9 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Transvenous lead extraction: Experience of the Tandem approach.
BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is important in the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices but carries risk. TLE is most commonly completed from the superior access, often with 'bail-out' support via the femoral approach. Superior and inferior access may be used in tandem, which has been proposed as an advance in safety and efficacy. AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tandem approach. METHOD: The 'Tandem' procedure entailed grasping of the targeted lead in the right atrium to provide countertraction as a rotational dissecting sheath was advanced over the lead from the subclavian access. Consecutive 'Tandem' procedures performed by a single operator between December 2020 - March 2023 in a single large-volume TLE centre were included and compared with the conventional superior approach (control) using 1:1 propensity score matching; patients were statistically matched for demographics. RESULTS: The Tandem in comparison to the conventional approach extracted leads of much greater dwell time (148.9±79 vs 108.6±77 months, p<0.01) in a shorter procedure duration (96±36 vs 127±67 minutes, p<0.01) but requiring more fluoroscopy (16.4±10.9 vs 10.8±14.9 minutes, p<0.01). The Tandem and control groups had similar clinical (100% vs 94.7%, p=0.07) and complete (94.8% vs 92.8%, p=0.42) success, with comparable minor (4% vs 6.7%, p=0.72) and major (0% vs 4%, p=0.25) complications; procedural (0% vs 1.3%, p=1) and 30-day (1.3% vs 4%, p=0.62) mortality were also similar. CONCLUSION: The Tandem procedure is as safe and effective as the conventional TLE. It can be applied to leads of a long dwell time with a potentially shorter procedure duration
Medium-Term Outcomes in COVID-19.
COVID-19 causes severe illness that results in morbidity and mortality. Electrocardiographic features, including QT prolongation, have been associated with poor acute outcomes; data on the medium-term outcomes remain scarce. This study evaluated the 1-year outcomes of patients who survived the acute COVID-19 infection. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data of the 159 patients who survived the COVID-19 illness during the first wave (1 March 2020-18 May 2020) were collected. Patient demographics, laboratory findings and electrocardiography data were evaluated. Patients who subsequently died within 1-year of the index illness were compared to those who remained well. RESULTS: Of the 159 patients who had survived the index illness, 28 (17.6%) subsequently perished within 1-year. In comparison to the patients that were alive after 1-year, the deceased were older (68 vs. 83 years, p < 0.01) and equally male (60.4% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.68), with a similar proportion of hypertension (59.5% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.68), diabetes (25.2% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.096) and ischaemic heart disease (11.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.54). The QTc interval for the alive and deceased patients shortened by a similar degree from the illness to post-COVID (-26 ± 33.5 vs. -20.6 ± 30.04 milliseconds, p = 0.5); the post-COVID R-R interval was longer in the alive patients compared to the deceased (818.9 ± 169.3 vs. 761.1 ± 61.2 ms, p = 0.02). A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that age (HR1.098 [1.045-1.153], p < 0.01), diabetes (HR3.972 [1.47-10.8], p < 0.01) and the post-COVID R-R interval (HR0.993 [0.989-0.996], p < 0.01) were associated with 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19-associated mortality risk extends to the post-COVID period. The QTc does recover following the acute illness and is not associated with outcomes; the R-R interval is a predictor of 1-year mortality
Recommended from our members
Prolonged QT predicts prognosis in COVID-19.
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 causes severe illness and multi-organ dysfunction. An abnormal electrocardiogram is associated with poor outcome, and QT prolongation during the illness has been linked to pharmacological effects. This study sought to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 illness on the corrected QT interval (QTc). METHOD: For 293 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital via the emergency department for COVID-19 between 01/03/20 - 18/05/20, demographic data, laboratory findings, admission electrocardiograph and clinical observations were compared in those who survived and those who died within 6 weeks. Hospital records were reviewed for prior electrocardiograms for comparison with those recorded on presentation with COVID-19. RESULTS: Patients who died were older than survivors (82 vs 69.8 years, p455ms (males) and >465ms (females) (p = 0.028, HR 1.49 [1.04-2.13]), as predictors of mortality. QTc prolongation beyond these dichotomy limits was associated with increased mortality risk (p = 0.0027, HR 1.78 [1.2-2.6]). CONCLUSION: QTc prolongation occurs in COVID-19 illness and is associated with poor outcome. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Recommended from our members
Effect of esophageal cooling on ablation lesion formation in the left atrium: Insights from Ablation Index data in the IMPACT trial and clinical outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: The IMPACT study established the role of controlled esophageal cooling in preventing esophageal thermal injury during radiofrequency (RF) ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The effect of esophageal cooling on ablation lesion delivery and procedural and patient outcomes had not been previously studied. The objective was to determine the effect of esophageal cooling on the formation of RF lesions, the ability to achieve procedural endpoints, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Participants in the IMPACT trial underwent AF ablation guided by Ablation Index (30 W at 350-400 AI posteriorly, 40 W at ≥450 AI anteriorly). A blinded 1:1 randomization assigned patients to the use of the ensoETM® device to keep esophageal temperature at 4°C during ablation or standard practice using a single-sensor temperature probe. Ablation parameters and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Procedural data from 188 patients were analyzed. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were similar, and all pulmonary veins were isolated. First-pass pulmonary vein isolation and reconnection at the end of the waiting period were similar in both randomized groups (51/64 vs. 51/68; p = 0.54 and 5/64 vs. 7/68; p = 0.76, respectively). Posterior wall isolation was also similar: 24/33 versus 27/38; p = 0.88. Ablation effect on tissue, measured in impedance drop, was no different between the two randomized groups: 8.6Ω (IQR: 6-11.8) versus 8.76Ω (IQR: 6-12.2; p = 0.25). Arrhythmia recurrence was similar after 12 months (21.1% vs. 24.1%; 95% CI: 0.38-1.84; HR: 0.83; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cooling has been shown to be effective in reducing ablation-related thermal injury during RF ablation. This protection does not compromise standard procedural endpoints or clinical success at 12 months
Multi-lead cephalic venous access and long-term performance of high-voltage leads.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation via the cephalic vein is feasible and safe. Recent evidence has suggested a higher implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead failure in multi-lead defibrillator therapy via the cephalic route. We evaluated the relationship between CRT-D implantation via the cephalic and ICD lead failure. METHODS: Data was collected from three CRT-D implanting centers between October 2008 and September 2017. In total 633 patients were included. Patient and lead characteristics with ICD lead failure were recorded. Comparison of "cephalic" (ICD lead via cephalic) versus "non-cephalic" (ICD lead via non-cephalic route) cohorts was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival and a Cox-regression analysis were applied to assess variables associated with lead failure. RESULTS: The cephalic and non-cephalic cohorts were equally male (81.9% vs. 78%; p = .26), similar in age (69.7 ± 11.5 vs. 68.7 ± 11.9; p = .33) and body mass index (BMI) (27.7 ± 5.1 vs. 27.1 ± 5.7; p = .33). Most ICD leads were implanted via the cephalic vein (73.5%) and patients had a mean of 2.9 ± 0.28 leads implanted via this route. The rate of ICD lead failure was low and statistically similar between both groups (0.36%/year vs. 0.13%/year; p = .12). Female gender was more common in the lead failure cohort than non-failure (55.6% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p = .004) as was hypertension (88.9% vs. 54.2%, respectively, p = .038). On multivariate Cox-regression, female sex (p = .008; HR, 7.12 [1.7-30.2]), and BMI (p = .047; HR, 1.12 [1.001-1.24]) were significantly associated with ICD lead failure. CONCLUSION: CRT-D implantation via the cephalic route is not significantly associated with premature ICD lead failure. Female gender and BMI are predictors of lead failure
Percutaneous management of lead-related cardiac perforation with limited use of computed tomography and cardiac surgery.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related perforation is uncommon but potentially lethal. Management typically includes the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning and often involves cardiac surgery. METHODS: Patients presenting to a single referral centre with CIED-related cardiac perforation between 2013 and 2019 were identified. Demographics, diagnostic modalities, the method of lead revision and 30-day complications were examined. RESULTS: Forty-six cases were identified; median time from implantation to diagnosis was 14 days (IQR = 4-50). Most were females (29/46, 63%), 9/46 (20%) had cancer,18 patients (39%) used oral anticoagulants and no patients had prior cardiac surgery. Active fixation was involved in 98% of cases; 9% involved an ICD lead. Thirty-seven leads perforated the right ventricle (apex: 24) and 9 punctured the right atrium (lateral wall: 5). Abnormal electrical parameters were noted in 95% of interrogated cases. Perforation was visualized in 41% and 6% of cases with CXR and transthoracic echocardiography, respectively. CXR revealed a perforation, gross lead displacement or left-sided pleural effusion in 74% of cases. Pericardial effusion occurred in 26 patients (57%) of whom 11 (24%) developed tamponade, successfully drained percutaneously. Pre-extraction CT scan was performed in 19 patients but was essential in 4 cases. Transvenous lead revision (TLR) was successfully performed in all cases with original leads repositioned in 6 patients, without recourse to surgery. Thirty-day mortality and complications were low (0% & 26%, respectively). CONCLUSION: CT scanning provides incremental diagnostic value in a minority of CIED-related perforations. TLR is a safe and effective strategy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Recommended from our members
Transvenous lead extraction: The influence of age on patient outcomes in the PROMET study cohort
Background
Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy contributes to an improvement in morbidity and mortality across all patient demographics. Patient age is a recognized risk factor for unfavorable outcomes in invasive procedures. This is the largest series of non-laser transvenous lead extraction (TLE) evaluating the association between patient age and procedure outcomes.
Methods
Data of 2205 (3849 leads) patients was collected retrospectively from six European TLE centers between January 2005–December 2018 in the PROMET study. Of these, 153 patients with 319 leads were excluded for incomplete data. A comparison of outcomes was performed between the age groups young [< 50 years], young intermediate [50–69 years], older intermediate [70–79 years], and octogenarian [≥80 years].
Results
Infection was most common indication for TLE in the octogenarian cohort, less common in the younger population (60.1% vs. 33.2%, respectively, p < .01). High-voltage leads were extracted most frequently from young patients, less frequently from octogenarians (31.6% vs. 10%, p < .001), while the opposite was evident for pacemaker leads (p < .001). Rotational sheath use was equally prevalent across all patient groups (p = .79). Minor and major complications across all the age groups were statistically similar, as was procedural success; the 30-day mortality was most significant in the octogenarian and least in the young patients (4.9% vs. 0.4%, p = .005). Propensity matching multivariate analysis found systemic infection, lead dwell time, and patient age (p = .013, OR 1.064 [1.013–1.116]) increased risk of 30-day mortality.
Conclusion
TLE is safe and effective across all age groups. 30-day mortality risk is significantly higher in the older patients