Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology最新文献

Background: Conventional transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (TV-ICD) is the standard device used for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Nonetheless its use is associated with lead-related complications including infection and malfunction. A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) offers an alternative option without the need for a transvenous lead but has limitations. The decision to implant a TV-ICD or S-ICD in patients with impaired LVEF for primary prevention of SCD is controversial. Several randomised controlled trials and large observational studies have confirmed similar safety and efficacy of S-ICDs and TV-ICDs in such population.

Methods: A literature review was conducted to compare the outcomes of subcutaneous (S-ICD) versus transvenous (TV-ICD) implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane were searched for relevant peer-reviewed articles. Studies were selected based on relevance and quality. Key outcomes like complication rates, efficacy, and patient survival were summarized in a comparative table.

Results: Different factors that influence the choice between an TV-ICD and S-ICD for primary prevention of SCD in patients with LVEF are highlighted to guide selection of the appropriate device in different patient populations. Moreover, future perspective on the combination of SICD with leadless pacemaker, and the latest development of the extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator are also discussed.

Conclusions: S-ICD offers a safe and efficacious option to primary prevention in reduced ejection fraction. Future development including incorporation of leadless pacemaker will add to the arsenal of choice to protect patients from sudden cardiac death.

A larger left bundle branch (LBB) potential or LBB current of injury (COI) indicates a low LBB capture threshold in LBB pacing. During LBB pacing in an 85-year-old woman, achieving a low LBB capture threshold did not initially present with a larger LBB potential or LBB COI, but rather with a new initial negative deflection in a ventricular electrogram. LBB COI gradually developed over 7 min thereafter, which suggested that the lead tip had reached the left ventricular subendocardium. Therefore, this negative deflection may be the first sign to avoid further lead rotation.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.

Methods: This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Results: Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).

Conclusion: LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.

Background: Heart failure (HF) patients are at constant risk of decompensation, and urgent hospital admissions can be life-threatening events. Monitoring biological variables has been proved to be an important mechanism to anticipate decompensations. TriageHF is a validated diagnostic algorithm tool available on Medtronic® cardiac implantable electronic devices that combines physiological data to stratify a patient's risk of HF hospitalization in the following 30 days in low, medium or high risk. We aimed to evaluate the utility of TriageHF algorithm to predict the occurrence of acute clinical decompensation events (ACDE), including HF and non-HF cardiovascular events, within a 30-day period in a population of HF patients with reduced ejection fraction.

Methods: We reviewed the transmissions received by the Medtronic® Carelink™ Network between August 2022 and July 2023. The heart failure risk status (HFRS) and the device parameters contributing to that risk, from the previous 30 days, were collected, along with the occurrence of ACDEs within 30 days.

Results: We retrospectively assessed 207 transmissions from the 64 patients included in the study. Among the 93 medium HFRS transmissions, 16 (17.2%) resulted in ACDEs. For the 21 high HFRS transmissions, 10 (47.6%) resulted in ACDEs. Considering the ACDEs, 60.7% were preceded by an alarm-initiated transmission. Except for heart rate variability, each diagnostic parameter demonstrated effectiveness in stratifying risk for ACDEs. Optivol® and the Combined Heart Rhythm showed independent association with ACDEs (p < .001). Patients with medium and high HFRS were, respectively, 8.6 and 29.1 times more likely to experience an ACDE in the next 30 days than low risk patients. A medium-high HFRS conferred a sensitivity of 92.9% and a NPV of 97.8% for an ACDE.

Conclusion: TriageHF is a useful method for predicting ACDEs and has the potential to trigger medical actions to prevent hospitalizations.

Electrical storm (ES) is among the most fearsome events in patients in waiting list for heart transplantation (HT) and catheter ablation (CA) demonstrated to be effective in reduce the arrhythmic burden. However, selection criteria for CA suitability in this specific population have never been addressed before. We retrospectively enrolled 36 patients (mean age 51 ± 8 years; 83% men) waiting HT referred to our department for ES resistant to antiarrhythmic drugs and percutaneous stellate ganglion blockade. Twenty patients were judged suitable for VT ablation according to specific criteria including absence of increased arrhythmic burden secondary to volume overload and hemodynamic decompensation; expected CA outcome favorable due to etiology of the cardiomyopathy, no need for coronary revascularization and technical feasibility of the procedure. The pre-emptive use of mechanical circulatory supports (MCS) were discussed integrating the PAINESD score with additional clinical and hemodynamic parameters. Acute procedural success was accounted in 85% of cases with only two major complications. The CA group reported lower length of in-hospital stay after CA suitability evaluation (56 ± 17 vs. 131 ± 64 days, p = .004). Furthermore, at a mean follow-up of 703 ± 145 days, this group showed reduction of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) recurrence leading to implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock (4 vs. 8, p = .051) and underwent HT with a lower level of urgency (0 vs. 6 patients needed for UNOS1 status upgrade). Respectively, one patient of the CA group and two patients of the conservative group died (p = .839). At the end of follow-up, eight patients underwent heart transplantation (p = .964) while four patients underwent Left Ventricular Assist device (LVAD) implantation (p = .440). This pilot study should be a proof for further studies exploring CA of VAs as a possible bridge therapy to HT.

The internal jugular vein (IJV) is occasionally used for blood access during catheter ablation. Additionally, accidental injury of the vertebral artery during an IJV puncture is a rare complication that can result in catastrophic events, such as death. However, vascular access complications cannot be completely prevented despite the introduction of ultrasound-guided punctures. Here, we present a case of a patient with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation that required catheter ablation.

Introduction: In patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are important for preventing sudden cardiac death. This study aimed to investigate sex disparities in CS patients undergoing ICD implantation.

Methods: The 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database compared the characteristics and outcomes of males and females with CS receiving ICDs.

Results: Among 760 CS patients who underwent inpatient ICD implantation, 66.4% were male. Males were younger (55.0 vs. 56.9 years, p < .01), had higher rates of diabetes (31.7% vs. 21.6%, p < .01) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (16.8% vs. 7.8%, p < .01) but lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) (11.9% vs. 23.5%, p < .01), sick sinus syndrome (4.0% vs. 7.8%, p = .024), ventricular fibrillation (VF) (9.9% vs. 15.7%, p = .02), and black ancestry (31.9% vs. 58.0%, p < .01). Unadjusted major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemic stroke, was higher in females (11.8% vs. 6.9%, p = .024), but when adjusted for age and tCharlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), females demonstrated significantly lower odds of experiencing MACE (aOR: 0.048, 95% CI: 0.006-0.395, p = .005). Incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) post-ICD was significantly lower in females (15.7% vs. 23.8%, p = .01) as was the adjusted odds (aOR: 0.282, 95% CI: 0.146-0.546, p < .01). There was comparable mean length of stay and hospital charges.

Conclusion: ICD utilization in CS patients is more common among males, who have a higher prevalence of diabetes and CKD but a lower prevalence of AF, sick sinus syndrome, and VF. Adjusted MACE and AKI were significantly lower in females.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves ventricular function, but a positive response to CRT is often limited due to left ventricular (LV) lead placement in a suboptimal position. Complex coronary venous anatomy can hinder the placement of an LV lead in the target vessel, leading to poor CRT response.

Objective: To report experience with snare-assisted LV lead delivery in CRT and compare outcomes with the conventional LV lead delivery.

Methods: This is a single-center retrospective case-control study of CRT implants between 2016 and 2021. Snare-assisted lead delivery was performed in cases where conventional lead placement failed or when a preferred target vessel had anatomy amenable to the technique. Safety and outcomes were compared to conventional LV lead placement cases.

Results: Among 180 CRT cases, 33 were snare-assisted, and 147 were conventional LV lead placements. Median follow-up was 924 days in the snare and 618.5 days in the control group. The lead placement was successful in 28/33 snare and 138/147 control cases. A mid-vessel segment was attained in 89.3% of snare and 72.5% of control cases(p = .03). The apical position was more frequently observed in the control group (26.8% vs. 7.1%, p = .03). All-cause mortality trended lower in the snare group (6.1%) compared to (17.1%) in the control group (p = .13).

Conclusion: Snare-assisted LV lead delivery is a safe and effective technique that can be utilized for overcoming complex venous anatomy.