Background: Recurrences of atrial fibrillation (AF) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are mainly due to pulmonary vein reconnection. However, a growing number of patients have AF recurrences despite durable PVI. The optimal ablative strategy for these patients is unknown. We analyzed the impact of current ablation strategies in a large multicenter study. Methods: Patients undergoing a redo ablation for AF and presenting durable PVI were included. The freedom from atrial arrhythmia after pulmonary vein-based, linear-based, electrogram-based, and trigger-based ablation strategies were compared. Results: Between 2010 and 2020, 367 patients (67% men, 63±10 years, 44% paroxysmal) underwent a redo ablation for AF recurrences despite durable PVI at 39 centers. After durable PVI was confirmed, linear-based ablation was performed in 219 (60%) patients, electrogram-based ablation in 168 (45%) patients, trigger-based ablation in 101 (27%) patients, and pulmonary vein-based ablation in 56 (15%) patients. Seven patients (2%) did not undergo any additional ablation during the redo procedure. After 22±19 months of follow-up, 122 (33%) and 159 (43%) patients had a recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 12 and 24 months, respectively. No significant difference in arrhythmia-free survival was observed between the different ablation strategies. Left atrial dilatation was the only independent factor associated with arrhythmia-free survival (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.13–2.23]; P =0.006). Conclusions: In patients with recurrent AF despite durable PVI, no ablation strategy used alone or in combination during the redo procedure appears to be superior in improving arrhythmia-free survival. Left atrial size is a significant predictor of ablation outcome in this population.

L’évaluation initiale d’un patient admis pour syncope repose sur trois points essentiels : l’interrogatoire, l’examen clinique (incluant une recherche d’hypotension orthostatique) et surtout l’analyse de l’électrocardiogramme.

We report the case of a 64-year-old woman who was admitted for cardiogenic shock caused by a permanent junctional reciprocating tachycardia. If this incessant and drug-refractory form of tachycardia is a well-known cause of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathies in infants, its occurrence during adulthood is extremely rare. Catheter ablation is the recommended treatment of this condition.

BACKGROUND:Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead dysfunction has been reported after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in limited single-center studies. We aimed at describing and characterizing the incidence of ICD lead parameters dysfunction after LVAD implantation. METHODS:Among the 652 patients enrolled in the ASSIST-ICD study, only patients with an ICD prior to LVAD were included (n = 401). ICD lead parameters dysfunction following LVAD implantation is defined as follows: (a) >50% decrease in sensing threshold, (b) pacing lead impedance increase/decrease by >100Ω, and (c) >50% increase in pacing threshold. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-two patients with an ICD prior to LVAD had available ICD interrogation reports prior and after LVAD. A total of 67 (55%) patients exhibited at least one significant lead dysfunction: 17 (15%) exhibited >50% decrease in right ventricular (RV) sensing, 51 (42%) had >100 Ω increase/decrease in RV pacing impedance, and 24 (20%) experienced >50% increase in RV pacing threshold. A total of 52 patients experienced ventricular arrhythmia during follow-up and all were successfully detected and treated by the device. All lead dysfunction could be managed conservatively. CONCLUSION:More than 50% of LVAD-recipients may experience >1 significant change in lead parameters but none had severe clinical consequences.

OBJECTIVES Our goal was to provide a picture of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) activity in France between 2007 and 2016 based on the multicentric ASSIST-ICD registry. METHODS We retrospectively collected 136 variables including in-hospital data, follow-up survival rates and adverse events from 671 LVAD recipients at 20 out of 24 LVAD implant centres in France. The average follow-up time was 1.2 years (standard deviation: 1.4); the total follow-up time was 807.5 patient-years. RESULTS The included devices were the HeartMate II®, HeartWare LVAS® or Jarvik 2000®. The overall likelihood of being alive while on LVAD support or having a transplant (primary end point) at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years postimplantation was 65.2%, 59.7%, 55.9% and 47.7%, respectively, given a cumulative incidence of 29.2% of receiving a transplant at year 5. At implantation, 21.5% of patients were on extracorporeal life support. The overall rate of cardiogenic shock at implantation was 53%. The major complications were driveline infection (26.1%), pump pocket or cannula infection (12.6%), LVAD thrombosis (12.2%), ischaemic (12.8%) or haemorrhagic stroke (5.4%; all strokes 18.2%), non-cerebral haemorrhage (9.1%) and LVAD exchange (5.2%). The primary end point (survival) was stratified by age at surgery and by the type of device used, with inference from baseline profiles. The primary end point combined with an absence of complications (secondary end point) was also stratified by device type. CONCLUSIONS The ASSIST-ICD registry provides a real-life picture of LVAD use in 20 of the 24 implant centres in France. Despite older average age and a higher proportion of patients chosen for destination therapy, survival rates improved compared to those in previous national registry results. This LVAD registry contrasts with other international registries because patients with implants have more severe disease, and the national policy for graft attribution is distinct. We recommend referring patients for LVAD earlier and suggest a discussion of the optimal timing of a transplant for bridged patients (more dismal results after the second year of support?).

The spectrum of inherited arrhythmogenic diseases (IADs) includes disorders without overt structural abnormalities (i.e. primary inherited arrhythmia syndromes) and structural heart diseases (i.e. arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey was to evaluate current clinical practice and adherence to 2015 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines regarding the management of patients with IADs. A 24-item centre-based online questionnaire was presented to the EHRA Research Network Centres and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Genetics Focus Group members. There were 46 responses from 20 different countries. The survey revealed that 37% of centres did not have any dedicated unit focusing on patients with IADs. Provocative drug challenges were widely used to rule-out Brugada syndrome (BrS) (91% of centres), while they were used in a minority of centres during the diagnostic assessment of long-QT syndrome (11%), early repolarization syndrome (12%), or catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (18%). While all centres advised family clinical screening with electrocardiograms for all first-degree family members of patients with IADs, genetic testing was advised in family members of probands with positive genetic testing by 33% of centres. Sudden cardiac death risk stratification was straightforward and in line with current guidelines for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, while it was controversial for other diseases (i.e. BrS). Finally, indications for ventricular mapping and ablation procedures in BrS were variable and not in agreement with current guidelines in up to 54% of centres.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has become an important therapeutic option in patients with end-stage heart failure, with many of them already having an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) at the time of LVAD surgery. LVAD electromagnetic interference (EMI) with loss

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has become an important therapeutic option in patients with end-stage heart failure, with many of them already having an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) at the time of LVAD surgery. LVAD electromagnetic interference (EMI) with loss

The spectrum of inherited arrhythmogenic diseases (IADs) includes disorders without overt structural abnormalities (i.e. primary inherited arrhythmia syndromes) and structural heart diseases (i.e. arrhythmogenic ventricular cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy). The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey was to evaluate current clinical practice and adherence to 2015 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines regarding the management of patients with IADs. A 24-item centre-based online questionnaire was presented to the EHRA Research Network Centres and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Genetics Focus Group members. There were 46 responses from 20 different countries. The survey revealed that 37% of centres did not have any dedicated unit focusing on patients with IADs. Provocative drug challenges were widely used to rule-out Brugada syndrome (BrS) (91% of centres), while they were used in a minority of centres during the diagnostic assessment of long-QT syndrome (11%), early repolarization syndrome (12%), or catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (18%). While all centres advised family clinical screening with electrocardiograms for all first-degree family members of patients with IADs, genetic testing was advised in family members of probands with positive genetic testing by 33% of centres. Sudden cardiac death risk stratification was straightforward and in line with current guidelines for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, while it was controversial for other diseases (i.e. BrS). Finally, indications for ventricular mapping and ablation procedures in BrS were variable and not in agreement with current guidelines in up to 54% of centres.

Early VAs are common after LVAD implantation and increase 30-day post-operative mortality, without affecting long-term survival. Further studies will be needed to analyze whether pre- or pre-operative ablation of VAs may improve post-operative outcomes. (Determination of Risk Factors of Ventricular Arrhythmias After Implantation of Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device [ASSIST-ICD]; NCT02873169).

Background Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated infections may be life-threatening and impact patients' outcome. We aimed to identify the characteristics, risk factors, and prognosis of LVAD-associated infections. Methods Patients included in the ASSIST-ICD study (19 centers) were enrolled. The main outcome was the occurrence of LVAD-associated infection (driveline infection, pocket infection, or pump/cannula infection) during follow-up. Results Of the 652 patients enrolled, 201 (30.1%) presented a total of 248 LVAD infections diagnosed 6.5 months after implantation, including 171 (26.2%), 51 (7.8%), and 26 (4.0%) percutaneous driveline infection, pocket infection, or pump/cannula infection, respectively. Patients with infections were aged 58.7 years, and most receivedHeartMate II (82.1%) orHeartWare (13.4%). Most patients (62%) had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) before LVAD, and 104 (16.0%) had ICD implantation, extraction, or replacement after the LVAD surgery. Main pathogens found among the 248 infections were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 113' 45.4%), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 61; 24.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 34; 13.7%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 13; 5.2%), and Candida species (n = 13; 5.2%). In multivariable analysis, HeartMate II (subhazard ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.36; P =.031) and ICD-related procedures post-LVAD (subhazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98; P =.031) were significantly associated with LVAD infections. Infections had no detrimental impact on survival. Conclusions Left ventricular assist device-associated infections affect one-third of LVAD recipients, mostly related to skin pathogens and gram-negative bacilli, with increased risk with HeartMate II as compared with HeartWare, and in patients who required ICD-related procedures post-LVAD. This is a plea to better select patients needing ICD implantation/replacement after LVAD implantation.

Background: An accurate estimation of the risk of life-threatening (LT) ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) in patients with LMNA mutations is crucial to select candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Methods: We included 839 adult patients with LMNA mutations, including 660 from a French nationwide registry in the development sample, and 179 from other countries, referred to 5 tertiary centers for cardiomyopathies, in the validation sample. LTVTA was defined as (1) sudden cardiac death or (2) implantable cardioverter defibrillator–treated or hemodynamically unstable VTA. The prognostic model was derived using the Fine-Gray regression model. The net reclassification was compared with current clinical practice guidelines. The results are presented as means (SD) or medians [interquartile range]. Results: We included 444 patients, 40.6 (14.1) years of age, in the derivation sample and 145 patients, 38.2 (15.0) years, in the validation sample, of whom 86 (19.3%) and 34 (23.4%) experienced LTVTA over 3.6 [1.0–7.2] and 5.1 [2.0–9.3] years of follow-up, respectively. Predictors of LTVTA in the derivation sample were: male sex, nonmissense LMNA mutation, first degree and higher atrioventricular block, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and left ventricular ejection fraction (https://lmna-risk-vta.fr). In the derivation sample, C-index (95% CI) of the model was 0.776 (0.711–0.842), and the calibration slope 0.827. In the external validation sample, the C-index was 0.800 (0.642–0.959), and the calibration slope was 1.082 (95% CI, 0.643–1.522). A 5-year estimated risk threshold ≥7% predicted 96.2% of LTVTA and net reclassified 28.8% of patients with LTVTA in comparison with the guidelines-based approach. Conclusions: In comparison with the current standard of care, this risk prediction model for LTVTA in laminopathies significantly facilitated the choice of candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03058185.

Left ventricular (LV) pacing at sites of prolonged LV delay (QLV) or at long interventricular delay (right ventricle [RV]-LV) is strongly associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. QLV and RV-LV have been independently evaluated, but little is known regarding the interrelationship between these measures or of delay to the RV.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between measures of electrical delay on CRT response in the SMART-AV (SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) trial.In 419 patients, QLV and RV-LV were measured. CRT response was defined as a >15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume from implant to 6 months. The correlation between QLV and RV-LV and the clinical variables associated with the difference between QLV and RV-LV (QRV) were determined. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between these measures on CRT response. A machine learning algorithm was used to construct a classification tree to predict response to CRT.The cohort was 66% male (age 66 ± 11 years), 75% had left bundle branch block; and QRS was 150 ± 25 ms. QLV and RV-LV were highly correlated (R2 = 0.71). A longer QRV was observed among patients with right bundle branch block, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and increased QRS. In a multivariable model including QLV, RV-LV, and other known predictors of CRT response, RV-LV, but not QLV, remained associated with CRT response (odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.26; P = .017). Combining the 2 measures achieved better prediction of CRT response in the group with intermediate RV-LV.RV-LV is a better predictor of CRT response than QLV. There is incremental value in using both measurements or QRV in certain subpopulations.

BACKGROUND Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) can occur after continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation as a single arrhythmic event or as electrical storm (ES) with multiple repetitive VA episodes. OBJECTIVE We aimed at analyzing the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of ES in LVAD recipients. METHODS Patients analyzed were those included in the multi-center ASSIST-ICD observational study. ES was consensually defined as occurrence of >= 3 separate episodes of sustained VAs within a 24-hour interval. RESULTS Of 652 patients with an LVAD, 61 (9%) presented ES dur-ing a median follow-up period of 9.1 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-22.1) months. The first ES occurred after 17 (IQR 4.0-56.2) days post LVAD implantation, most of them during the first month after the device implantation (63%). The incidence then tended to decrease during the initial years of follow-up and increased again after the third year post LVAD implantation. History of VAs before LVAD implantation and heart failure duration > 84 months were independent predictors of ES. The occurrence of ES was associated with an increased early mortality since 20 patients (33%) died within the first 2 weeks of ES. Twenty-two patients (36.1%) presented at least 1 recurrence of ES, occurring 43.0 (IQR 8.0-69.0) days after the initial ES. Patients experiencing ES had a significantly lower 1-year survival rate than did those free from ES (log-rank, P = .039). CONCLUSION There is a significant incidence of ES in patients with an LVAD. The short-term mortality after ES is high, and one-third of patients will die within 15 days. Whether radiofrequency ablation of arrhythmias improves outcomes would require further studies.

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to evaluate the incidence, clinical impact, and predictors of late ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients aiming to clarify implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indications. BACKGROUND The arrhythmic risk and need for ICD in patients implanted with an LVAD are not very well known. METHODS This observational study was conducted in 19 centers between 2006 and 2016. Late VAs were defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation occurring >30 days post-LVAD implantation, without acute reversible cause and requiring appropriate ICD therapy, external electrical shock, or medical therapy. RESULTS Among 659 LVAD recipients, 494 (median 58.9 years of age; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 20.7 +/- 7.4%; 73.1% HeartMate II, 18.6% HeartWare, 8.3% Jarvik 2000) were discharged alive from hospital and included in the final analysis. Late VAs occurred in 133 (26.9%) patients. Multivariable analysis identified 6 independent predictors of late VAs: VAs before LVAD implantation, atrial fibrillation before LVAD implantation, idiopathic etiology of the cardiomyopathy, heart failure duration >12 months, early VAs (<30 days post-LVAD), and no angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors during follow-up. The "VT-LVAD score" was created, identifying 4 risk groups: low (score 0 to 1), intermediate (score 2 to 4), high (score 5 to 6), and very high (score 7 to 10). The rates of VAs at 1 year were 0.0%, 8.0%, 31.0% and 55.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Late VAs are common after LVAD implantation. The VT-LVAD score may help to identify patients at risk of late VAs and guide ICD indications in previously nonimplanted patients. (Determination of Risk Factors of Ventricular Arrhythmias [VAs] after implantation of continuous flow left ventricular assist device with continuous flow left ventricular assist device (C) 2018 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

AIMS:Despite increased use of remote monitoring (RM) to follow up implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients, many patients still receive ICD shocks in the community and present to the emergency department. Our aim was to identify the best predictors of impending shock delivery that can be measured with an ICD and to identify the most appropriate activities to alert physicians to during RM follow-up.METHODS AND RESULTS:All patients presenting to our institution for ICD shock, from November 2011 to November 2014, were enrolled in this prospective study. Patient characteristics, investigation results, and details of electrical activities from ICD interrogation were recorded at presentation. Presentations were classified as potentially avoidable if activities from a list of set criteria were apparent more than 48 h before index shock. Univariate and multivariate analyses were then used to identify predictors of potentially avoidable shocks. In total, 109 emergency presentations were recorded in 90 patients (male: 85%; 57 ± 16 years; ischaemic cardiomyopathy: 49%; LVEF: 34 ± 13%; electrical storm: 40%), of which 26 (24%) were potentially avoidable. Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) episodes were the most important predictor of impending shock. Potentially avoidable shocks were preceded by more episodes of ATP than unavoidable shocks (13 [3-67] vs. 3 [0-10]; P < 0.001). Patients followed up with RM systems configured to generate alerts following ATP delivery experienced significantly less ICD shocks (24 vs. 16%, P < 0.01).CONCLUSION:Remote monitoring systems that generate alerts following ATP delivery could reduce emergency presentations for ICD shock by 24%, as ATP is a key predictor of impending shock delivery.