Performance and outcomes of transvenous rotational lead extraction: Results from a prospective, monitored, international clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) plays a critical role in managing patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Mechanical TLE tools, including rotational sheaths, are used to overcome fibrosis and calcification surrounding leads. Prospective clinical data are limited regarding the safety and effectiveness of use of mechanical TLE devices, especially rotational tools. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively investigate the safety and effectiveness of mechanical TLE in real-world usage. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 10 sites in the United States and Europe to evaluate the use of mechanical TLE devices. Clinical success, complete procedural success, and complications were evaluated through follow-up (median, 29 days). Patient data were source verified and complications were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee (CEC). RESULTS: Between October 2018 and January 2020, mechanical TLE tools, including rotational sheaths, were used to extract 460 leads with a median indwell time of 7.4 years from 230 patients (mean age 64.3 ± 14.4 years). Noninfectious indications for TLE were more common than infectious indications (61.5% vs 38.5%, respectively). The extracted leads included 305 pacemaker leads (66.3%) and 155 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads (33.7%), including 85 leads with passive fixation (18.5%). A bidirectional rotational sheath was needed for 368 leads (88.0%). Clinical success was obtained in 98.7% of procedures; complete procedural success was achieved for 96.3% of leads. CEC-adjudicated device-related major complications occurred in 6 of 230 (2.6%) procedures. No isolated superior vena cava injury or procedural death occurred. CONCLUSION: This prospective clinical study demonstrates that use of mechanical TLE tools, especially bidirectional rotational sheaths, are effective and safe

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

The “Missing” Link Between Acute Hemodynamic Effect and Clinical Response

The hemodynamic, mechanical and electrical effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) occur immediate and are lasting as long as CRT is delivered. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that acute hemodynamic effects should predict long-term outcome. However, in the literature there is more evidence against than in favour of this idea. This raises the question of what factor(s) do relate to the benefit of CRT. There is increasing evidence that dyssynchrony, presumably through the resultant abnormal local mechanical behaviour, induces extensive remodelling, comprising structure, as well as electrophysiological and contractile processes. Resynchronization has been shown to reverse these processes, even in cases of limited hemodynamic improvement. These data may indicate the need for a paradigm shift in order to achieve maximal long-term CRT response

Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of multipoint pacing therapy: MOre REsponse on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with MultiPoint Pacing (MORE-CRT MPP–PHASE II)

Background: Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is beneficial in most heart failure patients, up to 40% do not respond to CRT. Data from the MultiPoint Pacing (MPP) IDE trial and MORE-CRT MPP–PHASE I study suggest improved response in subjects in the MPP arm—programmed with wide left ventricular (LV) electrode anatomical separation (≥30 mm) and shortest timing delays of 5 milliseconds (MPP-AS)—compared with quadripolar biventricular (BiV) pacing. Study design: The MORE-CRT MPP–PHASE II trial is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study to assess the 6-month impact of MPP programmed to mandated MPP-AS settings in subjects who do not respond to 6 months of BiV pacing (MPP OFF). Approximately 5,000 subjects with a standard CRT indication will be enrolled and implanted with a quadripolar CRT system (Abbott) capable of delivering MPP. Only BiV pacing is activated at implant. At 6 months, subjects classified as CRT nonresponders (<15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume) are randomized (1:1) to MPP or continued BiV pacing. The mandated MPP parameters (eg, MPP-AS) are programmed to subjects randomized to the MPP arm. At 12 months, the 2 groups will be compared to determine if there is a difference in CRT response rate. Conclusions: This trial will evaluate whether MPP programmed to mandated MPP-AS settings improves LV reverse remodeling and clinical response to CRT in patients who fail to respond to 6 months of BiV pacing (www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02006069)

Expanding Indications for Resynchronization Therapy

International audienceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the major advances in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure due to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction. Current guidelines recommend with the highest levels of recommendation and evidence CRT in patients with low ejection fraction wide QRS, LBBB, and mild to severe heart failure (New York Heart Association class II to IV). However, other patients might benefit from CRT. This is the case for patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, patients conventional pacemaker indication, patients with mildly impaired left ventricular function (>35 %), or asymptomatic patients (NYHA I). We will discuss in this manuscript each new potential indication for CRT