Faiz Subzposh

Multicenter experience with extraction of the Riata/Riata ST ICD lead

BACKGROUND In November 2011, the Food and Drug Administration issued a class I recall of Riata and Riata ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Management recommendations regarding the recall have remained controversial. OBJECTIVE Data regarding the safety and feasibility of extraction of Riata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads are limited. METHODS We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing extraction of Riata/Riata ST leads at 11 centers. RESULTS Between July 2003 and April 2013, 577 Riata/Riata ST leads were extracted from 577 patients (Riata 467, [84%]; Riata ST 89, [16%]). Complete procedural success achieved in 99.1%. The cohort was 78% men, with a mean age of 60 years and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34% ± 14%. The mean implant duration was 44.7 months (range 0-124.6 months). The majority of leads extracted were for infection (305 [53.0%]) and 220 (35.7%) for lead malfunction. Evaluation for lead integrity was performed in 295 cases. Of these, 34.9% were found to have externalized cables. Implant duration was significantly longer in leads with externalized cables (P < .0001). No difference in lead integrity was noted between Riata and Riata ST leads (11.7% vs. 17.7% failure; P = .23). Among leads in which cable externalization was noted, laser sheaths were used more frequently (P = .01). Major complications included 3 superior vena cava/right ventricular perforations requiring surgical intervention with 1 death 12 days after the procedure and 1 pericardial effusion requiring percutaneous drainage (0.87%). CONCLUSION Extraction of the Riata/Riata ST leads can be challenging, and leads with externalized cables may require specific extraction techniques. Extraction of the Riata/Riata ST leads can be performed safely by experienced operators at high-volume centers with a complication rate comparable to published data.

Permanent His-bundle pacing in patients with prosthetic cardiac valves

BACKGROUND Conduction disease is not uncommon after prosthetic valve (PV) surgery. The feasibility of His-bundle pacing (HBP) in this patient population is not well studied. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to report our experience with permanent HBP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation after PV surgery. METHODS Permanent HBP was attempted in patients with AV conduction disease after PV surgery referred for pacemaker implantation. Conduction disease was characterized as AV nodal vs infranodal. Feasibility, relationship of HBP lead to PVs, and HBP characteristics were recorded. RESULTS Thirty patients (47% men, age 74 ± 12 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 49% ± 11%) with AV conduction disease (100% patients; 14 with infranodal block; right bundle branch block 9, left bundle branch block 5, intraventricular conduction delay 1) underwent HBP. PVs included aortic valve replacement (AVR) in 8 patients (infranodal block 6 patients), tricuspid valve (TV) ring with mitral valve replacement or repair (MVR) in 10 patients (AV nodal block 9 patients), transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in 4 patients (infranodal block 4 patients), and MVR alone in 6 patients. HBP was successful in 28 patients (93%) (selective HBP 50%). His bundle (HB) recruitment was unsuccessful in 2 patients with TAVR. AVR/TAVR and TV ring served as anatomic landmarks for localizing the HB. Successful sites of HBP were posterior and inferior to AVR/TAVR and distal and septal to the TV ring. Baseline QRSd improved from 124 ± 32 ms to 118 ± 20 ms (P = .39). HBP threshold at implant was 1.45 ± 1 V at 1 ms. CONCLUSION Permanent HBP was feasible in 93% of patients with PVs. Patients with AVR/TAVR predominantly developed infranodal block compared to AV nodal block in patients with TV ring/MVR. Location of PV might serve as a landmark for identifying the site of the HB.

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in a Patient with a Left Ventricular Assist Device Already in Place

A 56-year-old man with ischemic cardiomyopathy, a biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) developed a pocket hematoma and infection after an ICD generator change. The biventricular ICD was extracted, and the patient was given a full course of antibiotics. Because he had no indications for bradycardia pacing or biventricular pacing, he was implanted with a subcutaneous ICD under full anticoagulation. There was no interference in sensing or shock delivery from the ICD. The LVAD readings were unchanged during and after the procedure. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course, and both devices were functioning normally. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of the implantation of a subcutaneous ICD in the presence of an LVAD. This report illustrates that both devices can be implanted successfully in the same patient. In addition, the subcutaneous ICD minimizes the risk of bloodstream infections, which can be fatal in patients who have life-supporting devices such as an LVAD.

Permanent His Bundle Pacing: Long-Term Lead Performance and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His-bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to report long-term performance and compare the clinical outcomes of permanent HBP vs RVP. METHODS All patients requiring pacemaker implantation underwent an attempt at permanent HBP in 2011 at one hospital and RVP at the sister hospital. Patients were followed from implantation, 2 weeks, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing thresholds, lead revision, and generator change were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) at 5 years. RESULTS HBP was attempted in 94 consecutive patients and was successful in 75 (80%); 98 patients underwent RVP. LVEF remained unchanged in the HBP group (55% ± 8% vs 57% ± 6%; P = .13), whereas significant decline was noted in the RVP group (57% ± 7% vs 52% ± 11%; P = .002). Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients (2% vs 22%; P = .04). At 5 years, death or HFH was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients with >40% ventricular pacing (32% vs 53%; hazard ratio 1.9; P = .04). At 5 years, the need for lead revisions (6.7% vs 3%) and for generator change (9% vs 1%) were higher in the HBP group. CONCLUSION In patients undergoing pacemaker implantation, permanent HBP was associated with reduction in death or HFH during long-term follow-up compared to RVP. HBP was associated with higher rates of lead revisions and generator change.

Atrioventricular node ablation and His bundle pacing

Aims Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) are effective therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and rapid ventricular rates. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiologic alternative to RVP. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of HBP in patients undergoing AVNA and its effect on left ventricular (LV) function. Methods and results Permanent HBP is the preferred form of ventricular pacing at our institute. Atrioventricular node ablation and HBP were performed in patients with AF and difficulty in rate control. His bundle pacing implant characteristics and thresholds were recorded. Fluoroscopic relationship of AVNA site to HBP lead electrodes was documented. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at baseline and during follow-up were assessed. Forty-two patients underwent HBP and AVNA: age 74 ± 11 years; men 45%; HTN 64%; DM 19%; CAD 36%; permanent AF 40%; cardiomyopathy 55%. His bundle pacing was successful in 40 of 42 patients (95%). Successful AVNA site was at or below the ring electrode in 22 (no acute change in HBP threshold); above the ring electrode in 13 and left side in 2 pts (acute increase in HBP threshold in 7 of 15 pts). Final HBP threshold at implant was 1 ± 0.8 V@1 ms and increased to 1.6 ± 1.2 V@1 ms during a mean follow-up of 19 ± 14 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 43 ± 13% to 50 ± 11% (P = 0.01). New York Heart Association functional status improved from 2.5 ± 0.5 to 1.9 ± 0.5 (P = 0.04). Conclusion Atrioventricular node ablation and HBP were successful in 95% of patients. His bundle pacing lead characteristics remained relatively stable. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly during follow-up. His bundle pacing is feasible, safe and effective in pts undergoing AVNA.

His-Bundle Pacing and LV Endocardial Pacing as Alternatives to Traditional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Purpose of ReviewCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. Up to a third of patients do not respond to BVP. This article reviews the utility of His-bundle pacing (HBP) and Left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing as alternatives to BVP to provide ventricular synchrony.Recent FindingsHBP has shown promising results in observational studies. By significantly narrowing or normalizing QRS, HBP has improved clinical outcomes including ejection fractions both as a rescue option in patients who failed BVP or as a primary alternative. LV endocardial pacing has also shown promise with improved clinical outcomes. Using traditional pacing leads or novel technology, direct stimulation of the LV endocardium allows for better site selection as well as a more physiological activation of the LV compared to traditional epicardial LV stimulation.SummaryHBP and LV endocardial pacing are valuable alternatives to traditional BVP to achieve CRT. Randomized clinical trials in progress will allow for a deeper understanding of how they can benefit our patients.

Long-Term Results of His Bundle Pacing

Right ventricular pacing is associated with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in some patients. His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is an alternative site to pace to achieve ventricular contraction with fewer adverse hemodynamic effects. HBP has been shown to be safe and feasible in the short term. The few studies that look at long-term results of HBP are promising with regard to electrophysiological, echocardiographic, and clinical outcomes. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to fully understand the long-term effects of HBP.