Techniques for Identification of Left Ventricular Asynchrony for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure

The most recent treatment option of medically refractory heart failure includes cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing in selected patients in NYHA functional class III or IV heart failure. The widely used marker to indicate left ventricular (LV) asynchrony has been the surface ECG, but seems not to be a sufficient marker of the mechanical events within the LV and prediction of clinical response. This review presents an overview of techniques for identification of left ventricular intra- and interventricular asynchrony. Both manuscripts for electrical and mechanical asynchrony are reviewed, partly predicting response to CRT. In summary there is still no gold standard for assessment of LV asynchrony for CRT, but both traditional and new echocardiographic methods have shown asynchronous LV contraction in heart failure patients, and resynchronized LV contraction during CRT and should be implemented as additional methods for selecting patients to CRT

Treatment of cardiogenic shock with left ventricular assist device combined with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A case report

Cardiogenic shock has a poor prognosis with established treatment strategies. We report a 62 years old man with heart failure exacerbating into refractory cardiogenic shock successfully treated with the combination of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and subacute cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device (CRT-D)

Techniques for Identification of Left Ventricular Asynchrony for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure

The most recent treatment option of medically refractory heart failure includes cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing in selected patients in NYHA functional class III or IV heart failure. The widely used marker to indicate left ventricular (LV) asynchrony has been the surface ECG, but seems not to be a sufficient marker of the mechanical events within the LV and prediction of clinical response. This review presents an overview of techniques for identification of left ventricular intra- and interventricular asynchrony. Both manuscripts for electrical and mechanical asynchrony are reviewed, partly predicting response to CRT. In summary there is still no gold standard for assessment of LV asynchrony for CRT, but both traditional and new echocardiographic methods have shown asynchronous LV contraction in heart failure patients, and resynchronized LV contraction during CRT and should be implemented as additional methods for selecting patients to CRT

Treatment of cardiogenic shock with left ventricular assist device combined with cardiac resynchronization therapy: A case report

Abstract Cardiogenic shock has a poor prognosis with established treatment strategies. We report a 62 years old man with heart failure exacerbating into refractory cardiogenic shock successfully treated with the combination of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and subacute cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator device (CRT-D).</p

Leadless Pacemaker Implant in Patients with Pre-Existing Infections: Results from the Micra Post-Approval Registry

International audienceLeadless pacemakers may provide a safe and attractive pacing option to patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection. We describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a recent CIED infection undergoing Micra implant attempt

Impact of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection: A Clinical and Economic Analysis of the WRAP-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current understanding of the impact of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is based on retrospective analyses from medical records or administrative claims data. The WRAP-IT (Worldwide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) offers an opportunity to evaluate the clinical and economic impacts of CIED infection from the hospital, payer, and patient perspectives in the US healthcare system. METHODS: This was a prespecified, as-treated analysis evaluating outcomes related to major CIED infections: mortality, quality of life, disruption of CIED therapy, healthcare utilization, and costs. Payer costs were assigned using medicare fee for service national payments, while medicare advantage, hospital, and patient costs were derived from similar hospital admissions in administrative datasets. RESULTS: Major CIED infection was associated with increased all-cause mortality (12-month risk-adjusted hazard ratio, 3.41 [95% CI, 1.81-6.41]; CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective analysis corroborates and extends understanding of the impact of CIED infections as seen in real-world datasets. CIED infections severely impact mortality, quality of life, healthcare utilization, and cost in the US healthcare system. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT02277990

Antibacterial Envelope to Prevent Cardiac Implantable Device Infection

Background Infections after placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. There is limited evidence on prophylactic strategies, other than the use of preoperative antibiotics, to prevent such infections. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of an absorbable, antibiotic-eluting envelope in reducing the incidence of infection associated with CIED implantations. Patients who were undergoing a CIED pocket revision, generator replacement, or system upgrade or an initial implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive the envelope or not. Standard-of-care strategies to prevent infection were used in all patients. The primary end point was infection resulting in system extraction or revision, long-term antibiotic therapy with infection recurrence, or death, within 12 months after the CIED implantation procedure. The secondary end point for safety was procedure-related or system-related complications within 12 months. Results A total of 6983 patients underwent randomization: 3495 to the envelope group and 3488 to the control group. The primary end point occurred in 25 patients in the envelope group and 42 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 0.7% and 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.98; P=0.04). The safety end point occurred in 201 patients in the envelope group and 236 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 6.0% and 6.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.06; P&lt;0.001 for noninferiority). The mean (+/- SD) duration of follow-up was 20.7 +/- 8.5 months. Major CIED-related infections through the entire follow-up period occurred in 32 patients in the envelope group and 51 patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.98). Conclusions Adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope resulted in a significantly lower incidence of major CIED infections than standard-of-care infection-prevention strategies alone, without a higher incidence of complications