Dominant frequency of atrial fibrillation correlates poorly with atrial fibrillation cycle length

Localized sites of high frequency during atrial fibrillation (AF) are used as target sites to eliminate AF. Spectral analysis is used experimentally to determine these sites. The purpose of this study was to compare dominant frequencies (DF) with AF cycle length (AFCL) of unipolar and bipolar recordings. Left and right atrial endocardial electrograms were recorded during AF in 40 patients with lone AF, using two 20-polar catheters. Mean age was 53+/-9.9 years. Unipolar and bipolar electrograms were recorded simultaneously during 16 seconds at 2 right and 4 left atrial sites. AFCLs and DFs were determined. QRS subtraction was performed in unipolar signals. DFs were compared with mean, median, and mode of AFCLs; 4800 unipolar and 2400 bipolar electrograms were analyzed. Intraclass correlation was poor for all spectral analysis protocols. Best correlation was accomplished with DFs from unipolar electrograms compared with median AFCL (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.67). A gradient in median AFCL of >25% was detected in 16 of 40 patients. In 13 of 16 patients (81%) with a frequency gradient of >25%, the site with highest frequency was located in the left atrium (posterior left atrium in 8 patients). The site with shortest median AFCL and highest DF corresponded in 25% if unipolar and in 31% if bipolar electrograms were analyzed. DFs from unipolar and bipolar electrograms recorded during AF correlated poorly with mean, median, and mode AFCL. If a frequency gradient >25% existed, the site with highest DF corresponded to the site of shortest median AFCL in only 25% of patients. Because spectral analysis is being used to identify ablation sites, these data may have important clinical implication

Changes in arterial pressure hemodynamics in response to renal nerve stimulation both before and after renal denervation

BackgroundRenal nerve denervation (RDN) is developed as a potential treatment for hypertension. Recently, we reported the use of renal nerve stimulation (RNS) to localize sympathetic nerve tissue for subsequent selective RDN. The effects of RNS on arterial pressure dynamics remain unknown. The current study aimed to describe the acute changes in arterial pressure dynamics response to RNS before and after RDN.Methods and resultsTwenty six patients with drug-resistant hypertension referred for RDN were included. RNS was performed under general anesthesia before and after RDN. We continuously monitored heart rate (HR) and invasive femoral blood pressure (BP). Augmentation pressure (AP) and index (Aix), pulse pressure (PP), time to reflected wave, maximum systolic BP and dicrotic notch were calculated. Systolic and diastolic BP at site of maximum response significantly increased in response to RNS (12016/62 +/- 9 to 150 +/- 22/75 +/- 15mmHg) (p0.10). RNS increased Aix (29 +/- 11 to 32 +/- 13%, p=0.005), PP (59 +/- 14 to 75 +/- 17mmHg, p0.18). All changes were BP dependent. RNS had no influence on HR or the time to dicrotic notch (p>0.12). ConclusionRNS induces temporary rises in Aix, PP, time to maximum systolic pressure and time to reflected wave. These changes are BP dependent and were completely blunted after RDN

Development and external validation of prediction models to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

AIMS: This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed

Development and external validation of prediction models to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

Aims This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation. Methods and results We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1–2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0–3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality. Conclusion Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed

Development and external validation of prediction models to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death

AIMS: This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicenter, randomised trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomised to receive an SICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections and the need for invasive interventions. RESULTS: Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead-dysfunction was most frequent (HR 0.69; P =0.11). In both groups half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared to the TV-ICD group (P <0.001, P =0.03 respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared to the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR 0.59; P =0.047). CONCLUSIONS: This secondary analysis shows that, lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared to the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision making in clinical practice

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial

Background: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. Methods and results: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). Conclusion: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice