1
|
Knops RE, El-Chami MF, Marquie C, Nordbeck P, Quast AFBE, Tilz RR, Brouwer TF, Lambiase PD, Cassidy CJ, Boersma LVA, Burke MC, Pepplinkhuizen S, de Veld JA, de Weger A, Bracke FALE, Manyam H, Probst V, Betts TR, Bijsterveld NR, Defaye P, Demming T, Elders J, Field DC, Ghani A, Golovchiner G, de Jong JSSG, Lewis N, Marijon E, Martin CA, Miller MA, Shaik NA, van der Stuijt W, Kuschyk J, Olde Nordkamp LRA, Arya A, Borger van der Burg AE, Boveda S, van Doorn DJ, Glikson M, Kaiser L, Maass AH, van Woerkens LJPM, Zaidi A, Wilde AAM, Smeding L. Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in patients with subcutaneous ICD: A subanalysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial. Heart Rhythm 2024:S1547-5271(24)00115-2. [PMID: 38336193 DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2023] [Revised: 01/24/2024] [Accepted: 02/03/2024] [Indexed: 02/12/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy by using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRospective randomized compArative trial of subcutanEous implanTable cardiOverter-defibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation Testing (PRAETORIAN-DFT) investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is noninferior to defibrillation testing (DFT) with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events. OBJECTIVE This prespecified subanalysis assessed the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS This multicenter investigator-initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT and PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implantation. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia in <5 seconds from shock delivery within 2 attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm. RESULTS In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 (95%) underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 (97%) had successful DFT and 12 (3%) had failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT, and a PRAETORIAN score of <90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (odds ratio 33.77; confidence interval 6.13-279.95; P < .001). CONCLUSION A PRAETORIAN score of <90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in patients with S-ICD, and a PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reinoud E Knops
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Mikhael F El-Chami
- Division of Cardiology Section of Electrophysiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | | | - Peter Nordbeck
- Department of Internal Medicine I, University and University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Anne-Floor B E Quast
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Roland R Tilz
- Department of Rhythmology, University Heart Center Lübeck, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany
| | - Tom F Brouwer
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pier D Lambiase
- Office of the Director of Clinical Electrophysiology Research and Lead for Inherited Arrhythmia Specialist Services, University College London and Barts Heart Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Christopher J Cassidy
- Lancashire Cardiac Centre, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Blackpool, United Kingdom
| | - Lucas V A Boersma
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | | | - Shari Pepplinkhuizen
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jolien A de Veld
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anouk de Weger
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Frank A L E Bracke
- Department of Electrophysiology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Harish Manyam
- Department of Cardiology Erlanger Health System, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Tennessee
| | - Vincent Probst
- Service de Cardiologie, L'institut du thorax, CHU Nantes, Nantes, France
| | - Timothy R Betts
- Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Nick R Bijsterveld
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Flevoziekenhuis, Almere, The Netherlands
| | - Pascal Defaye
- Service de Cardiologie, Centre hospitalier universitaire, Grenoble, France
| | - Thomas Demming
- Department of Internal Medicine III, Cardiology, Angiology, and Critical Care, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Jan Elders
- Department of Cardiology, Canisius Wilhelminahospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Duncan C Field
- Cardiology, Essex Cardiothoracic Centre, Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Basildon, United Kingdom
| | - Abdul Ghani
- Department of Cardiology, Isala Heart Centre, Zwolle, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Nigel Lewis
- Department of Cardiology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Eloi Marijon
- Division of Cardiology, European Georges Pompidou Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Claire A Martin
- Department of Cardiology, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Marc A Miller
- Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York
| | - Naushad A Shaik
- Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Advent Health Orlando, Orlando, Florida
| | - Willeke van der Stuijt
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jürgen Kuschyk
- First Department of Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany; First Department of Medicine-Cardiology, University Medical Center Mannheim, and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research Partner Site Heidelberg-Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Louise R A Olde Nordkamp
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anita Arya
- New Cross Hospital, Heart and Lung Centre, Division of Electrophysiology and Devices, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom
| | | | - Serge Boveda
- Heart Rhythm Department, Clinique Pasteur, Toulouse, France
| | - Dirk J van Doorn
- Department of Cardiology, Spaarne Gasthuis, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Glikson
- Jesselson Integrated Heart Center, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| | - Lukas Kaiser
- Department of Cardiology and Critical Care Medicine, Asklepios Klinik St. Georg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Alexander H Maass
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Amir Zaidi
- Manchester Heart Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Arthur A M Wilde
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lonneke Smeding
- Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Heart Center, Department of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences Heart Failure & Arrhythmias, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tarakji KG, Zaidi AM, Zweibel SL, Varma N, Sears SF, Allred J, Roberts PR, Shaik NA, Silverstein JR, Maher A, Mittal S, Patwala A, Schoenhard J, Emert M, Molon G, Augello G, Patel N, Seide H, Porfilio A, Maus B, Di Jorio SL, Holloman K, Natera AC, Turakhia MP. Performance of first pacemaker to use smart device app for remote monitoring. Heart Rhythm O2 2021; 2:463-471. [PMID: 34667961 PMCID: PMC8505204 DOI: 10.1016/j.hroo.2021.07.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background High adherence to remote monitoring (RM) in pacemaker (PM) patients improves outcomes; however, adherence remains suboptimal. Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) technology in newer-generation PMs enables communication directly with patient-owned smart devices using an app without a bedside console. Objective To evaluate the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using the app compared to other RM methods. Methods The BlueSync Field Evaluation was a prospective, international cohort evaluation, measuring the success rate of scheduled RM transmissions using a BLE PM or cardiac resynchronization therapy PM coupled with the MyCareLink Heart app. App transmission success was compared to 3 historical “control” groups from the Medtronic de-identified CareLink database: (1) PM patients with manual communication using a wand with a bedside console (PM manual transmission), (2) PM patients with wireless automatic communication with the bedside console (PM wireless); (3) defibrillator patients with similar automatic communication (defibrillator wireless). Results Among 245 patients enrolled (age 64.8±15.6 years, 58.4% men), 953 transmissions were scheduled through 12 months, of which 902 (94.6%) were successfully completed. In comparison, transmission success rates were 56.3% for PM manual transmission patients, 77.0% for PM wireless patients, and 87.1% for defibrillator wireless patients. Transmission success with the app was superior across matched cohorts based on age, sex, and device type (single vs dual vs triple chamber). Conclusion The success rate of scheduled RM transmissions was higher among patients using the smart device app compared to patients using traditional RM using bedside consoles. This novel technology may improve patient engagement and adherence to RM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Khaldoun G Tarakji
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Amir M Zaidi
- Central Manchester University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Steven L Zweibel
- Hartford Healthcare and Vascular Institute, Hartford, Connecticut
| | - Niraj Varma
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | | | - Paul R Roberts
- University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Abdul Maher
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ashish Patwala
- Royal Stoke University Hospital of North Midlands, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom
| | | | - Martin Emert
- University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Giulio Molon
- Ospedale Sacro Cuore don Calabria, Negrar, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - Baerbel Maus
- Bakken Research Center, Medtronic plc, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Mintu P Turakhia
- Center for Digital Health, Stanford University, Stanford, California.,Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Shaik NA, Drucker M, Pierce C, Duray GZ, Gillett S, Miller C, Harrell C, Thomas G. Novel two-lead cardiac resynchronization therapy system provides equivalent CRT responses with less complications than a conventional three-lead system: Results from the QP ExCELs lead registry. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2020; 31:1784-1792. [PMID: 32412126 PMCID: PMC7496977 DOI: 10.1111/jce.14552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 05/11/2020] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
Introduction The novel two‐lead cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)‐DX system utilizes a floating atrial dipole on the implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator lead, and when implanted with a left ventricular (LV) lead, offers a two‐lead CRT system with AV synchrony. This study compared complication rates and CRT response among subjects implanted with a two‐lead CRT‐DX system to those subjects implanted with a standard three‐lead CRT‐D system. Methods and Results A total of 240 subjects from the Sentus QP—Extended CRT Evaluation with Quadripolar Left Ventricular Leads postapproval study were selected to identify 120 matched pairs based on similar demographic characteristics using a Greedy algorithm. The complication‐free rate was evaluated as the primary endpoint. All‐cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, device diagnostic data, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement, and defibrillator therapy were evaluated from clinical data, in‐office interrogations, and remote monitoring throughout the follow‐up period. Complication‐free survival favored the CRT‐DX group with 92.5% without a major complication compared to 85.0% in the CRT‐D cohort (P = .0495; 95% confidence interval: 0.1%‐14.9%) over a mean follow‐up of 1.3 and 1.4 years, respectively. Incidence of all‐cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations, NYHA changes at 6 months postimplant, and percent of LV pacing during CRT therapy were similar in both device cohorts. Inappropriate shocks were more frequent in the CRT‐D cohort with 5.8% of subjects receiving an inappropriate shock vs 0.8% in the CRT‐DX cohort. Conclusion The results of this subanalysis demonstrate that the CRT‐DX system can provide similar CRT responses and significantly fewer complications when compared to a similar cohort with a conventional three‐lead CRT‐D system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naushad A Shaik
- Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Advent Health Orlando, Orlando, Florida
| | - Michael Drucker
- Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Novant Health Cardiology of Forsyth Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
| | - Christopher Pierce
- Department of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Sanford Medical Center, Fargo, North Dakota
| | - Gabor Z Duray
- Department of Cardiology, Medical Centre, Hungarian Defense Forces, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Shane Gillett
- Clinical Studies Department, Biotronik, Inc, Lake Oswego, Oregon
| | - Crystal Miller
- Clinical Studies Department, Biotronik, Inc, Lake Oswego, Oregon
| | - Camden Harrell
- Clinical Studies Department, Biotronik, Inc, Lake Oswego, Oregon
| | - George Thomas
- Division of Cardiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|