be cost-effective, yet RPM is not standard clinical practice within Europe. Better insight into the patient perspective on RPM may aid in its acceptance, implementation, and reimbursement. This narrative review (1) summarizes existing evidence on the impact of RPM on patient-reported outcomes and (2) discusses future directions in examining the patient perspective. Methods and Results Literature review indicated that only five randomized trials on RPM in ICD patients included patient-reported outcomes, with inconclusive results. Observational studies show a trend toward good patient satisfaction and acceptation of RPM. Yet, results should be interpreted with caution due to a number of limitations including a potential selection bias, use of generic/nonvalidated questionnaires, relatively short follow-up durations, and a lack of subgroup identification. Conclusion Although RPM seems to be safe, effective, timely, and efficient, the patient perspective has received little attention so far. The scarce evidence on patient-reported outcomes in RPM studies seems to be positive, but future trials with a follow-up of ≥12 months and validated patient-reported outcome measures are needed. The REMOTE-CIED study from our group is the first prospective randomized controlled trial primarily designed to examine the patient perspective on RPM, and is powered to identify characteristics associated with RPM satisfaction and benefit. Results are expected in 2018 and will add valuable information to the current evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: One option to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) responder rates lies in the optimization of pacing intervals. A haemodynamic sensor embedded in the SonRtip atrial lead measures cardiac contractility and provides a systematic automatic atrioventricular and interventricular delays optimization. This multi-centre study evaluated the safety and performance of the lead, up to 1 year.Methods and Results: A total of 99 patients were implanted with the system composed of the lead and a CRT-Defibrillator device. Patients were followed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-implant. The primary safety objective was to demonstrate that the atrial lead complication free rate was superior to 90% at 3-months follow-up visit. A lead handling questionnaire was filled by implanting investigators. Lead electrical performances and the performance of the system to compute AV and VV delays were evaluated at each study visit over 1 year. The complication free rate at 3 months post-implant was 99.0% [95%CI 94.5-100.0%], P < 0.001. Electrical performances of the lead were adequate whatever the atrial lead position and remained stable over the study period. The optimization algorithm was able to compute AV and VV delays in 97% of patients, during >75% of the weeks.Conclusion: The atrial lead is safe to implant and shows stable electrical performance over time. It therefore offers a promising tool for automatic CRT optimization to further improve responder rates to CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The important role played by peak endocardial acceleration (PEA or sonR) in hemodynamic monitoring of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was recently highlighted in several studies with the sensor embedded in a right ventricular (RV) lead tip. This study examined the short- and long-term reliability of a right atrial (RA) sonR sensor. Methods: RA and RV sonR signals were measured from RA and RV leads respectively, at implant and up to 12 months of follow-up, in 19 recipients of either single chamber pacemakers or CRT systems. At 1 month of follow up, RA sonR signals and heart rate were simultaneously recorded during exercise. Results: A reliable RA sonR signal amplitude was measured at implant, proportional to the RV amplitude. We observed in both the right atrium and right ventricle (1) a similar signal noise ratio at implant, (2) a similar evolution of the sonR signal amplitude up to 12 months of follow-up, and (3) a high correlation between heart rate and RA sonR signal amplitude during exercise. Conclusions: The RA sonR signal was reliable and proportional to the RV signal on the short and long term, and reflected changes in activity. These observations suggest that the sonR sensor could be placed in the atrium for the hemodynamic monitoring of CRT system recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this investigation is to compare the efficacy of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) delivered via the right ventricular (RV) lead versus ATP delivered simultaneously via the right and left ventricular leads (biventricular [BiV]) in the termination of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT) in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with ICD capabilities. Methods and Results: The ADVANCE CRT is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, parallel trial evaluating RV versus BiV ATP in the termination of VT in CRT patients. The study will test the hypothesis that BiV ATP is superior to RV ATP in the termination of VT and fast VT. All patients with class I and IIa indications for an ICD implantation and CRT are included. The sample size has been estimated to 400 participants followed for 12 months to show a 10% benefit of BiV versus RV ATP. The efficacy of BiV ATP to terminate all VT presents the primary endpoint. The investigation is expected to be completed in 2007. Conclusions: The ADVANCE CRT trial is the first large randomized clinical investigation evaluating the efficacy of BiV ATP in patients under CRT and ICD therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phrenic Nerve Isolation in Cardiac Resynchronization. Left phrenic nerve stimulation is a well-known complication of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We report a case where electronic or anatomical repositioning of the left ventricular (LV) electrode (within the coronary sinus tributaries) was not feasible/effective. Surgical graft interpositioning was performed to successfully isolate the phrenic nerve from the previously implanted coronary sinus epicardial LV lead. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. 778-780, July 2012) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the case study of a 74-year-old man with an internal cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) having repetitive syncopal episodes. Two years before the patient received a dual-chamber ICD, secondary to symptomatic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Several episodes of sustained VT successfully treated by antitachycardia pacing and multiple episodes of nonsustained VT (NSTV) were revealed through ICD interrogation.

Very few data have been published on the use of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (S-ICDs) in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes associated with S-ICDs in patients with CHD. This nationwide French cohort including all patients with an S-ICD was initiated in 2020 by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research. Characteristics at implantation and outcomes were analyzed in patients with CHD. From October 12, 2012, to December 31, 2019, among 4,924 patients receiving an S-ICD implant in 150 centers, 101 (2.1%) had CHD. Tetralogy of Fallot, univentricular heart, and dextro-transposition of the great arteries represented almost one-half of the population. Patients with CHD were significantly younger (age 37.1 ± 15.4 years vs 50.1 ± 14.9 years; P < 0.001), more frequently female (37.6% vs 23.0%; P < 0.001), more likely to receive an S-ICD for secondary prevention (72.3% vs 35.9%; P < 0.001), and less likely to have severe systolic dysfunction of the systemic ventricle (28.1% vs 53.1%; P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up period of 1.9 years, 16 (15.8%) patients with CHD received at least 1 appropriate shock, with all shocks successfully terminating the ventricular arrhythmia. The crude risk of appropriate S-ICD shock was twice as high in patients with CHD compared with non-CHD patients (annual incidences of 9.0% vs 4.4%; HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3-3.4); however, this association was no longer significant after propensity matching (especially considering S-ICD indication, P = 0.12). The burden of all complications (HR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-2.1; P = 0.4) and inappropriate shocks (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.4-2.0; P = 0.9) was comparable in both groups. In this nationwide study, patients with CHD represented 2% of all S-ICD implantations. Our findings emphasize the effectiveness and safety of S-ICD in this particularly high-risk population. (S-ICD French Cohort Study [HONEST]; NCT05302115) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy of dual-chamber ICD arrhythmia classification algorithms is crucial to prevent inappropriate shocks. We report our experience from a meta-analysis of five prospective clinical studies with inclusion phases ranging between 1997 and 2003. Methods: Dual-chamber ICD using standard dual-chamber arrhythmia classification algorithms were implanted in 802 patients (mean age = 64 ± 11 years, 88% men) in 74 medical centers. The ICD indication was secondary prevention in 95% of patients. Supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (SVT) were previously documented in 26% of patients. All spontaneous tachyarrhythmic events documented by the device memories were analyzed by a adjudicating committee. The episodes lasting >12 seconds and/or treated by the ICD were analyzed. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 302 ± 113 days, 9,690 events were reported. Mean heart rate at the time of events was 131 ± 45 bpm (100–430). Events were classified as oversensing in 1.4%, sinus tachycardia (ST) in 66%, SVT in 13%, slow (<150 bpm) ventricular tachycardia (VT) in 8.7%, and VT or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in 10.3%. The sensitivity of slow VT detection was 94%, and of VT/VF detection 99.3%. The specificity of sinus rhythm/ST/SVT recognition was 94%, positive predictive value 79.3%, and negative predictive value 99.2%. A total of 1,918 episodes were treated in 330 patients: 1,472 appropriately in 213, and 446 inappropriately in 117 (15% of the overall population) patients. Only 62 episodes were inappropriately treated by shocks in 40 patients, representing 5% of the overall population. Conclusions: In this conventional ICD population, the overall specificity of standard dual-chamber arrhythmia detection settings reached 94%. This feature allows efficient detection of fast as well as slow VT events with a very low rate of inappropriate shocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) is the most common cyanotic congenital heart disease, and sudden cardiac death represents an important mode of death in these patients. Data evaluating the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in this patient population remain scarce.Methods: A Nationwide French Registry including all patients with tetralogy of Fallot with an ICD was initiated in 2010 by the French Institute of Health and Medical Research. The primary time to event end point was the time from ICD implantation to first appropriate ICD therapy. Secondary outcomes included ICD-related complications, heart transplantation, and death. Clinical events were centrally adjudicated by a blinded committee.Results: A total of 165 patients (mean age, 42.2±13.3 years, 70.1% males) were included from 40 centers, including 104 (63.0%) in secondary prevention. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.8 (2.5-11.4) years, 78 (47.3%) patients received at least 1 appropriate ICD therapy. The annual incidence of the primary outcome was 10.5% (7.1% and 12.5% in primary and secondary prevention, respectively; P=0.03). Overall, 71 (43.0%) patients presented with at least 1 ICD complication, including inappropriate shocks in 42 (25.5%) patients and lead dysfunction in 36 (21.8%) patients. Among 61 (37.0%) patients in primary prevention, the annual rate of appropriate ICD therapies was 4.1%, 5.3%, 9.5%, and 13.3% in patients with, respectively, 0, 1, 2, or ≥3 guidelines-recommended risk factors. QRS fragmentation was the only independent predictor of appropriate ICD therapies (hazard ratio, 3.47 [95% CI, 1.19-10.11]), and its integration in a model with current criteria increased the 5-year time-dependent area under the curve from 0.68 to 0.81 (P=0.006). Patients with congestive heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction had a higher risk of nonarrhythmic death or heart transplantation (hazard ratio, 11.01 [95% CI, 2.96-40.95]).Conclusions: Patients with tetralogy of Fallot and an ICD experience high rates of appropriate therapies, including those implanted in primary prevention. The considerable long-term burden of ICD-related complications, however, underlines the need for careful candidate selection. A combination of easy-to-use criteria including QRS fragmentation might improve risk stratification. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03837574. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An accurate estimation of the risk of life-threatening (LT) ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) in patients with LMNA mutations is crucial to select candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.Methods: We included 839 adult patients with LMNA mutations, including 660 from a French nationwide registry in the development sample, and 179 from other countries, referred to 5 tertiary centers for cardiomyopathies, in the validation sample. LTVTA was defined as (1) sudden cardiac death or (2) implantable cardioverter defibrillator-treated or hemodynamically unstable VTA. The prognostic model was derived using the Fine-Gray regression model. The net reclassification was compared with current clinical practice guidelines. The results are presented as means (SD) or medians [interquartile range].Results: We included 444 patients, 40.6 (14.1) years of age, in the derivation sample and 145 patients, 38.2 (15.0) years, in the validation sample, of whom 86 (19.3%) and 34 (23.4%) experienced LTVTA over 3.6 [1.0-7.2] and 5.1 [2.0-9.3] years of follow-up, respectively. Predictors of LTVTA in the derivation sample were: male sex, nonmissense LMNA mutation, first degree and higher atrioventricular block, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and left ventricular ejection fraction (https://lmna-risk-vta.fr). In the derivation sample, C-index (95% CI) of the model was 0.776 (0.711-0.842), and the calibration slope 0.827. In the external validation sample, the C-index was 0.800 (0.642-0.959), and the calibration slope was 1.082 (95% CI, 0.643-1.522). A 5-year estimated risk threshold ≥7% predicted 96.2% of LTVTA and net reclassified 28.8% of patients with LTVTA in comparison with the guidelines-based approach.Conclusions: In comparison with the current standard of care, this risk prediction model for LTVTA in laminopathies significantly facilitated the choice of candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillators.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03058185. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) may be at lower risk for ventricular arrhythmias compared with those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). In addition, DCM has been identified as a predictor of positive response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of an additional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator over CRT, according to underlying heart disease, in a large study group of primary prevention patients with heart failure.Methods: This was an observational, multicenter, European cohort study of 5,307 consecutive patients with DCM or ICM, no history of sustained ventricular arrhythmias, who underwent CRT implantation with (n = 4,037) or without (n = 1,270) a defibrillator. Propensity-score and cause-of-death analyses were used to compare outcomes.Results: After a mean follow-up period of 41.4 ± 29.0 months, patients with ICM had better survival when receiving CRT with a defibrillator compared with those who received CRT without a defibrillator (hazard ratio for mortality adjusted on propensity score and all mortality predictors: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.92; p = 0.005), whereas in patients with DCM, no such difference was observed (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.16; p = 0.49). Compared with recipients of defibrillators, the excess mortality in patients who did not receive defibrillators was related to sudden cardiac death in 8.0% among those with ICM but in only 0.4% of those with DCM.Conclusions: Among patients with heart failure with indications for CRT, those with DCM may not benefit from additional primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy, as opposed to those with ICM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]