Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in a patient with a preexisting transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

A grant from the One-University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas was used to defray the author's publication fees in this Open Access journal. The Open Access Fund, administered by librarians from the KU, KU Law, and KUMC libraries, is made possible by contributions from the offices of KU Provost, KU Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies, and KUMC Vice Chancellor for Research. For more information about the Open Access Fund, please see http://library.kumc.edu/authors-fund.xml

Mechanisms, predictors, and evolution of severe peri-device leaks with two different left atrial appendage occluders.

AIMS Incomplete left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) due to peri-device leak (PDL) is a limitation of the therapy. The Amulet IDE trial is the largest randomized head-to-head trial comparing the Amulet and Watchman 2.5 LAAO devices with fundamentally different designs. The predictors and mechanistic factors impacting differences in PDLs within the Amulet IDE trial are assessed in the current analysis. METHODS AND RESULTS An independent core lab analysed all images for the presence or absence of severe PDL (>5 mm). The incidence, mechanistic factors, predictors using propensity score-matched controls, and evolution of severe PDLs through 18 months were assessed. Of the 1878 patients randomized in the trial, the Amulet occluder had significantly fewer severe PDLs than the Watchman device at 45 days (1.1 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.001) and 12 months (0.1 vs. 1.1%, P < 0.001). Off-axis deployment or missed lobes were leading mechanistic PDL factors in each device group. Larger left atrial appendage (LAA) dimensions including orifice diameter, landing zone diameter, and depth predicted severe PDL with the Watchman device, with no significant anatomical limitations noted with the Amulet occluder. Procedural and device implant predictors were found with the Amulet occluder attributed to the learning curve with the device. A majority of Watchman device severe PDLs did not resolve over time through 18 months. CONCLUSION The dual-occlusive Amplatzer Amulet LAA occluder provided improved LAA closure compared with the Watchman 2.5 device. Predictors and temporal observations of severe PDLs were identified in the Amulet IDE trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier NCT02879448

Outcomes of the roll-in cohort of the Amulet IDE trial of left atrial appendage occlusion.

Background Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an alternative therapy to oral anticoagulants to reduce stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The Amulet IDE trial compared the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ occluder (Abbott) with the Watchman™ 2.5 device (Boston Scientific) for LAA occlusion in patients with NVAF. Objective The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of the Amulet IDE trial roll-in cohort. Methods At US sites up to 3 patients per implanter could be implanted with the Amulet occluder in the roll-in phase. The primary Endpoints in the Amulet IDE trial included safety (composite of procedure-related complications, all-cause death, or major bleeding at 12 months), effectiveness (composite of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 18 months), and rate of LAA occlusion at 45 days. Results A total of 201 roll-in patients were enrolled. Device success occurred in 99% of patients, and device closure (residual jet ≤5 mm) was observed in 98.9% of patients at 45 days. The safety endpoint rate was numerically higher (worse) in the roll-in cohort compared to the randomized Amulet occluder cohort (18.4% vs 14.5%). Six patients (3.1%) experienced an ischemic stroke and 0 patients with a systemic embolism within 18 months, which was similar to the primary effectiveness endpoint rate in the randomized Amulet occluder cohort (2.8%). Conclusions Despite lack of experience of the operators with the Amulet occluder in the roll-in phase, device implant success was high, a high rate of device closure was achieved, and low stroke rates were observed in patients with NVAF

Prognostic value of chronic kidney disease in patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion

AIMS Atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) often coexist and share an increased risk of thrombo-embolism (TE). CKD concomitantly predisposes towards a pro-haemorrhagic state. Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of CKD in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2124 consecutive AF patients undergoing LAAO were categorized into CKD stage 1+2 (n = 1089), CKD stage 3 (n = 796), CKD stage 4 (n = 170), and CKD stage 5 (n = 69) based on the estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline. The primary endpoint included cardiovascular (CV) mortality, TE, and major bleeding. The expected annual TE and major bleeding risks were estimated based on the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. A non-significant higher incidence of major peri-procedural adverse events (1.7 vs. 2.3 vs. 4.1 vs. 4.3) was observed with worsening CKD (P = 0.14). The mean follow-up period was 13 ± 7 months (2226 patient-years). In comparison to CKD stage 1+2 as a reference, the incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly higher in CKD stage 3 (log-rank P-value = 0.04), CKD stage 4 (log-rank P-value = 0.01), and CKD stage 5 (log-rank P-value = 0.001). Left atrial appendage occlusion led to a TE risk reduction (RR) of 72, 66, 62, and 41% in each group. The relative RR of major bleeding was 58, 44, 51, and 52%, respectively. CONCLUSION Patients with moderate-to-severe CKD had a higher incidence of the primary composite endpoint. The relative RR in the incidence of TE and major bleeding was consistent across CKD groups

HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS/ACC/AHA worldwide practice update for telehealth and arrhythmia monitoring during and after a pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), started in the city of Wuhan late in 2019. Within a few months, the disease spread toward all parts of the world and was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The current health care dilemma worldwide is how to sustain the capacity for quality services not only for those suffering from COVID-19 but also for non-COVID-19 patients, all while protecting physicians, nurses, and other allied health care workers