Search

There is paucity of data regarding durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 and CKD stage 5 on dialysis (end-stage renal disease [ESRD]).We conducted a retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD and a 5% sample of patients with CKD with an LVAD (2006-2018) to determine 1-year outcomes using the United States Renal Data System database. The LVAD implantation, comorbidities, and outcomes were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th edition codes. We identified 496 patients with CKD and 95 patients with ESRD who underwent LVAD implantation. The patients with ESRD were younger (59 years vs 66 years; P.001), had more Blacks (40% vs 24.6%, P = .009), compared with the CKD group. The 1-year mortality (49.5% vs 30.9%, P.001) and index mortality (27.4% vs 16.7%, P = .014) rates were higher for patients with ESRD. A subgroup analysis showed significantly higher mortality in ESRD vs CKD 3 (49.5% vs 30.2%, adjusted P = .009), but no significant difference in mortality between stage 3 vs 4/5 (30.2% vs 30.8%, adjusted P = .941). There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes (bleeding, stroke, and sepsis/infection) during follow-up between the 2 groups.Patients with ESRD undergoing LVAD implantation had significantly higher index and 1-year mortality rates compared with patients with CKD.

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a new subxiphoid hybrid epicardial-endocardial atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and left atrial appendage (LAA) ligation approach for the treatment of persistent AF.Surgical hybrid ablation procedures have shown promise for maintaining sinus rhythm versus catheter ablation but are associated with increased periprocedural adverse events.Patients with symptomatic persistent AF (n = 33, mean age 64 ± 9 years, 25 men) who had antiarrhythmic drug therapy or prior catheter ablation was unsuccessful were referred for hybrid epicardial-endocardial AF ablation and LAA exclusion. LAA closure was confirmed by transesophageal echocardiographic Doppler flow and/or computed tomographic angiography 1 to 3 months post-ligation. The incidence of atrial tachycardia or AF recurrence, LAA closure, thromboembolic events, and post-operative complications were assessed.All 33 patients underwent successful LAA ligation with epicardial ablation of the posterior left atrial wall, as well as endocardial pulmonary vein isolation and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. Freedom from atrial tachycardia or AF was 91% (20 of 22 patients) at 6 months, 90% (18 of 20 patients) at 12 months, 92% (11 of 12 patients) at 18 months, and 92% (11 of 12) at 24 months. There were no acute periprocedural complications (7 days). Thirty-day adverse events included 2 patients with pericardial effusion requiring pericardiocentesis and 1 incisional hernia repair. There were no long-term complications, strokes, or deaths. LAA ligation was complete in 27 of 33 subjects (82%), with 6 subjects having leaks of 5 mm.Subxiphoid hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation with LAA ligation is feasible, safe, and effective. Future prospective studies are needed to validate these initial findings.

Background The management of the recall is complicated by the competing risks of lead failure and complications that can occur with lead revision. Many of these patients are currently undergoing an elective generator change—an ideal time to consider lead revision. Objective To determine the cost-effectiveness of a proactive management strategy for the Sprint Fidelis recall. Methods We obtained detailed clinical outcomes and costing data from a retrospective analysis of 341 patients who received the Sprint Fidelis lead in British Columbia, where patients younger than 60 years were offered lead extraction when undergoing generator replacement. These population-based data were used to construct and populate a probabilistic Markov model in which a proactive management strategy was compared to a conservative strategy to determine the incremental cost per lead failure avoided. Results In our population, elective lead revisions were half the cost of emergent revisions and had a lower complication rate. In the model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of proactive lead revision versus a recommended monitoring strategy was $12,779 per lead failure avoided. The proactive strategy resulted in 21 fewer failures per 100 patients treated and reduced the chance of an additional complication from an unexpected surgery. Conclusions Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that prospective lead revision should be considered when patients with a Sprint Fidelis lead present for pulse generator change. Elective revision of the lead is justified even when 25% of the population is operated on per year, and in some scenarios, it is both less costly and provides a better outcome.

The greatest priority in treating atrial fibrillation (AF) is stroke prevention. There are now 3 main approaches to prevention: (1) oral anticoagulation (OAC), (2) eradication of AF, and (3) exclusion of the left atrial appendage (LAA) from the systemic circulation. The goal of this article is to review these approaches, with particular emphasis on nonpharmacologic methods and their role in light of current evidence. OAC is effective but is limited by major bleeding, physician and patient reluctance to use anticoagulants, and patient noncompliance. Eradication of AF with antiarrhythmic drugs has not been effective, and suppression with ablation has not yet been properly tested for stroke prevention. Finally, occlusion of the LAA is promising, but definitive evidence of efficacy for stroke prevention is lacking. Trials such as WATCHMAN LAA System for Embolic Protection in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (PROTECT AF) and Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the WATCHMAN LAA Closure Device in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation vs Long-Term Warfarin Therapy (PREVAIL) provide the best quality evidence for LAA device closure, with results suggesting noninferiority to OAC. Surgical trials have yet to show the efficacy of LAA occlusion for stroke prevention. This review highlights the evidence behind each of these approaches and concludes that to date OAC remains the standard for stroke prevention in AF. Future trials will need to address novel OAC therapy when comparing them with LAA exclusion, and large randomized trials will be required to ascertain indications for nonpharmacologic therapy in current practice.