Search

In young patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillations (TV-ICDs), the possibility of device infection or lead fracture would be high in their long lifetimes. Furthermore, the risk of lead removal will gradually increase over the years. We reported two cases of subcutaneous ICDs implantation following removal of TV-ICDs. Patient 1, 35-year-old man, underwent TV-ICD implantation 9 years ago for idiopathic ventricular fibrillation, and Patient 2, 46-year-old man, underwent TV-ICD implantation 8 years ago for asymptomatic Brugada syndrome. In both cases, the electrical performance was stable, and there was no incidence of arrythmia or no pacing demand during the follow-up duration. Considering future risk of device infection or lead fracture, and difficulty in future lead removal, TV-ICDs were removed with sufficient informed consent, and then, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICDs) implantation were performed as an alternative to them. Although indication of the TV-ICD removal should be carefully considered in individual cases, long-term risks leaving it in place should be also considered in the management of young patient. LEARNING OBJECTIVE: In young patient with TV-ICD, even for a normally functioning non-infected lead, S-ICD implantation following removal of the TV-ICD would represent a strategy associated with less long-term risks than leaving it in place.

Background The incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of lead break during transvenous lead extraction (TLE) were previously unknown. Methods We included consecutive patients who underwent TLE between September 2013 and July 2019 at our institute. Lead break during removal was defined as lead stretching and becoming misshapen, as assessed by fluoroscopy. Results A total of 246 patients underwent TLE for 501 leads. At a patient level, complete success was achieved in 226 patients (91.9%). At a lead level, 481 leads (96.0%) were completely removed and 101 leads (20.1%) were broken during the procedure. Of 392 identified pacemaker leads, 71 (18.3%) were broken during the TLE procedure. A multivariable analysis confirmed high lead age (odds ratio [OR] 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07‐1.17; P, The extraction of cardiac implantable electronic device leads due to infections, malfunctions, and recalls is common, and can lead to complications such as lead break resulting in incomplete lead removal and cardiac tamponade. We found that older lead age, co‐radial leads, passive leads, and non‐polyurethane leads were independent predictors of lead break during extraction. These findings will guide clinicians to make appropriate choices of procedure and take greater care when these risk factors are present.

Background The role of nonpulmonary vein (PV) triggers ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PEAF) was suggested but it is still under debate. Objectives We aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-PV trigger-targeted ablation for patients with PEAF. Methods Consecutive patients with PEAF undergoing catheter ablation (CA) between January 2015 and April 2017 were enrolled. Isoproterenol plus adenosine challenge was performed to provoke non-PV triggers. Non-PV triggers were defined as the trigger beats inducing AF (non-PV AF triggers) and/or frequent premature contractions (non-PV PACs) from other than PVs. Three groups were defined: Group 1 (n = 186) without non-PV triggers; Group 2 (n = 65) with non-PV triggers that could be completely eliminated with CA; Group 3 (n = 49) with non-PV triggers still inducible after CA. The primary endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence. Results A total of 300 patients (230 males, age 64 ± 10) were enrolled. The mean follow-up period was 27 ± 10 months. Freedom from ATa recurrence at 1 and 2 years were significantly lower in Group 3 compared to the other two groups (Group 1; 74.7%, 67.2% vs. Group 2; 75.8%, 68.3% vs. Group 3: 52.1%, 38.6%, p = .0005), irrespective of the type of non-PV triggers (non-PV AF triggers vs. non-PV PACs). On multivariate analysis, unsuccessful elimination of non-PV triggers was an independent predictor for ATa recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.80, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.95, p = .026). Conclusion Successful non-PV triggers elimination can improve the ATa recurrence rate in PEAF ablation. ATa recurrence rate is higher, if non-PV AF triggers or even non-PV PACs remain in patients with PEAF.

ObjectivesMorphine is effective in alleviating dyspnoea in patients with cancer. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of morphine administration for refractory dyspnoea in patients with advanced heart failure (HF).MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study of hospitalised patients with advanced HF in whom morphine was administered for refractory dyspnoea. Morphine effectiveness was evaluated by dyspnoea intensity changes, assessed regularly by both a quantitative subjective scale (Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; graded from 0 to 100 mm)) and an objective scale (Support Team Assessment Schedule—Japanese (STAS-J; graded from 0 to 4 points)). Safety was assessed by vital sign changes and new-onset severe adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, constipation and delirium based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.ResultsFrom 15 Japanese institutions between September 2020 and August 2022, we included 28 hospitalised patients with advanced HF in whom morphine was administered (mean age: 83.8±8.7 years, male: 15 (54%), New York Heart Association class IV: 26 (93%) and mean left ventricular ejection fraction: 38%±19%). Both VAS and STAS-J significantly improved from baseline to day 1 (VAS: 67±26 to 50±31 mm; p=0.02 and STAS-J: 3.3±0.8 to 2.6±1.1 points; p=0.006, respectively), and thereafter the improvements sustained through to day 7. After morphine administration, vital signs including blood pressure, pulse rate and oxygen saturation did not change, and no new-onset severe adverse events occurred through to day 7.ConclusionsThis study suggested acceptable effectiveness and safety for morphine administration in treating refractory dyspnoea in hospitalised patients with advanced HF.

Backgrounds: The role of non-pulmonary vein (PV) triggers ablation in persistent atrial fibrillation (PEAF) was suggested but it is still under debate. Objectives: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of non-PV trigger targeted ablation for patients with PEAF. Methods: Consecutive patients with PEAF undergoing catheter ablation (CA) between January 2015 and April 2017 were enrolled. Isoproterenol plus adenosine challenge was performed to provoke non-PV triggers. Non-PV triggers were defined as the non-PV foci inducing AF and/or frequent premature contraction (non-PV PAC) from other than PVs. Three groups were defined: group 1 (n=186) without non-PV triggers; group 2 (n=65) with non-PV triggers that could be completely eliminated with CA; group 3 (n=49) with non-PV triggers still inducible after CA. Primary endpoint was freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence. Results: A total of 300 patients (230 males, age 64±10) were enrolled. Mean follow-up period was 27±10 months. Freedom from ATa recurrence at 1- and 2 years were significantly lower in group 3 compared to the other 2 groups (group 1; 74.7%, 67.2% vs. group 2; 75.8%, 68.3% vs. group 3: 52.1%, 38.6%, P=0.0005), irrespective of the type of non-PV triggers (non-PV PAC vs. non-PV foci initiating AF). On multivariate analysis, unsuccessful elimination of non-PV trigger was an independent predictor for ATa recurrence (HR 1.80 [95%CI:1.07-2.93], P=0.026). Conclusions: Successful non-PV trigger elimination can improve the ATa recurrence rate in PEAF ablation. ATa recurrence rate is higher, if non-PV foci or even non-PV PAC remains in patients with PEAF.

Background:There is discordance regarding the effect of symptom status before aortic valve replacement (AVR) on long-term outcome after AVR in severe aortic stenosis (AS). Methods and Results:The CURRENT AS registry is a multicenter retrospective registry enrolling 3, 815 consecutive patients with severe AS. Among 1, 196 patients managed with the initial AVR strategy, long-term clinical outcomes were compared between the symptomatic patients (n=905), and asymptomatic patients (n=291). Median follow-up interval was 1337 days with a 91% follow-up rate at 2 years. AVR was performed in 886 patients (98%) in the symptomatic group and in 287 patients (99%) in the asymptomatic group. Symptomatic patients were older and more often had comorbidities than asymptomatic patients with similar echocardiographic AS severity. The cumulative 5-year incidences of all-cause death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization were significantly higher in symptomatic patients than in asymptomatic patients (25.6% vs. 15.4%, P=0.001, and 14.2% vs. 3.8%, P

Background Data are scarce on the role of aortic valve area (AVA) to identify those patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at high risk of adverse events. We sought to explore the prognostic impact of AVA in asymptomatic patients with severe AS in a large observational database. Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the present study included 1309 conservatively managed asymptomatic patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on AVA (group 1: AVA >0.80 cm2, N=645; group 2: 0.8 cm2 ≥AVA >0.6 cm2, N=465; and group 3: AVA ≤0.6 cm2, N=199). The prevalence of very severe AS patients (peak aortic jet velocity ≥5 m/s or mean aortic pressure gradient ≥60 mm Hg) was 2.0%, 5.8%, and 26.1% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The cumulative 5‐year incidence of AVR was not different across the 3 groups (39.7%, 43.7%, and 39.9%; P=0.43). The cumulative 5‐year incidence of the primary outcome measure (a composite of aortic valve–related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with decreasing AVA (24.1%, 29.1%, and 48.1%; P, See Editorial by Tribouilloy et al

Background There are limited data regarding the risk stratification based on peak aortic jet velocity (Vmax) in patients with severe aortic stenosis ( AS ). Methods and Results Among 3815 consecutive patients with severe AS enrolled in the CURRENT AS (Contemporary Outcomes After Surgery and Medical Treatment in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis) registry, the study population consisted of 1075 conservatively managed patients with Vmax ≥4.0 m/s and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. The study patients were subdivided into 3 groups based on Vmax (group 1, 4.0 ≤ Vmax AS ‐related events (aortic valve–related death or heart failure hospitalization) was incrementally higher with increasing Vmax (entire population; 38.0%, 49.4%, and 62.8%, P P =0.008; and asymptomatic patients; 29.4%, 38.9%, and 47.7%, P =0.005). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risk of group 2 and group 3 relative to group 1 for AS ‐related events remained significant (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI , 1.07–1.81; P =0.02, and hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI , 1.17–2.00; P =0.002, respectively). The effect size of group 3 relative to group 1 for AS ‐related events in asymptomatic patients (N=479) was similar to that in symptomatic patients (N=596; hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI , 1.01–2.52; P =0.047, and hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI , 1.16–2.40, P =0.008, respectively), and there was no significant overall interaction between the symptomatic status and the effect of the Vmax categories on AS ‐related events (interaction, P =0.88). Conclusions In conservatively managed severe AS patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, increasing Vmax was associated with incrementally higher risk for AS ‐related events. However, the cumulative 5‐year incidence of the AS ‐related events remained very high even in asymptomatic patients with less greater Vmax.

Current guidelines generally recommend the strategy of watchful waiting for aortic valve replacement (AVR) until symptoms emerge in asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, there is no previous large-scale study evaluating the impact of symptomatic status on the long-term