Preclinical safety and electrical performance of novel atrial leadless pacemaker with dual-helix fixation

Background: Complications associated with transvenous pacemakers, specifically those involving the lead or subcutaneous pocket, may be avoided with leadless pacemakers (LPs). The safety and efficacy of single-chamber right ventricular LPs have been demonstrated, but their right atrium (RA) use poses new design constraints. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implant success, electrical performance, and safety of a novel RA LP design in benchtop and preclinical studies. Methods: A new LP was designed with a dual-helix fixation mechanism specific to the RA anatomy. A 12-week preclinical ovine study was conducted to evaluate implant success, electrical performance, mechanical stability, and safety in vivo, with supporting benchtop measurements to quantify the mechanical forces needed for device retrieval and dislodgment. Results: LPs were successfully implanted in all 10 ovine subjects with no complications. The pacing capture threshold improved significantly over time from implant to week 12 (1.1 ± 0.7 V vs 0.4 ± 0.2 V, P =.008). Sensing amplitudes and pacing impedances were stable from implant to week 12 (4.8 ± 1.8 mV vs 6.0 ± 1.9 mV, P =.160; and 393 ± 77 Ω vs 398 ± 65 Ω, P =.922, respectively). Gross pathology and microscopic histology revealed no adverse interactions and no evidence of device dislodgment or clinically significant myocardial perforation. Benchtop ex vivo porcine atrial tissue measurements revealed greater pull forces required to dislodge the LP vs transvenous active fixation lead (0.42 ± 0.18 lbf vs 0.29 ± 0.08 lbf, P =.020), and greater rotational forces required for deliberate extraction (0.28 ± 0.04 lbf vs 0.14 ± 0.07 lbf, P <.001). Conclusion: The novel atrial LP demonstrated successful implantation, with acceptable electrical performance, mechanical stability, and safety in a 12-week preclinical study

Comparative study of acute and mid-term complications with leadless and transvenous cardiac pacemakers

BACKGROUND: Leadless cardiac pacemakers (LCPs) aim to mitigate lead- and pocket-related complications seen with transvenous pacemakers (TVPs). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare complications between the LCP cohort from the LEADLESS Pacemaker IDE Study (Leadless II) trial and a propensity score-matched real-world TVP cohort. METHODS: The multicenter LEADLESS II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the Nanostim LCP (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) using structured follow-up, with serious adverse device effects independently adjudicated. TVP data were obtained from Truven Health MarketScan claims databases for patients implanted with single-chamber TVPs between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014 and more than 1 year of preimplant enrollment data. Comorbidities and complications were identified via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Short-term (≤1 months) and mid-term (\u3e1-18 months) complications were compared between the LCP cohort and a propensity score-matched subset of the TVP cohort. RESULTS: Among 718 patients with LCPs (mean age 75.6 ± 11.9 years; 62% men) and 1436 patients with TVPs (mean age 76.1 ± 12.3 years; 63% men), patients with LCPs experienced fewer complications (hazard ratio 0.44; 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.60; P \u3c .001), including short-term (5.8% vs 9.4%; P = .01) and mid-term (0.56% vs 4.9%; P \u3c .001) events. In the short-term time frame, patients with LCPs had more pericardial effusions (1.53% vs 0.35%; P = .005); similar rates of vascular events (1.11% vs 0.42%; P = .085), dislodgments (0.97% vs 1.39%; P = .54), and generator complications (0.70% vs 0.28%; P = .17); and no thoracic trauma compared to patients with TVPs (rate of thoracic trauma 3.27%). In short- and mid-term time frames, TVP events absent from the LCP group included lead-related, pocket-related, and infectious complications. CONCLUSION: Patients with LCPs experienced fewer overall short- and mid-term complications, including infectious and lead- and pocket-related events, but more pericardial effusions, which were uncommon but serious

Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by QRS Morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT)

Background— This study aimed to determine whether QRS morphology identifies patients who benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) and whether it influences the risk of primary and secondary end points in patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. Methods and Results— Baseline 12-lead ECGs were evaluated with regard to QRS morphology. Heart failure event or death was the primary end point of the trial. Death, heart failure event, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation were secondary end points. Among 1817 patients with available sinus rhythm ECGs at baseline, there were 1281 (70%) with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), 228 (13%) with right bundle-branch block, and 308 (17%) with nonspecific intraventricular conduction disturbances. The latter 2 groups were defined as non-LBBB groups. Hazard ratios for the primary end point for comparisons of CRT-D patients versus patients who only received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were significantly ( P <0.001) lower in LBBB patients (0.47; P <0.001) than in non-LBBB patients (1.24; P =0.257). The risk of ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or death was decreased significantly in CRT-D patients with LBBB but not in non-LBBB patients. Echocardiographic parameters showed significantly ( P <0.001) greater reduction in left ventricular volumes and increase in ejection fraction with CRT-D in LBBB than in non-LBBB patients. Conclusions— Heart failure patients with New York Heart Association class I or II and ejection fraction ≤30% and LBBB derive substantial clinical benefit from CRT-D: a reduction in heart failure progression and a reduction in the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. No clinical benefit was observed in patients with a non-LBBB QRS pattern (right bundle-branch block or intraventricular conduction disturbances). Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00180271

Effectiveness of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by QRS Morphology in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT)

Background— This study aimed to determine whether QRS morphology identifies patients who benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) and whether it influences the risk of primary and secondary end points in patients enrolled in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial–Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (MADIT-CRT) trial. Methods and Results— Baseline 12-lead ECGs were evaluated with regard to QRS morphology. Heart failure event or death was the primary end point of the trial. Death, heart failure event, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation were secondary end points. Among 1817 patients with available sinus rhythm ECGs at baseline, there were 1281 (70%) with left bundle-branch block (LBBB), 228 (13%) with right bundle-branch block, and 308 (17%) with nonspecific intraventricular conduction disturbances. The latter 2 groups were defined as non-LBBB groups. Hazard ratios for the primary end point for comparisons of CRT-D patients versus patients who only received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were significantly ( P <0.001) lower in LBBB patients (0.47; P <0.001) than in non-LBBB patients (1.24; P =0.257). The risk of ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, or death was decreased significantly in CRT-D patients with LBBB but not in non-LBBB patients. Echocardiographic parameters showed significantly ( P <0.001) greater reduction in left ventricular volumes and increase in ejection fraction with CRT-D in LBBB than in non-LBBB patients. Conclusions— Heart failure patients with New York Heart Association class I or II and ejection fraction ≤30% and LBBB derive substantial clinical benefit from CRT-D: a reduction in heart failure progression and a reduction in the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. No clinical benefit was observed in patients with a non-LBBB QRS pattern (right bundle-branch block or intraventricular conduction disturbances). Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00180271

Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients With Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators: The RAID Trial

BACKGROUND: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) remain a challenging problem in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether ranolazine administration decreases the likelihood of VT, VF, or death in patients with an ICD. METHODS: This was double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which high-risk ICD patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy were randomized to 1,000 mg ranolazine twice a day or placebo. The primary endpoint was VT or VF requiring appropriate ICD therapy or death, whichever occurred first. Pre-specified secondary endpoints included ICD shock for VT, VF, or death and recurrent VT or VF requiring ICD therapy. RESULTS: Among 1,012 ICD patients (510 randomized to ranolazine and 502 to placebo) the mean age was 64 ± 10 years and 18% were women. During 28 ± 16 months of follow-up there were 372 (37%) patients with primary endpoint, 270 (27%) patients with VT or VF, and 148 (15%) deaths. The blinded study drug was discontinued in 199 (39.6%) patients receiving placebo and in 253 (49.6%) patients receiving ranolazine (p = 0.001). The hazard ratio for ranolazine versus placebo was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.67 to 1.05; p = 0.117) for VT, VF, or death. In a pre-specified secondary analysis, patients randomized to ranolazine had a marginally significant lower risk of ICD therapies for recurrent VT or VF (hazard ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.028). There were no other significant treatment effects in other pre-specified secondary analyses, which included individual components of the primary endpoint, inappropriate shocks, cardiac hospitalizations, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk ICD patients, treatment with ranolazine did not significantly reduce the incidence of the first VT or VF, or death. However, the study was underpowered to detect a difference in the primary endpoint. In prespecified secondary endpoint analyses, ranolazine administration was associated with a significant reduction in recurrent VT or VF requiring ICD therapy without evidence for increased mortality. (Ranolazine Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Trial [RAID]; NCT01215253)