Search

Introduction: Subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF), in the form of cardiac implantable device-detected atrial high rate episodes (AHREs), has been associated with increased thromboembolism. An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead with a floating atrial dipole may permit a single lead (DX) ICD system to detect AHREs. We sought to assess the utility of the DX ICD system for subclinical AF detection in patients, with a prospective multicenter, cohort-controlled trial., Methods and Results: One hundred fifty patients without prior history of AF (age 59 ± 13 years; 108 [72%] male) were enrolled into the DX cohort and implanted with a Biotronik DX ICD system at eight centers. Age-, sex-, and left ventricular ejection fraction-matched single- and dual-chamber ICD cohorts were derived from a Cornell database and from the IMPACT trial, respectively. The primary endpoint were AHRE detection at 12 months. During median 12 months follow-up, AHREs were detected in 19 (13%) patients in the DX, 8 (5.3%) in the single-chamber, and 19 (13%) in the dual-chamber cohorts. The rate of AHRE detection was significantly higher in the DX cohort compared to the single-chamber cohort (P = .026), but not significantly different compared to the dual-chamber cohort. There were no inappropriate ICD therapies in the DX cohort. At 12 months, only 3.0% of patients in the DX cohort had sensed atrial amplitudes less than 1.0 mV., Conclusion: Use of a DX ICD lead allows subclinical AF detection with a single lead DX system that is superior to that of a conventional single-chamber ICD system., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background and Objective: Worldwide adoption of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) for preventing sudden cardiac death continues to increase, as longer-term evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD expands. As a relatively new technology, comprehensive anesthesia guidance for the management of patients undergoing S-ICD placement is lacking. This article presents advantages and disadvantages of different periprocedural sedation and anesthesia options for S-ICD implants including general anesthesia, monitored anesthesia care, regional anesthesia, and nonanesthesia personnel administered sedation and analgesia., Methods: Guidance, for approaches to anesthesia care during S-ICD implantation, is presented based upon literature review and consensus of a panel of high-volume S-ICD implanters, a regional anesthesiologist, and a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist with significant S-ICD experience. The panel developed suggested actions for perioperative sedation, anesthesia, surgical practices, and a decision algorithm for S-ICD implantation., Conclusions: While S-ICD implantation currently requires higher sedation than transvenous ICD systems, the panel consensus is that general anesthesia is not required or is obligatory for the majority of patients for the experienced S-ICD implanter. The focus of the implanting physician and the anesthesia services should be to maximize patient comfort and take into consideration patient-specific comorbidities, with a low threshold to consult the anesthesiology team., (© 2018 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: We conducted this pilot randomized clinical trial to determine the feasibility of a large clinical trial aimed at testing whether early use of catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) is superior to antiarrhythmic medications at reducing mortality., Methods and Results: Patients were enrolled at 4 sites if they had ischemic heart disease, an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and received ≥1 ICD shock or ≥3 antitachycardia pacing therapies for VT. Patients were randomized to 2 arms: (1) antiarrhythmic medication (n = 14) and (2) catheter ablation (n = 13); patients were followed at 3 and 6 months. Endpoints included recurrent VT, time to first ICD therapy for VT, and death. Of 243 screened patients, 27 were enrolled. Main reasons for screen failures were: (1) patient was already on an antiarrhythmic medication (88 [41%]), (2) VT due to a reversible cause (23 [11%]), and (3) incessant VT (20 [9%]). Fourteen patients had recurrent VT, 8 (62%) in the ablation arm and 6 (43%) in the antiarrhythmic medication arm. Median time to recurrent VT was 75 days (25th, 75th: 51, 89) in the ablation arm and 57 days (30, 145) in the antiarrhythmic arm. Four patients died, 2 in each arm., Conclusion: This clinical trial shows that most patients in clinical practice have already failed antiarrhythmic drug therapy before catheter ablation is considered, and the VT recurrence rates and death in these patients are high. For a large clinical trial to be feasible, factors limiting early consideration of catheter ablation need to be identified and addressed., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Sustained atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common risk factor for stroke. While intermittent AF also appears to pose a substantial stroke risk, the quantitative relationship between the percentage of time spent in AF and stroke risk is poorly specified and "intermittent" AF is not the same as paroxysmal AF. Improved assessment of the impact of AF burden on stroke risk will allow more targeted and safer use of antithrombotic therapy., Methods and Results: The primary objective of this study is to determine if AT/AF (all device detected atrial tachyarrhythmias, including atrial flutter, atrial fibrillation, and atrial tachycardia) burden over a 30 day period is an independent predictor of the occurrence of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) and/or systemic embolism in subjects not receiving anticoagulation therapy. TRENDS is a prospective, post-market, non-randomized, multicenter study designed to enroll 3100 subjects who have an independent Class I/II indication for cardiac rhythm device implantation and who have demographic features suggestive of an increased risk for thromboembolic complications related to AT/AF. All implanted devices will have the ability to collect long-term AT/AF burden trending data and will be equivalently programmed to ensure consistent data collection. All subjects will be followed with device interrogations every 3 months and clinic visits every 6 months for 1 year. Subjects with a documented history of AT/AF prior to enrollment and those who develop AT/AF during the 12-month follow-up will be followed until the last subject enrolled in the study has completed their 24-month follow-up., Conclusions: The results of the TRENDS study should help clarify the implications of data retrieved from an implantable device with regard to the risk for thromboembolic complications from atrial arrhythmias, even in the absence of symptoms.

Introduction: The aim of this study is to describe implantation techniques and lead performance for biventricular pacing, dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs)., Methods and Results: A dual-chamber ICD with biventricular pacing was implanted in 87 patients with congestive heart failure (ejection fraction: 0.21 +/- 0.09), prolonged QRS duration (161 +/- 22 msec), and an indication for ICD therapy. Left ventricular pacing was achieved with a thoracotomy approach (n = 21) or a nonthoracotomy approach (n = 66). With a thoracotomy, biventricular devices were implanted successfully in all patients. During follow-up (17 +/- 11 months), 9 patients died (43%), 2 underwent transplantation, and 2 required left ventricular lead revision. At last follow-up, biventricular sensing and capture threshold were 11 +/- 5 mV and 1.5 +/- 0.8 V, respectively. For nonthoracotomy procedures, two types of coronary sinus (CS) leads were implanted: an over-the-wire lead (n = 45) and a shaped lead (n = 21). The rate of successful implantation (overall: 89%) (over-the-wire 93% vs shaped 81%; P = 0.1) and durations for CS lead placement (66 +/- 50 vs 58 +/- 34 min, P = 0.6) and the procedure (133 +/- 58 vs 129 +/- 33 min, P = 0.8) were not different between the two CS leads. During follow-up (11 +/- 9 months), 9 patients died (14%), and the shaped CS lead dislodged in 3 patients (3 shaped vs 0 over-the-wire, P = 0.01). At last follow-up, biventricular sensing and capture threshold were 10 +/- 4 mV and 1.8 +/- 0.7 V, respectively, and there was no difference between over-the-wire and shaped leads. By multivariate analysis, mortality was associated with absence of spironolactone therapy but not procedural features., Conclusion: Nonthoracotomy CS lead implantation is feasible, with a success rate of about 90% and few adverse events. For the remaining 10%, a thoracotomy approach can be completed safely in these ill patients without increased risk for death.