Bundle branch reentrant ventricular tachycardia after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

©2017, original version available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrcr.2016.12.005 Creative Commons Attribution License 4.

Fluoroscopic investigation of Riata® transvenous defibrillator leads

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads from Riata® family (St. Jude Medical Inc., Sylmar, CA, USA) have been recently recalled by Food and Drug Administration for concerns of a unique type of “inside-out” insulation failure leading to conductor externalization. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of conductor externalization in patients implanted with Riata 8 French (Fr) and 7 Fr leads. Methods: Patients implanted with Riata® and Riata ST® who were actively followed up in our institution were scheduled for high resolution 3 view fluoroscopy and device interrogation including high voltage (HV) lead impedance testing. Fluoroscopic images were graded as presence of externalization or no externalization. Results: Of the 90 patients who underwent screening fluoroscopy, majority had dual coil leads (62.5%) and median duration from the implant time to screening was 79.5 months. Twenty four (26.7%) patients exhibited evidence of lead externalization with 10 (41.6%) of these showing electrical abnormalities at the time of screening. No externalization was seen in the 7 Fr leads. Pacing thresholds were significantly elevated in the externalized cohort compared to non-externalized group (1.42 ± 1.23 vs. 0.93 ± 0.53; p = 0.01). Time since lead implant and lead diameter emerged as significant predictors of lead externalization on univariate analysis with only lead diameter being significant on multivariate analysis (odds ratio 30.68; 4.95–∞, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Prevalence of insulation failure exhibiting as conductor externalization is high (26.7%) among the large diameter 8 Fr Riata® leads with a significant proportion of patients manifesting electrical failure. High resolution 3 view fluoroscopy is a reasonable approach to screen for this unique type of insulation failure

Reassessing the role of antitachycardia pacing in fast ventricular arrhythmias in primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: Results from MADIT-RIT

BACKGROUND: In Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial - Reduce Inappropriate Therapy (MADIT-RIT), high-rate cutoff (arm B) and delayed therapy (arm C) reduced the risk of inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) interventions when compared with conventional programming (arm A); however, appropriate but unnecessary therapies were not evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) for fast ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) ≥ 200 beats/min in patients with primary prevention ICD. METHODS: We compared ATP only, ATP and shock, and shock only rates in patients in MADIT-RIT treated for VAs ≥ 200 beats/min. The only difference between these randomized groups was the time delay between ventricular tachycardia detection and therapy (3.4 seconds vs 4.9 seconds vs 14.4 seconds). RESULTS: In arm A, 11.5% patients had events, the initial therapy was ATP in 10.5% and shock in 1%, and the final therapy was ATP in 8% and shock in 3.5%. In arm B, 6.6% had events, 4.2% were initially treated with ATP and 2.4% with shock, and the final therapy was ATP in 2.8% and shock in 3.8%. In arm C, 4.7% had events, 2.5% were initially treated with ATP and 2.3% with shock, and the final therapy was ATP in 1.4% and shock in 3.3%. The final shock rate was similar in arm A vs arm B (3.5% vs 3.8%; P = .800) and in arm A vs arm C (3.5% vs 3.3%; P = .855) despite the marked discrepancy in initial ATP therapy utilization. CONCLUSION: In MADIT-RIT, there was a significant reduction in ATP interventions with therapy delays due to spontaneous termination, with no difference in shock therapies, suggesting that earlier interventions for VAs ≥ 200 beats/min are likely unnecessary, leading to an overestimation of the value of ATP in primary prevention ICD recipients

Primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator in cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients with advanced chronic kidney disease

IntroductionThe implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is effective for the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The benefit of the ICD in patients with advanced CKD, remains elusive. Moreover, the benefit of the ICD in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and HFrEF who are cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients may be attenuated.HypothesisWe hypothesized that patients with CKD who are CRT recipients may derive less benefit from the ICD due to the competing risk of dying prior to experiencing an arrhythmia.MethodsThe study population included 1,015 patients receiving CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) device for primary prevention of SCD who were enrolled in either (Multicenter Automated Defibrillator Implantation Trial) MADIT-CRT trial or the Ranolazine in High-Risk Patients with Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillator (RAID) trial. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the stage of CKD: those with Stage 1 to 3a KD, labeled as (S1-S3a)KD. The second group included patients with Stage 3b to stage 5 kidney disease, labeled as (S3b-S5)KD. The primary endpoint was any ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (Any VT/VF).ResultsThe cumulative incidence of Any VT/VF was 23.5% in patients with (S1-S3a)KD and 12.6% in those with (S3b-S5)KD (p < 0.001) The incidence of Death without Any VT/VF was 6.6% in patients with (S1-S3a)KD and 21.6% in patients with (S3b-S5)KD (p < 0.001). A Fine and Gray multivariate competing risk regression model showed that Patients with (S3b-S5)KD had a 43% less risk of experiencing Any VT/VF when compared to those with (S1-S3a)KD (HR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.33–0.94] p = 0.03. After two years of follow up, there was almost a 5-fold increased risk of Death without Any VT/VF among patients with (S3b-S5)KD when compared to those with (S1-S3a)KD [HR = 4.63, 95% CI (2.46–8.72), p for interaction with time = 0.012].ConclusionDue to their lower incidence of arrhythmias and higher risk of dying prior to experiencing an arrhythmia, the benefit of the ICD may be attenuated in CRT recipients with advanced CKD. Future prospective trials should evaluate whether CRT without a defibrillator may be more appropriate for these patients

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverterâ Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/1/jah33061_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/2/jah33061.pd

Design and characteristics of the prophylactic intra-operative ventricular arrhythmia ablation in high-risk LVAD candidates (PIVATAL) trial

BACKGROUND: The use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) in patients with advanced heart failure refractory to optimal medical management has progressed steadily over the past two decades. Data have demonstrated reduced LVAD efficacy, worse clinical outcome, and higher mortality for patients who experience significant ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA). We hypothesize that a novel prophylactic intra-operative VTA ablation protocol at the time of LVAD implantation may reduce the recurrent VTA and adverse events postimplant. METHODS: We designed a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized-controlled clinical trial enrolling 100 patients who are LVAD candidates with a history of VTA in the previous 5 years. Enrolled patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to intra-operative VTA ablation (n = 50) versus conventional medical management (n = 50) with LVAD implant. Arrhythmia outcomes data will be captured by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to monitor VTA events, with a uniform ICD programming protocol. Patients will be followed prospectively over a mean of 18 months (with a minimum of 9 months) after LVAD implantation to evaluate recurrent VTA, adverse events, and procedural outcomes. Secondary endpoints include right heart function/hemodynamics, healthcare utilization, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The primary aim of this first-ever randomized trial is to assess the efficacy of intra-operative ablation during LVAD surgery in reducing VTA recurrence and improving clinical outcomes for patients with a history of VTA