Direct comparison of steroid and non-steroid eluting small surface pacing leads: Randomized, multicenter clinical trial

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effi cacy and safety of small surfacesteroid-eluting atrial and ventricular pacing leads in comparison to non-steroid leads usingremote monitoring system (Biotronik Home Monitoring®).Methods: In this randomized multicenter prospective trial, SIELLO T steroid-eluting ventricularleads (n = 42) were compared to BPPU T non-steroid leads (n = 46) and SIELLOJT steroid-eluting atrial leads (n = 24) to BPPU JT non-steroid leads (n = 27) (Biotronik,Berlin, Germany) in pacemaker devices with remote monitoring capabilities. Lead parameterswere evaluated during implantation, at 1-week and 1, 3, 6-month outpatient follow-up. Remotemonitoring data were collected weekly.Results: Atrial and ventricular steroid-eluting leads had stable sensing and impedance ascompared to non-steroid leads at implantation and during follow-up. Patients with non-steroidatrial leads had signifi cantly higher threshold compared to steroid leads at 1-week and at1, 3, 6-month follow-up with a peak at 1-month (1-month 1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 0.7 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms,p < 0.001; 6-month 0.3 ± 0.5 vs. 0.2 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms, p = 0.002). Patients with non-steroidventricular leads had signifi cantly higher threshold compared to steroid leads at 1, 3, 6-month(6-month 1.0 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V at 0.4 ms, p < 0.001). Remote monitoring confi rmed consistentresults. During the study, 3 patients died of non-lead-related death. Lead repositioningwas necessary in 2 atrial, 2 ventricular steroid leads and in 1 ventricular non-steroid lead.Conclusions: Atrial and ventricular pacemaker leads with steroid showed signifi cantly lowerpacing threshold compared to non-steroid leads, confi rmed by remote monitoring

Ventricular tachycardia in ischemic cardiomyopathy; a combined endo-epicardial ablation as the first procedure versus a stepwise approach (EPILOGUE) - study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The role of epicardial substrate ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) as a first-line approach in patients with ischemic heart disease is not clearly defined. Epicardial ablation as a first-line option is standard for patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Several nonrandomized studies, including studies on patients with ischemic heart disease, have shown that epicardial VT ablation improves outcome but this approach was often used after a failed endocardial approach. The aim of this study is to determine whether a combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization as a first-line approach will improve the outcome of VT ablation. Methods/Design: The EPILOGUE study is a multicenter, two-armed, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial. Patients with ischemic heart disease who are referred for VT ablation will be randomly assigned to combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization or endocardial scar homogenization only (control group). The primary outcome is recurrence of sustained VT during a 2-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes include procedural success and safety. Discussion: This study is the first randomized trial that evaluates the role of a combined endo-epicardial scar homogenization versus endocardial scar homogenization for the treatment of ischemic scar-related VT. Trial registration:NL4816807814v0

Catheter ablation or medical therapy to delay progression of atrial fibrillation : The randomized controlled atrial fibrillation progression trial (ATTEST)

Funding Information: This work was supported by Biosense Webster, Inc. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.Aims: Delay of progression from paroxysmal to persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important measure of long-term success of AF treatment. However, published data on the impact of catheter ablation on AF progression are limited. This study evaluates whether radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation delays the progression of AF compared with antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) treatment using current AF management guidelines. Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, two-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 29 hospitals and medical centres across 13 countries. Patients were randomized 1: 1 to RF ablation or AAD treatment. The primary endpoint was the rate of persistent AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) at 3 years. Results: After early study termination following slow enrolment, 255 (79%) of the planned 322 patients were enrolled (RF ablation, n = 128, AAD, n = 127); 36% of patients in the RF ablation group and 41% in the AAD group completed 3 years of follow-up. For the primary endpoint, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of persistent AF/AT at 3 years was significantly lower with RF ablation [2.4% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6-9.4%)] than with AAD therapy [17.5% (95% CI, 10.7-27.9%); one-sided P = 0.0009]. Patients ≥65 years were ∼4 times more likely to progress to persistent AF/AT than patients <65 years, suggesting RF ablation can delay disease progression [hazard ratio: 3.87 (95% CI, 0.88-17.00); P = 0.0727]. Primary adverse events were reported for eight patients in the RF ablation group. Conclusions: Radiofrequency ablation is superior to guideline-directed AAD therapy in delaying the progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Clinical presentation at first heart failure hospitalization does not predict recurrent heart failure admission

Abstract Aims There are limited data on whether clinical presentation at first heart failure (HF) hospitalization predicts recurrent HF events. We aimed to assess predictors of recurrent HF hospitalizations in mild HF patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator. Methods and results Data on HF hospitalizations were prospectively collected for patients enrolled in MADIT‐CRT. Predictors of recurrent HF hospitalization (HF2) after the first HF hospitalization were assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression models including baseline covariates and clinical presentation or management at first HF hospitalization. There were 193 patients with first HF hospitalization, and 156 patients with recurrent HF events. Recurrent HF rate after the first HF hospitalization was 43% at 1 year, 52% at 2 years, and 55% at 2.5 years. Clinical signs and symptoms, medical treatment, or clinical management of HF at first HF admission was not predictive for HF2. Baseline covariates predicting recurrent HF hospitalization included prior HF hospitalization (HR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.15–2.20, P = 0.005), digitalis therapy (HR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.13–2.20, P = 0.008), and left ventricular end‐diastolic volume >240 mL (HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.17–2.25, P = 0.004). Conclusions: Recurrent HF events are frequent following the first HF hospitalization in patients with implanted implantable cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator. Neither clinical presentation nor clinical management during first HF admission was predictive of recurrent HF. Prior HF hospitalization, digitalis therapy, and left ventricular end‐diastolic volume at enrolment predicted recurrent HF hospitalization, and these covariates could be used as surrogate markers for identifying a high‐risk cohort

Pilot analysis of the usefulness of mortality risk score systems at resuscitated patients

Introduction: Sudden cardiac death is one of the most significant cardiovascular causes of death worldwide. Although there have been immense methodological and technical advances in the field of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and following intensive care in the last decade, currently there are only a few validated risk-stratification scoring systems for the quick and reliable estimation of the mortality risk of these patients at the time of admission to the intensive care unit. Objective: Our aim was to correlate the mortality prediction risk points calculated by CardShock Risk Score (CSRS) and modified (m) CSRS based on the admission data of the post-cardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS) patients. Methods: The medical records of 172 out-of-hospital resuscitated cardiac arrest patients, who were admitted at the Heart and Vascular Centre of Semmelweis University, were screened retrospectively. Out of the 172 selected patients, 123 were eligible for inclusion to calculate CSRS and mCSRS. Based on CSRS score, we generated three different groups of patients, with scores 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7+, respectively. Mortality data of the groups were compared by log-rank test. Results: Mean age of the patients was 63.6 years (69% male), the cause of sudden cardiac death was acut coronary syndrome in 80% of the cases. The early and late mortality was predicted by neurological status, serum lactate level, renal function, initial rhythm, and the need of catecholamines. Using mCSRS, a significant survival difference was proven in between the groups "1-3" vs "4-6" (p Conclusion: Compared to the CSRS, the mCSRS expanded with the 2 additional weighting points differentiates more specifically the low-moderate and high survival groups in the PCAS patient population treated in our institute.Peer reviewe

De novo implantation vs. upgrade cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with conventional pacemakers or implanted defibrillators are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to summarize the available evidences regarding the clinical benefits of upgrade procedures. A systematic literature search was performed from studies published between 2006 and 2017 in order to compare the outcome of CRT upgrade vs. de novo implantations. Outcome data on all-cause mortality, heart failure events, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class, QRS narrowing and echocardiographic parameters were analysed. A total of 16 reports were analysed comprising 489,568 CRT recipients, of whom 468,205 patients underwent de novo and 21,363 upgrade procedures. All-cause mortality was similar after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.88-1.60, p = 0.27). The risk of heart failure was also similar in both groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70-1.32, p = 0.81). There was no significant difference in clinical response after CRT upgrade compared to de novo implantations in terms of improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (DeltaEF de novo - 6.85% vs. upgrade - 9.35%; p = 0.235), NYHA class (DeltaNYHA de novo - 0.74 vs. upgrade - 0.70; p = 0.737) and QRS narrowing (DeltaQRS de novo - 9.6 ms vs. upgrade - 29.5 ms; p = 0.485). Our systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available studies reports that CRT upgrade is associated with similar risk for all-cause mortality compared to de novo resynchronization therapy. Benefits on reverse remodelling and functional capacity improved similarly in both groups suggesting that CRT upgrade may be safely and effectively offered in routine practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero Database-CRD42016043747

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy: current benefits and pitfalls

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce all-cause mortality, heart failure events, and symptoms while improving exercise capacity and quality of life. Nevertheless, despite a large number of multicentre randomised trials and clear evidence confirming the above, there is still a higher number of patients who fail to develop reverse remodelling. In order to select the optimal patient population, the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a simultaneous evaluation of QRS morphology and width. However, based on recent data, QRS width itself is a less accurate parameter in the prediction of the outcome, as compared to QRS morphology. Furthermore, the baseline left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF), which is also an known criterion for selecting CRT candidates (partly applied due to cost-benefit reasons), can be misleading. Data showed that patients with LVEF &gt; 35% might also benefit from this type of treatment. Thus, LVEF should be evaluated less rigorously when screening patients for resynchronisation therapy. While the subsequent beneficial response to CRT is multifactorial, procedure-related parameters, such as LV lead position, are also crucial. The first data released recently confirmed the previous empiric clinical experience indicating that the LV lead should be implanted into the lateral or posterior coronary sinus side branch. This location was associated with a better long-term clinical outcome in terms of death and heart failure events. Some issues related to CRT are awaiting further clarification, such as the choice of the type of the implanted device (pacemaker or defibrillator) or the decision about CRT device upgrade. This review discusses the current evidence regarding the above, focusing on the questions that should be handled with caution or require clarification