Amplified sinus-P-wave analysis predicts outcomes of cryoballoon ablation in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: A multicentre study

Introduction

Outcomes of catheter ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) remain suboptimal. Non-invasive stratification of patients based on the presence of atrial cardiomyopathy (ACM) could allow to identify the best responders to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI).

Methods

Observational multicentre retrospective study in patients undergoing cryoballoon-PVI for non-paroxysmal AF. The duration of amplified P-wave (APW) was measured from a digitally recorded 12-lead electrocardiogram during the procedure. If patients were in AF, direct-current cardioversion was performed to allow APW measurement in sinus rhythm. An APW cut-off of 150 ms was used to identify patients with significant ACM. We assessed freedom from arrhythmia recurrence at long-term follow-up in patients with APW ≥ 150 ms vs. APW < 150 ms.

Results

We included 295 patients (mean age 62.3 ± 10.6), of whom 193 (65.4%) suffered from persistent AF and the remaining 102 (34.6%) from long-standing persistent AF. One-hundred-forty-two patients (50.2%) experienced arrhythmia recurrence during a mean follow-up of 793 ± 604 days. Patients with APW ≥ 150 ms had a significantly higher recurrence rate post ablation compared to those with APW < 150 ms (57.0% vs. 41.6%; log-rank p < 0.001). On a multivariable Cox-regression analysis, APW≥150 ms was the only independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence post ablation (HR 2.03 CI_95% 1.28-3.21; p = 0.002).

Conclusion

APW duration predicts arrhythmia recurrence post cryoballoon-PVI in persistent and long-standing persistent AF. An APW cut-off of 150 ms allows to identify patients with significant ACM who have worse outcomes post PVI. Analysis of APW represents an easy, non-invasive and highly reproducible diagnostic tool which allows to identify patients who are the most likely to benefit from PVI-only approach.

Determinants of fibrotic atrial cardiomyopathy in atrial fibrillation. A multicenter observational study of the RETAC (reseau européen de traîtement d'arrhythmies cardiaques)-group

Aims

Despite advances in interventional treatment strategies, atrial fibrillation (AF) remains associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Fibrotic atrial myopathy (FAM) is a main factor for adverse outcomes of AF-ablation, but complex to diagnose using current methods. We aimed to derive a scoring system based entirely on easily available clinical parameters to predict FAM and ablation-success in everyday care.

Methods

In this multicenter, prospective study, a new risk stratification model termed AF-SCORE was derived in 220 patients undergoing high-density left-atrial(LA) voltage-mapping to quantify FAM. AF-SCORE was validated for FAM in an external mapping-validation cohort (n = 220) and for success following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)-only (without adjunctive left- or right atrial ablations) in an external outcome-validation cohort (n = 518).

Results

FAM was rare in patients < 60 years (5.4%), but increased with ageing and affected 40.4% (59/146) of patients ≥ 60 years. Sex and AF-phenotype had additional predictive value in older patients and remained associated with FAM in multivariate models (odds ratio [OR] 6.194, p < 0.0001 for ≥ 60 years; OR 2.863, p < 0.0001 for female sex; OR 41.309, p < 0.0001 for AF-persistency). Additional clinical or diagnostic variables did not improve the model. AF-SCORE (+ 1 point for age ≥ 60 years and additional points for female sex [+ 1] and AF-persistency [+ 2]) showed good discrimination to detect FAM (c-statistic 0.792) and predicted arrhythmia-freedom following PVI (74.3%, 54.7% and 45.5% for AF-SCORE ≤ 2, 3 and 4, respectively, and hazard ratio [HR] 1.994 for AF-SCORE = 3 and HR 2.866 for AF-SCORE = 4, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Age, sex and AF-phenotype are the main determinants for the development of FAM. A low AF-SCORE ≤ 2 is found in paroxysmal AF-patients of any age and younger patients with persistent AF irrespective of sex, and associated with favorable outcomes of PVI-only. Freedom from arrhythmia remains unsatisfactory with AF-SCORE ≥ 3 as found in older patients, particularly females, with persistent AF, and future studies investigating adjunctive atrial ablations to PVI-only should focus on these groups of patients.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00392-021-01973-1.

Long-term outcomes among a cohort of 4296 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients: insights from the UMBRELLA study

Background

Large observational real-world studies describing modern implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) populations with long-term follow-up are lacking.

Purpose

To assess the incidence of arrhythmias in a cohort of contemporary patients undergoing ICD implant from 2005 and 2017 and to analyze the arrhythmic risk and mortality according to their clinical profiles.

Methods

UMBRELLA (NTC01561144) is a prospective, multicentre, nationwide study of ICD patients followed by remote monitoring. All device information was automatically stored through the remote monitoring system and a blinded review of all the stored arrhythmic episodes was performed. The study outcomes were first appropriate ICD therapy and all-cause death.

Results

The study population consisted of 4296 patients (61.9±12.9 years, ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM): n=2150, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM): n=1166, valvular heart disease (VHD): n=119, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM): n=294, arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC): n=71, Brugada syndrome (BS): n=143, long QT syndrome (LQTS): n=43, and adult congenital heart disease (ACHD): n=60)). Primary prevention (PP) was the main indication (n=2758).

During a mean follow-up of 46.6±27.3 months, 16,067 episodes of sustained ventricular arrhythmia (SVA) occurred in 1344 patients. Appropriate ICD therapy was delivered to 85.7% (n=13,767) episodes of SVA in 1173 patients (27.3% of population). A higher risk of first appropriate ICD therapy was observed in VHD (HR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.43–2.62), ARVC (HR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.28–2.66), ICM (HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.29–1.78), and DCM (HR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07–1.53) whereas patients with HCM (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54–0.96) and BS (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.14–0.45) were at significantly lower risk (Figure 1A). In multivariate analysis (Table 1), age, gender, atrial fibrillation (AF), secondary prevention, LVEF ≤35%, and QRS width emerged as clinical predictors of appropriate ICD therapy, whereas CRT-D correlated with lower risk. An independently higher risk was found in DCM, VHD, and ARVC, and a lower risk in BS patients.

At follow-up, 590 deaths (13.4% of population) were reported. Patients with ICM (HR 3.90, 95% CI: 2.58–5.90), DCM (HR 3.33, CI 95%: 2.18–5.10), and VHD (HR 3.97, CI 95%: 2.25–6.99) had worse prognoses and it was significantly better in BS patients (HR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01–0.67, p=0.017) (Figure 1B). In multivariate analysis, age, gender, AF, renal failure, diabetes and reduced LVEF, emerged as independent predictors of all-cause death (Table 1).

Conclusions

Irrespective of the aetiology, contemporary ICD patients with an arrhythmic substrate derived from left ventricular systolic dysfunction had a similar risk of ICD life-saving interventions and death.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Table 1Figure 1

Single- vs dual-chamber ICDs to prevent from inappropriate shocks: the debate is still alive

Background

The efficacy of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in preventing from inappropriate shocks (IS) is still a matter of debate.

Purpose

To compare the risk of IS among single- and dual-chamber ICDs in a cohort of heart failure (HF) patients carrying a prophylactic device. We aimed to focus on the relationship between programming and discriminators, and the risk of IS in a large cohort.

Methods

All HF patients with left ventricle ejection fraction &lt;35% undergoing a prophylactic ICD-only implant were collected from the multicentre, prospective and nationwide UMBRELLA study. ICD programming was performed according to regular clinical practice at each site and. ICD setting and arrhythmic events occurring during the study period were automatically stored through the remote monitoring system. An experts committee analysed in a blinded manner all electrograms coming from the arrhythmic events.

Results

From 2006 to 2015, 782 patients implanted with an ICD were analysed (537 patients (68.7%) with single-chamber ICDs and 245 patients (31.3%) with dual-chamber ICDs). During a mean follow-up of 4.35±2 years, 109 IS were delivered in 49 patients. IS occurred in 7.8% (n=42) of patients carrying single-chamber ICDs and in 2.9% (n=7) of dual-chamber carriers (p=0.001). A propensity score matched analysis was performed. The matched cohort was composed by 110 well-balanced (regarding baseline characteristics and programming) patients. In the weighted sample, dual-chamber ICDs were related to lower rates of IS (Figure 1) as compared to single-chamber devices (0.9% vs. 11.8%, p≤0.001).

Among programming the following ICD settings correlated to lower risk of IS: ≥30 of 40 intervals detection within ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone (HR=0.47; p=0.018), a programmed ATP-capable zone enabled through VF zone (HR=0.54; p=0.038), morphology discriminator (Wavelet®) (HR=0.42; p=0.032), and the specific dual-chamber discriminator (PR Logic®) (HR=0.28; p=0.004). After multivariable Cox regression analysis including clinical variables and device settings, PR Logic® discriminator was the only programming parameter independently related to a lower risk of IS (HR=0.18, CI 0.06–0.48, p=0.001).

Conclusions

In our nationwide cohort of primary prevention ICD-only patients, dual-chamber devices were associated with a lower risk of IS. ICDs equipped with PR Logic® discriminator might be useful to prevent from IS.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Programming in the matched populationFigure 1

Improvement in Atrial Fibrillation-Related Symptoms After Cardioversion: Role of NYHA Functional Class and Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm

Background

The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) score is a proven and validated tool for assessing the symptoms of atrial fibrillation (AF). Little is known about the variables related to this score and how it changes after cardioversion.

Methods

We analyzed 744 patients undergoing elective cardioversion in whom AF-related symptoms were assessed at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up using the EHRA score. We assessed the association between the EHRA score and other clinical and echocardiographic variables at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up.

Results

At 6 months of follow-up, we observed a reduction in the EHRA score in 50% and worsening in 2.8% of patients who remained in sinus rhythm (SR) compared with 34.6% and 11.3%, respectively, of patients with AF episodes (p<0.0001). Patients who maintained SR at 6 months were less symptomatic than those with AF (EHRA score 1.13 ± 0.35 vs 1.42 ± 0.59; p<0.0001). The independent predictors for reduction in the EHRA score after cardioversion were NYHA ≥II at baseline and maintenance of SR (p<0.0001).

Conclusion

The greatest improvement in AF-related symptoms was in patients who remained in SR at 6 months after cardioversion and in patients with worse NYHA functional class at baseline.

Rate, Time Course, and Predictors of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Infections: An Analysis From the SIMPLE Trial

Background

The number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) infections is increasing due to an increased number of ICD implants, higher-risk patients, and more frequent replacement procedures, which carry a higher risk of infection. Reducing the morbidity, mortality, and cost of ICD-related infections requires an understanding of the current rate of this complication and its predictors.

Methods

The Shock Implant Evaluation Trial (SIMPLE) trial randomized 2500 ICD recipients to defibrillation testing or not. Over an average of 3.1 years, patients were seen every 6 months and examined for evidence of ICD infection, which was defined as requiring device removal and/or intravenous antibiotics.

Results

Within 24 months, 21 patients (0.8%) developed infection. Fourteen patients (67%) with infection presented within 30 days, 20 patients by 12 months, and only 1 patient beyond 12 months. Univariate analysis demonstrated that patients with primary electrical disorders (3 patients, P = 0.009) and those with a secondary prevention indication (13 patients, P = 0.0009) were more likely to develop infection. Among the 2.2% of patients who developed an ICD wound hematoma, 10.4% developed an infection. Among the 8.3% of patients requiring an ICD reintervention, 1.9% developed an infection.

Conclusions

This cohort of ICD recipients at high-volume centres have a low risk of device-related infection. However; strategies to reduce wound hematoma and the need for ICD reintervention could further reduce the rate of infection.

P5425Prognostic value of NYHA functional class in heart failure patients undergoing primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

Background

NYHA functional class (FC) is used for selection of heart failure (HF) patients who are candidates to primary prevention (PP) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, FC is subjectively estimated and concerns about its real prognostic value are still present in this setting.

Purpose

To compare whether mortality and arrhythmic risk are different, in a cohort of HF patients undergoing PP ICD-only implant, according to their FC.

Methods

All HF patients with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, undergoing first prophylactic ICD-only implant were collected from the UMBRELLA nationwide registry (2006–2015). The sample was divided into three groups: no symptoms (NYHA I), mildly symptomatic patients (NYHA II) and severely symptomatic (NYHA III) patients. Outcomes were studied as follow: all-cause death, cardiovascular mortality and arrhythmia free survival (surrogate marker of sudden cardiac death) defined as survival free of first appropriate ICD therapy delivered in ventricular fibrillation (VF) window. Arrhythmic events were collected by remote monitoring and reviewed by a committee of experts.

Results

Six hundred and twenty one patients were identified (61.1±11.4 years, 87.3% male). Distribution of study groups was as follow: 101 patients in NYHA I; 411 in NYHA II; and 109 in NYHA III. More symptomatic patients were older and had higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Higher rates of optimal medical treatment were present among study groups (beta-blockers: 92.1%; ACEI or ARB: 86.8%; aldosterone antagonists: 60.2%). After a median follow-up of 4.2 years (IQR, 2.7–5.7 years) 126 patients died (event rate: 20.3%). All-cause mortality was higher in patients with worse FC (13.9% vs. 18.3% vs. 32.9% for NYHA I, II and III respectively; p<0.001, log-rank test). Seventy-eight out of 126 deaths were related to cardiovascular causes (overall event rate: 12.6%). Cardiovascular mortality risk was also higher in more symptomatic patients (6.9% vs. 11% vs. 23.9% for NYHA I, II and III respectively; p<0.001, log-rank test). One hundred and seventeen patients received afirst appropriate ICD therapy (19.4%). Arrhythmia free survival was not different among study groups (20.8% vs. 18.7% vs. 20.8% for NYHA I, II and III, respectively; p=0.495, log-rank test). Cumulative incidence curves for the three outcomes are shown in Figure 1. After multivariate analysis, worse NYHA class independently predicted cardiovascular mortality but not all-cause death. Moreover, diabetes, AF and CKD strongly predicted both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Figure 1

Conclusions

In HF patients, prophylactic ICD seems to be useful in preventing death due to life threatening arrhythmias, regardless of the baseline FC. Nevertheless, the combination of NYHA class with other comorbidities may be useful to select those ICD candidates who obtain less survival benefit.

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

Sedation strategies for defibrillation threshold testing: safety outcomes with anaesthesiologist compared to proceduralist-directed sedation: an analysis from the SIMPLE study

Aims

No standard practice exists with respect to anaesthesiologist-directed sedation (ADS) vs. sedation by proceduralist (PDS) for defibrillation threshold (DT) testing. We aimed to evaluate adverse events and safety outcomes with ADS vs. PDS for DT testing.

Methods and results

A post hoc analysis of the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) study was performed among the 1242 patients who had DT testing (624 ADS and 618 PDS). We evaluated both intraoperative and in-hospital adverse composite events and two safety composite outcomes at 30-days of the main trial. Propensity score adjusted models were used to compute odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to evaluate the association between adverse and safety outcomes with method of sedation and independent predictors for use of ADS. Compared to PDS, patients who received ADS were younger (62 ± 12 years vs. 64 ± 12 years, P = 0.01), had lower ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction 0.31 ± 13 vs. 0.33 ± 13, P = 0.03), were more likely to receive inhalational anaesthesia, propofol, or narcotics (P < 0.001, respectively) and receive an arterial line (43% vs. 8%, P = <0.0001). Independent predictors for ADS sedation were presence of coronary artery disease (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.0-2.72; P = 0.03) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.19-5.85; P = 0.02). Anaesthesiologist directed sedation had higher intraoperative adverse events (2.2% vs. 0.5%; OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.25-16.0; P = 0.02) and higher primary safety outcomes at 30 days (8.2% vs. 4.9%; OR 1.72 95% CI 1.06-2.80; P = 0.03) and no difference in other outcomes compared to PDS.

Conclusion

Proceduralist-directed sedation is safe, however, this could be result of selection bias. Further research is needed.

Wound haematoma following defibrillator implantation: incidence and predictors in the Shockless Implant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial

Aims

Pocket haematoma is a common complication after defibrillator [implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)] implantation, which is not only painful, but also increases the risk of device-related infection, and possibly embolic events. The present study seeks to evaluate the rate and predictors of clinically significant pocket haematoma.

Methods and results

This study included 2500 patients receiving an ICD in the SIMPLE trial. A clinically significant pocket haematoma was defined as a haematoma that required re-operation or interruption of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy. Clinically significant pocket haematoma occurred in 56 of 2500 patients (2.2%) of which 6 (10.7%) developed device-related infection. Patients who developed pocket haematoma were older (mean age 67.6 ± 8.8 years vs. 62.7 ± 11.6 years, P < 0.001), were more likely to have permanent atrial fibrillation (30.4 vs. 6.7%, P < 0.001) and a history of stroke (17.9 vs. 6.7%, P = 0.004), or were more likely to receive peri-operative OAC (50.0 vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001), unfractionated heparin (16.1 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.003), or low-molecular-weight heparin (37.5 vs. 17.5%, P < 0.001). Independent predictors of wound haematoma on multivariable analysis included the use of heparin bridging (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.48-4.73, P = 0.001), sub-pectoral location of ICD (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.12-3.57, P =0.020), previous stroke (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.20-5.10, P = 0.015), an upgrade from permanent pacemaker (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.07-5.94, P = 0.035), and older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, P = 0.049).

Conclusion

Pocket haematoma remains an important complication of ICD implantation and is associated with a high risk of infection. Independent predictors of pocket haematoma include heparin bridging, prior stroke, sub-pectoral placement of ICD, older age, and upgrade from a pacemaker.

Association of cardiac resynchronization therapy with the incidence of appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator therapies in ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Aims

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the incidence of sudden cardiac death and the use of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies (AICDTs); however, this antiarrhythmic effect is only observed in certain groups of patients. To gain insight into the effects of CRT on ventricular arrhythmia (VA) burden, we compared the incidence of AICDT use in four groups of patients: patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy vs. non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDC) and patients implanted with an ICD vs. CRT-ICD.

Methods and results

We analysed 689 consecutive patients (mean follow-up 37 ± 16 months) included in the Umbrella registry, a multicentre prospective registry including patients implanted with ICD or CRT-ICD devices with remote monitoring capabilities in 48 Spanish Hospitals. The primary outcome was the time to first AICDT. Despite a worse clinical risk profile, NIDC patients receiving a CRT-ICD had a lower cumulative probability of first AICDT use at 2 years compared with patients implanted with an ICD [24.7 vs. 41.6%, hazard ratio (HR): 0.49, P = 0.003]; on the other hand, there were no significant differences in the incidence of first AICDT use at 2 years in ischaemic patients (22.6 vs. 21.9%, P = NS). Multivariate analysis confirmed the association of CRT with lower AICDT rates amongst NIDC patients (Adjusted HR: 0.55, CI 95% 0.35-0.87).

Conclusions

These data suggest that CRT is associated with significantly lower rates of first AICDT use in NIDC patients, but not in ischaemic patients. This study suggests that ICD patients with NIDC and left bundle branch block experiencing VAs may benefit from an upgrade to CRT-ICD despite being in a good functional class.

Apical versus Non-Apical Lead: Is ICD Lead Position Important for Successful Defibrillation?

INTRODUCTION

We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2,475 of 2,500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in a lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, P < 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 ohm vs. 728 ohm, P < 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70 V vs. 0.66 V, P = 0.01). Single-coil leads and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity score matched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.66), or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% P = 0.35) according to lead location.

CONCLUSION

We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead.

Troponin levels after ICD implantation with and without defibrillation testing and their predictive value for outcomes: Insights from the SIMPLE trial

BACKGROUND

The Shockless IMPLant Evaluation trial randomized 2500 patients receiving a first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator device to have either defibrillation testing (DT) or no DT. It demonstrated that DT did not improve shock efficacy or reduce mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective substudy evaluated the effect of DT on postoperative troponin levels and their predictive value for total and arrhythmic mortality.

METHODS

Troponin levels were measured between 6 and 24 hours after ICD implantation in 2200 of 2500 patients.

RESULTS

A postoperative serum troponin level above the upper limit of normal (ULN) was more common in patients undergoing DT (n = 509 [46.4%]) than in those not subjected to DT (n = 456 [41.3%]; P = .02). After excluding patients with known preoperative troponin levels above the ULN, consistent findings were observed (42.1% vs 37.5%; P = .04). During a mean follow-up of 3.1 ± 1.0 years, the annual mortality rate was increased in patients with postoperative troponin levels above the ULN (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.76; P = .001) irrespective of DT or no DT. Likewise, patients with elevated troponin levels had a significantly higher risk of arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 1.80; 95% CI 1.23-2.63; P = .002). The rate of first appropriate ICD shock (adjusted HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.71-1.12; P = .32) or failed appropriate shock (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.59-1.76; P = .95) was similar in patients with or without troponin elevation.

CONCLUSION

DT at the time of ICD implantation is associated with increased troponin levels, indicating subclinical myocardial injury caused by the procedure. Elevated troponin levels but not DT seem to predict clinical outcomes in ICD recipients.

Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE)

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation is widely done at the time of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing.

METHODS

In this single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]), we recruited patients aged older than 18 years receiving their first ICD for standard indications at 85 hospitals in 18 countries worldwide. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, awaiting transplantation, particpation in another randomised trial, unavailability for follow-up, or if it was expected that the ICD would have to be implanted on the right-hand side of the chest. Patients undergoing initial implantation of a Boston Scientific ICD were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testing group). We used random block sizes to conceal treatment allocation from the patients, and randomisation was stratified by clinical centre. Our primary efficacy analysis tested the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a composite outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (ie, a shock that did not terminate a spontaneous episode of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5 calculated from a proportional hazards model with no-testing versus testing as the only covariate; if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 1·5, we concluded that ICD insertion without testing was non-inferior to ICD with testing. We examined safety with two, 30 day, adverse event outcome clusters. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00800384.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2009, and April 4, 2011, of 2500 eligible patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and followed up for a mean of 3·1 years (SD 1·0). The primary outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock occurred in fewer patients (90 [7% per year]) in the no-testing group than patients who did receive it (104 [8% per year]; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). The first safety composite outcome occurred in 69 (5·6%) of 1236 patients with no-testing and in 81 (6·5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0·33. The second, pre-specified safety composite outcome, which included only events most likely to be directly caused by testing, occurred in 3·2% of patients with no-testing and in 4·5% with defibrillation testing, p=0·08. Heart failure needing intravenous treatment with inotropes or diuretics was the most common adverse event (in 20 [2%] of 1236 patients in the no-testing group vs 28 [2%] of 1242 patients in the testing group, p=0·25).

INTERPRETATION

Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death.

FUNDING

Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office).