Benoit Coutu

Pacemaker or Defibrillator Surgery without Interruption of Anticoagulation

BACKGROUND Many patients requiring pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) surgery are taking warfarin. For patients at high risk for thromboembolic events, guidelines recommend bridging therapy with heparin; however, case series suggest that it may be safe to perform surgery without interrupting warfarin treatment. There have been few results from clinical trials to support the safety and efficacy of this approach. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with an annual risk of thromboembolic events of 5% or more to continued warfarin treatment or to bridging therapy with heparin. The primary outcome was clinically significant device-pocket hematoma, which was defined as device-pocket hematoma that necessitated prolonged hospitalization, interruption of anticoagulation therapy, or further surgery (e.g., hematoma evacuation). RESULTS The data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial after the second prespecified interim analysis. Clinically significant device-pocket hematoma occurred in 12 of 343 patients (3.5%) in the continued-warfarin group, as compared with 54 of 338 (16.0%) in the heparin-bridging group (relative risk, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.36; P<0.001). Major surgical and thromboembolic complications were rare and did not differ significantly between the study groups. They included one episode of cardiac tamponade and one myocardial infarction in the heparin-bridging group and one stroke and one transient ischemic attack in the continued-warfarin group. CONCLUSIONS As compared with bridging therapy with heparin, a strategy of continued warfarin treatment at the time of pacemaker or ICD surgery markedly reduced the incidence of clinically significant device-pocket hematoma. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario; BRUISE CONTROL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00800137.).

Vernakalant Hydrochloride for Rapid Conversion of Atrial Fibrillation. A Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background— The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of vernakalant hydrochloride (RSD1235), a novel compound, for the conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and Results— Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive vernakalant or placebo and were stratified by AF duration of 3 hours to 7 days (short duration) and 8 to 45 days (long duration). A first infusion of placebo or vernakalant (3 mg/kg) was given for 10 minutes, followed by a second infusion of placebo or vernakalant (2 mg/kg) 15 minutes later if AF was not terminated. The primary end point was conversion of AF to sinus rhythm for at least 1 minute within 90 minutes of the start of drug infusion in the short-duration AF group. A total of 336 patients were randomized and received treatment (short duration, n=220; long duration, n=116). Of the 145 vernakalant patients, 75 (51.7%) in the short-duration AF group converted to sinus rhythm (median time, 11 minutes) compared with 3 of the 75 placebo patients (4.0%; P<0.001). Overall, in the short- and long-duration AF groups, 83 of the 221 vernakalant patients (37.6%) experienced termination of AF compared with 3 of the 115 placebo patients (2.6%; P<0.001). Transient dysgeusia and sneezing were the most common side effects in vernakalant-treated patients. Four vernakalant-related serious adverse events (hypotension [2 events], complete atrioventricular block, and cardiogenic shock) occurred in 3 patients. Conclusion— Vernakalant demonstrated rapid conversion of short-duration AF and was well tolerated.

Clinical Predictors of Fidelis Lead Failure Report From the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Committee

Background— Approximately 268 000 Fidelis leads were implanted worldwide until distribution was suspended because of a high rate of early failure. Careful analyses of predictors of increased lead failure hazard are required to help direct future lead design and also to inform decision making on lead replacement. We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of all potential predictors in a multicenter study. Methods and Results— A total of 3169 Sprint Fidelis leads were implanted in 11 centers with a total of 251 failures. Lead failure rates at 3, 4, and 5 years were 5.3%, 10.6%, and 16.8%, respectively. The rate of lead failure continues to accelerate (P<0.001). There were 4 independent predictors of failure: center, sex, access vein, and previous lead failure. Women had a higher hazard of failure (hazard ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.04; P=0.005). Both axillary and subclavian access increased the hazard of failure (P=0.007); hazard ratio for axillary was 1.94, (95% confidence interval, 1.23–3.04) and for subclavian 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.46). Previous lead failure increased the hazard of a subsequent Fidelis failure with a hazard ratio of 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.80–5.41; P<0.001). Conclusions— The rate of Fidelis failure continues to increase over time, with failures approaching 17% at 5 years. Women, patients with leads inserted via the subclavian or axillary vein, and those with a previous lead fracture were at greatest risk of Fidelis failure. Our data suggest that Fidelis replacement should be strongly considered at the time of generator replacement.Background— Approximately 268 000 Fidelis leads were implanted worldwide until distribution was suspended because of a high rate of early failure. Careful analyses of predictors of increased lead failure hazard are required to help direct future lead design and also to inform decision making on lead replacement. We sought to perform a comprehensive analysis of all potential predictors in a multicenter study. Methods and Results— A total of 3169 Sprint Fidelis leads were implanted in 11 centers with a total of 251 failures. Lead failure rates at 3, 4, and 5 years were 5.3%, 10.6%, and 16.8%, respectively. The rate of lead failure continues to accelerate ( P <0.001). There were 4 independent predictors of failure: center, sex, access vein, and previous lead failure. Women had a higher hazard of failure (hazard ratio 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.04; P =0.005). Both axillary and subclavian access increased the hazard of failure ( P =0.007); hazard ratio for axillary was 1.94, (95% confidence interval, 1.23–3.04) and for subclavian 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.08–2.46). Previous lead failure increased the hazard of a subsequent Fidelis failure with a hazard ratio of 3.12 (95% confidence interval, 1.80–5.41; P <0.001). Conclusions— The rate of Fidelis failure continues to increase over time, with failures approaching 17% at 5 years. Women, patients with leads inserted via the subclavian or axillary vein, and those with a previous lead fracture were at greatest risk of Fidelis failure. Our data suggest that Fidelis replacement should be strongly considered at the time of generator replacement. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-32}

Complications Associated With Revision of Sprint Fidelis Leads Report From the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee

Background— It has been observed that replacement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator in response to a device advisory may be associated with a substantial rate of complications, including death. The risk of lead revision in response to a lead advisory has not been determined previously. Methods and Results— Twenty-five implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and follow-up centers from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee were surveyed to assess complication rates as a result of lead revisions due to the Sprint Fidelis advisory issued in October 2007. As of June 1, 2009, there had been 310 lead failures found in 6237 Sprint Fidelis leads in Canada (4.97%) over a follow-up of 40 months. There were 469 leads to be revised, 66% for confirmed fracture. Of the patients who underwent revision, 95% had a new lead inserted, whereas 4% had a pace/sense lead added. The lead was removed in 248 cases (53%), by simple traction in 61% and by laser lead extraction in 33%. Complications were encountered in 14.5% of the lead revisions; 7.25% of these were major, whereas 7.25% were minor. There were 2 deaths (0.43%). The overall risk of complications (19.8%) was greater in those who underwent lead removal at the time of revision than in those whose leads were abandoned (8.6%; P=0.0008). Conclusions— The overall rate of major complications that arose from lead revision due to the Sprint Fidelis advisory was significant. This must be taken into account when lead revision is planned in those patients who have not yet demonstrated an abnormality in lead performance.

Outcome of the Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead advisory: A report from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee

BACKGROUND The Medtronic Sprint Fidelis family of leads has recently been the subject of a widespread advisory. Lead failure rates are estimated at 2.3% at 30 months, 2.6 times the failure rate of the reference Medtronic 6947 lead. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to contact pediatric and adult implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implant centers across Canada to determine the short-term response to the October 15, 2007 Medtronic Fidelis lead advisory. METHODS All centers completed an 11-part survey to assess the frequency and presentation of lead failure, operator characteristics, and centers response. RESULTS Lead failure was noted in 80 (1.29%) of 6,181 patients at 21.0 months, with inappropriate shocks experienced in 45 (56%) of the 80 patients (overall risk 0.73%). No deaths were attributed to lead failure. Sensing was the primary form of failure, seen in 60 leads (75%), with pacing failure in 10 (13%), and high-voltage failure in 15 (19%). Assessment of the previous routine ICD interrogation prior to the advisory or lead failure demonstrated evidence of altered lead performance in only 8 (10%) of the 80 leads. Inappropriate shocks typically were multiple (median 7, range 1-122), with a single shock seen in only 5 patients. Lead failure was noted in 18 of 23 centers, representing 89.8% of leads implanted, with at least one failure noted in 15 of 16 centers that implanted more than 200 leads. Forty-seven of the 135 operators in the 23 institutions implanted the 80 leads that subsequently failed. Only 16 operators were involved in more than a single lead that subsequently failed; seven operators participated in three or more leads that subsequently failed. Seven centers planned to replace leads in most pacing-dependent patients, and two centers planned to replace leads in patients unable to hear the alert tone. CONCLUSION This national experience suggests a Fidelis lead failure rate of 1.29% at 21 months, most often presenting with multiple inappropriate shocks without evidence of impending failure from routine lead follow-up. Lead failure did not appear to cluster around specific operators or around high-volume or low-volume implant centers.

Occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: the role of left ventricular lead type and placement site

AIMS Unwanted phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been reported in ∼1 in 4 patients undergoing left ventricular (LV) pacing. The occurrence of PNS over mid-term follow-up and the significance of PNS are less certain. METHODS AND RESULTS Data from 1307 patients enrolled in pre-market studies of LV leads manufactured by Medtronic (models 4193 and 4195 unipolar, 4194, 4196, 4296, and 4396 bipolar) were pooled. Left ventricular lead location was recorded at implant using a common classification scheme. Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms were either spontaneously reported or identified at scheduled follow-up visits. A PNS-related complication was defined as PNS resulting in invasive intervention or the termination of LV pacing. Average follow-up was 14.9 months (range 0.0-46.6). Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms occurred in 169 patients (12.9%). Phrenic nerve stimulation-related complications occurred in 21 of 1307 patients (1.6%); 16 of 738 (2.2%) in the unipolar lead studies, and 5 of 569 (0.9%) in the bipolar lead studies (P = 0.08). Phrenic nerve stimulation was more frequent at middle-lateral/posterior, and apical LV sites (139/1010) vs. basal-posterior/lateral/anterior, and middle-anterior sites (20/297; P= 0.01). As compared with an anterior LV lead position, a lateral LV pacing site was associated with over a four-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.005) and an apical LV pacing site was associated with over six-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.001). CONCLUSION Phrenic nerve stimulation occurred in 13% of patients undergoing LV lead placement and was more common at mid-lateral/posterior, and LV apical sites. Most cases (123/139; 88%) of PNS were mitigated via electrical reprogramming, without the need for invasive intervention.

Failure rate of the Riata lead under advisory: A report from the CHRS Device Committee

BACKGROUND A unique form of lead failure has been described in the Riata (8-F) and Riata ST (7-F) silicone defibrillation lead degradation of the outer insulation, resulting in the externalization of conductor cables. OBJECTIVE To assess rates of lead revision due to lead failure in Riata leads affected by the Riata advisory. METHODS Nineteen implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant and follow-up centers were surveyed. RESULTS As of March 1, 2012, there were 5043 known affected leads implanted in Canada. Data on 4358 (86.4%) leads were obtained; 65.3% of these were Riata (8-F) and 32.4% were Riata ST (7-F) leads. The median time from implant to last follow-up was 5 years. Electrical abnormalities were reported in 4.6% of the affected leads; 8.0% of these were found to have concomitant radiographic evidence of externalization. The rate of electrical failure was higher in the 8-F (5.2%) vs 7-F (3.3%) leads (P = .007). Oversensing with or without inappropriate shocks was reported in 39.8% of the leads with confirmed failure. Abnormally high or low impedance values (29.9%) and elevated pacing capture thresholds (43.8%) were frequently reported. One death (0.5%) attributed to lead failure was reported. Among the leads that were replaced, 21% were extracted. Two major complications (1.0%) were attributed to extraction of these leads. CONCLUSIONS The overall rate of lead failure in the Riata (8-F) and Riata ST (7-F) leads is higher than previously reported by using passive surveillance data. The impact of recent advisories related to these leads is not yet apparent.

Vasopeptidase inhibition with omapatrilat in chronic heart failure: acute and long-term hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects ☆

OBJECTIVES We investigated the acute and long-term hemodynamic and neurohumoral effects of the vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat in human heart failure. BACKGROUND Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition constitutes a major advance in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). Simultaneous inhibition of both neutral endopeptidase and ACE with omapatrilat may represent a new treatment strategy in CHF. METHODS Three hundred and sixty-nine patients with symptomatic heart failure were randomized to double-blind treatment with omapatrilat (first 190 patients: 2.5 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg; last 179 patients: 2.5 mg, 20 mg or 40 mg once daily) for 12 weeks. RESULTS Acutely, the 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg doses of omapatrilat produced greater reductions in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and systemic vascular resistance compared with 2.5 mg. Higher doses were associated with greater increases in vasodilator and natriuretic peptides, in addition to ACE inhibition. After 12 weeks, omapatrilat 20 mg and 40 mg showed greater falls from baseline in PCWP (40 mg: 0 h to 12 h average change -7.3 +/- 0.8 mm Hg) and SBP (40 mg: -11.7 +/- 1.7 mm Hg) than 2.5 mg (both p < 0.01 vs. 2.5 mg). The incidence of adverse experiences and patient withdrawal were similar in all groups. CONCLUSIONS In CHF, the acute hemodynamic benefit seen with higher doses of omapatrilat was associated with increases in plasma vasodilator and natriuretic peptide levels in addition to ACE inhibition. After 12 weeks, the hemodynamic benefit was maintained. Omapatrilat may be a promising new agent in CHF.

Utilization of a national network for rapid response to the Medtronic Fidelis lead advisory: The Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE The Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) Device Advisory Committee was commissioned in 2006 to develop a mechanism for responding to advisories regarding cardiac rhythm device and lead performance. METHODS In the event of an advisory, the Chair classifies the advisory as urgent, semi-urgent, or routine based on the nature of the threat to the patient and the number of patients affected. The Chair uses an e-mail network with the committee members to disseminate advisory information and to assemble a consensus recommendation. Committee membership is broadly representative of the Canadian device community, including both academic and nonacademic centers, adult and pediatric specialists, and includes balanced regional representation. Recommendations are approved by the CHRS executive and made available to all implant and follow-up centers on the CHRS website. RESULTS With the Medtronic Fidelis lead advisory of October 15, 2007, the Chair classified the advisory as semi-urgent and initiated an e-mail discussion and preliminary survey of all Canadian implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) centers within 3 hours of advisory announcement. A CHRS membership statement was issued within 48 hours. Within 5 working days, sample letters to physicians and patients were posted for local adaptation and distribution. Complete data collection was obtained from all Canadian defibrillator centers. Analyses at 20, 25, 30, and 32 months suggest an accelerating course of failures (3.91% at 32 months, P <.0001), with a reduced likelihood of presentation with inappropriate shocks (from 56% to 21%, P = .0003). CONCLUSION A collaborative approach using an e-mail network provides a mechanism for a rapid national response to device advisories. The network allows collection of focused data on implanted device system performance and facilitates timely reporting of clinically relevant data to patients and clinicians.

Strategy of continued vs interrupted novel oral anticoagulant at time of device surgery in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thromboembolic events: The BRUISE CONTROL-2 trial

BACKGROUND Patients who require perioperative anticoagulation during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery are at increased risk for bleeding complications. The BRUISE CONTROL trial demonstrated that continuing warfarin was safer than heparin bridging, reducing the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma. Novel oral anticoagulants are being increasingly prescribed in place of warfarin. The best perioperative management of these new anticoagulants is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN A randomized controlled trial to investigate whether a strategy of continued vs interrupted novel oral anticoagulant (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban) at the time of device surgery, in patients with moderate to high risk of arterial thromboembolic events, reduces the incidence of clinically significant hematoma (defined as a hematoma requiring reoperation and/or resulting in prolongation of hospitalization, and/or requiring interruption of anticoagulation). The secondary outcomes include components of the primary outcome, composite of all other major perioperative bleeding events, thromboembolic events, all-cause mortality, cost-effectiveness, patient quality of life, perioperative pain, and satisfaction. Planned analyses include descriptive statistics of all baseline variables. For the primary outcome, interrupted vs continued novel oral anticoagulant arms will be compared using the χ(2) test. If any clinically significant differences are identified, a logistic regression analysis will be conducted. Quality of life will be assessed using EuroQol-5D, and perioperative pain using a visual analog scale. DISCUSSION BRUISE CONTROL-2 is a randomized trial evaluating the best strategy to manage novel oral anticoagulants at the time of device surgery. We hypothesize that device surgery can be performed safely without interruption of these medications.