Ratika Parkash

Complications associated with defibrillation threshold testing: The Canadian experience

BACKGROUND Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has traditionally been a routine part of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, despite a lack of compelling evidence that it predicts or improves outcomes. In the past, when devices were much less reliable, DFT testing seemed prudent; however, modern ICD systems have such a high rate of successful defibrillation that many electrophysiologists now question whether DFT testing is still worthwhile, particularly since DFT testing may now be the highest acute risk component of ICD implantation. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to systematically document complications directly attributable to intraoperative DFT testing. METHODS We obtained data on DFT-related complications from all 21 adult ICD implant centers in Canada, covering the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2006. RESULTS There were a total of 19,067 ICD implants in Canada during the study period. There were three DFT testing-related deaths, five DFT testing-related strokes, and 27 episodes that required prolonged resuscitation. Two patients had significant clinical sequelae after prolonged resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS The risk of severe complications from intraoperative DFT testing appears small, even allowing for the underestimation of its true rate with the current study methodology. These slight but measurable risks must be considered when assessing the risk-benefit ratio of the procedure. Additional data from ongoing prospective ICD registries and/or clinical trials are required.

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs

BACKGROUND Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective approach to management of this problem is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock. RESULTS Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).

Recommendations for the use of genetic testing in the clinical evaluation of inherited cardiac arrhythmias associated with sudden cardiac death: Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society joint position paper.

The era of gene discovery and molecular medicine has had a significant impact on clinical practice. Knowledge of specific genetic findings causative for or associated with human disease may enhance diagnostic accuracy and influence treatment decisions. In cardiovascular disease, gene discovery for inherited arrhythmia syndromes has advanced most rapidly. The arrhythmia specialist is often confronted with the challenge of diagnosing and managing genetic arrhythmia syndromes. There is now a clear need for guidelines on the appropriate use of genetic testing for the most common genetic conditions associated with a risk of sudden cardiac death. This document represents the first ever published recommendations outlining the role of genetic testing in various clinical scenarios, the specific genes to be considered for testing, and the utility of test results in the management of patients and their families.

Approach to the Catheter Ablation Technique of Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Trials

Review of the Catheter Ablation Technique in AF. Background: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to investigate the optimal techniques for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Many of these are small in number and include both paroxysmal and persistent AF; however, the techniques for each of these types of AF may differ.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background Studies of cardiac resynchronization therapy in addition to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in patients with mild to moderate congestive heart failure had not been shown to reduce mortality until the recent RAFT trial (Resynchronization/Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial). We performed a meta-analysis including the RAFT trial to determine the effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator on mortality. Methods We searched electronic databases and other sources for reports of randomized trials using a parallel or crossover design. We included studies involving patients with heart failure receiving optimal medical therapy that compared cardiac resynchronization therapy with optimal medical therapy alone, or cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator with a standard implantable defibrillator. The primary outcome was mortality. The optimum information size was considered to assess the minimum amount of information required in the literature to reach reliable conclusions about cardiac resynchronization therapy. Results Of 3071 reports identified, 12 studies (n = 7538) were included in our meta-analysis. Compared with optimal medical therapy alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus optimal medical therapy significantly reduced mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.85). Compared with an implantable defibrillator alone, cardiac resynchronization therapy plus an implantable defibrillator significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.96). This last finding remained significant among patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I or II disease (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67–0.96) but not among those with class III or IV disease (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69–1.07). Analysis of the optimum information size showed that the sequential monitoring boundary was crossed, which suggests no need for further clinical trials. Interpretation The cumulative evidence is now conclusive that the addition of cardiac resynchronization to optimal medical therapy or defibrillator therapy significantly reduces mortality among patients with heart failure.

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.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Permanent Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT)

Background—Cardiac resynchronization (CRT) prolongs survival in patients with systolic heart failure and QRS prolongation. However, most trials excluded patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results—The Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) randomized patients to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or ICD+CRT, stratified by the presence of permanent atrial fibrillation. Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation were randomized to CRT-ICD (n=114) or ICD (n=115). Patients receiving a CRT-ICD were similar to those receiving an ICD: age (71.6±7.3 versus 70.4±7.7 years), left ventricular ejection fraction (22.9±5.3% versus 22.3±5.1%), and QRS duration (151.0±23.6 versus 153.4±24.7 ms). There was no difference in the primary outcome of death or heart failure hospitalization between those assigned to CRT-ICD versus ICD (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65–1.41; P=0.82). Cardiovascular death was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.55–1.71; P=0.91); however, there was a trend for fewer heart failure hospitalizations with CRT-ICD (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38–1.01; P=0.052). The change in 6-minute hall walk duration between baseline and 12 months was not different between treatment arms (CRT-ICD: 19±84 m versus ICD: 16±76 m; P=0.88). Patients treated with CRT-ICD showed a trend for a greater improvement in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score between baseline and 6 months (CRT-ICD: 41±21 to 31±21; ICD: 33±20 to 28±20; P=0.057). Conclusions—Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation who are otherwise CRT candidates appear to gain minimal benefit from CRT-ICD compared with a standard ICD. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00251251.Background— Cardiac resynchronization (CRT) prolongs survival in patients with systolic heart failure and QRS prolongation. However, most trials excluded patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results— The Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) randomized patients to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or ICD+CRT, stratified by the presence of permanent atrial fibrillation. Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation were randomized to CRT-ICD (n=114) or ICD (n=115). Patients receiving a CRT-ICD were similar to those receiving an ICD: age (71.6±7.3 versus 70.4±7.7 years), left ventricular ejection fraction (22.9±5.3% versus 22.3±5.1%), and QRS duration (151.0±23.6 versus 153.4±24.7 ms). There was no difference in the primary outcome of death or heart failure hospitalization between those assigned to CRT-ICD versus ICD (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65–1.41; P =0.82). Cardiovascular death was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.55–1.71; P =0.91); however, there was a trend for fewer heart failure hospitalizations with CRT-ICD (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38–1.01; P =0.052). The change in 6-minute hall walk duration between baseline and 12 months was not different between treatment arms (CRT-ICD: 19±84 m versus ICD: 16±76 m; P =0.88). Patients treated with CRT-ICD showed a trend for a greater improvement in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score between baseline and 6 months (CRT-ICD: 41±21 to 31±21; ICD: 33±20 to 28±20; P =0.057). Conclusions— Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation who are otherwise CRT candidates appear to gain minimal benefit from CRT-ICD compared with a standard ICD. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT00251251][1]. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00251251&atom=%2Fcirchf%2F5%2F5%2F566.atom

Standardized Approaches to the Investigation of Syncope: Canadian Cardiovascular Society Position Paper

Syncope is a very common presentation in the emergency department, and the combination of a wide differential diagnosis, a range of prognoses, and infrequent documentation of the faint leads to a high proportion of patients being admitted. These problems are mirrored in the investigation of inpatients with syncope, for which the high proportion of patients with benign outcomes and the profound risk aversion of health care providers make for expensive and inefficient assessment. Difficulties such as this in health services delivery can be improved by standardized approaches, such as guidelines, pathways, and checklists. Accordingly, emergency department decision rules, specialized syncope-monitoring units, and formal diagnostic algorithms have been developed to provide standardized approaches to the investigation of syncope. To provide guidance in the management of syncope, the Canadian Cardiovascular Society commissioned a position paper on standardized approaches to syncope investigation in adults. A primary panel first reviewed the literature systematically, then undertook iterative syntheses of data, and finally took positions with specific recommendations according to the GRADE framework. This paper summarizes the evidence and its quality and makes recommendations on the specific approaches meriting adoption. The position paper was then reviewed by a secondary panel, which provided suggestions for revisions leading to the final document as presented here. Overall, the position group concluded that there is little persuasive evidence that emergency department syncope rules and diagnostic syncope units provide efficient care and improved outcomes but that formal diagnostic algorithms with specialist support show promise.