TBD Meeting (3021-20)

A phone, an app, and the next generation of implanted cardiac device data signaling produced an unprecedented level of data transmission compliance in a single-arm, multicenter, pilot study with 245 patients, adding momentum to the expanding penetration of personal smart devices into cardiac electrophysiology.

During 12-month follow-up, the 245 patients who received either a medically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)–pacemaker equipped with Bluetooth remote transmission capability had successful data transfer to their clinicians for 95% of their scheduled data uploads while using a personal phone or tablet as the link between their heart implant and the Internet. This rate significantly surpassed the transmission-success rates tallied by traditional, bedside transmitters in historical control groups, Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

A related analysis by Dr. Tarakji and colleagues of 811 patients from real-world practice who received similar implanted cardiac devices with the same remote-transmission capability showed a 93% rate of successful data transfers via smart devices.

In contrast, historical performance showed a 77% success rate in matched patients drawn from a pool of more than 69,000 people in routine care who had received a pacemaker or CRT-pacemaker that automatically transmitted to a bedside monitor. Historical transmission success among matched patients from a pool of more than 128,000 routine-care patients with similar implants who used a wand to interrogate their implants before the attached monitor transmitted their data had a 56% rate of successful transmissions.

Cardiac device signals that flow directly into a patient’s phone or pad and then relay automatically via an app to the clinic “are clearly much easier,” than the methods now used, observed Dr. Tarakji, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. “It is truly as seamless as possible. Patients don’t really need to do anything,” he said during a press briefing. The key is that most patients tend to keep their smart devices, especially their phones, near them all the time, which minimizes the chance that the implanted cardiac device might try to file a report when the patient is not positioned near the device that’s facilitating transmission. When patients use conventional, bedside transmitters they can forget to bring them on trips, while many fewer fail to take their phone. Another advantage is that the link between a phone and a cardiac implant can be started in the clinic once the patient downloads an app. Bedside units need home setup, and “some patients never even get theirs out of the box,” Dr. Tarakji lamented.

Another feature of handheld device transmissions that run off an app is that the app can display clinical metrics, activity, device performance, and transmission history, as well as educational information. All of these features can enhance patient engagement with their implanted device, their arrhythmia, and their health status. Bedside units often give patients little feedback, and they don’t display clinical data. “The real challenge for clinicians is what data you let patients see. That’s complicated,” Dr. Tarakji said.

“This study was designed to see whether the technology works. The next step is to study how it affects risk-factor modification” or other outcomes. “There are many opportunities” to explore with this new data transmission and processing capability, he concluded.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study enrolled patients at 20 centers in the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom during 2018, and the 245 patients who received a BlueSync device and were included in the analysis sent at least one of their scheduled data transmissions during their 12 months of follow-up. Participants were eligible if they were willing to use their own smart phone or pad that could interact with their cardiac implant, and included both first-time implant recipients as well as some patients who received replacement units.

Personal device–based data transmission from cardiac implants “will no doubt change the way we manage patients,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans, and a designated discussant for the report. “Every implanted cardiac device should be able to connect with a phone, which can improve adoption and adherence,” he said.

But the study has several limitations for interpreting the implications of the findings, starting with its limited size and single-arm design, noted a second discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. Another issue is the generalizability of the findings, which are likely biased by involving only patients who own a smart phone or tablet and may be more likely to transmit their data regardless of the means. And comparing transmission success in a prospective study with rates that occurred during real-world, routine practice could have a Hawthorne effect bias, where people under study behave differently than they do in everyday life. But that effect may be mitigated by confirmatory findings from a real-world group that also used smart-device transmission included in the report. Despite these caveats, it’s valuable to develop new ways of improving data collection from cardiac devices, Dr. Tung said.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Bluetooth-enabled cardiac devices. Dr. Tarakji has been a consultant to Medtronic, and also to AliveCor, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and he has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Tarakji KG. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A phone, an app, and the next generation of implanted cardiac device data signaling produced an unprecedented level of data transmission compliance in a single-arm, multicenter, pilot study with 245 patients, adding momentum to the expanding penetration of personal smart devices into cardiac electrophysiology.

During 12-month follow-up, the 245 patients who received either a medically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)–pacemaker equipped with Bluetooth remote transmission capability had successful data transfer to their clinicians for 95% of their scheduled data uploads while using a personal phone or tablet as the link between their heart implant and the Internet. This rate significantly surpassed the transmission-success rates tallied by traditional, bedside transmitters in historical control groups, Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

A related analysis by Dr. Tarakji and colleagues of 811 patients from real-world practice who received similar implanted cardiac devices with the same remote-transmission capability showed a 93% rate of successful data transfers via smart devices.

In contrast, historical performance showed a 77% success rate in matched patients drawn from a pool of more than 69,000 people in routine care who had received a pacemaker or CRT-pacemaker that automatically transmitted to a bedside monitor. Historical transmission success among matched patients from a pool of more than 128,000 routine-care patients with similar implants who used a wand to interrogate their implants before the attached monitor transmitted their data had a 56% rate of successful transmissions.

Cardiac device signals that flow directly into a patient’s phone or pad and then relay automatically via an app to the clinic “are clearly much easier,” than the methods now used, observed Dr. Tarakji, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. “It is truly as seamless as possible. Patients don’t really need to do anything,” he said during a press briefing. The key is that most patients tend to keep their smart devices, especially their phones, near them all the time, which minimizes the chance that the implanted cardiac device might try to file a report when the patient is not positioned near the device that’s facilitating transmission. When patients use conventional, bedside transmitters they can forget to bring them on trips, while many fewer fail to take their phone. Another advantage is that the link between a phone and a cardiac implant can be started in the clinic once the patient downloads an app. Bedside units need home setup, and “some patients never even get theirs out of the box,” Dr. Tarakji lamented.

Another feature of handheld device transmissions that run off an app is that the app can display clinical metrics, activity, device performance, and transmission history, as well as educational information. All of these features can enhance patient engagement with their implanted device, their arrhythmia, and their health status. Bedside units often give patients little feedback, and they don’t display clinical data. “The real challenge for clinicians is what data you let patients see. That’s complicated,” Dr. Tarakji said.

“This study was designed to see whether the technology works. The next step is to study how it affects risk-factor modification” or other outcomes. “There are many opportunities” to explore with this new data transmission and processing capability, he concluded.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study enrolled patients at 20 centers in the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom during 2018, and the 245 patients who received a BlueSync device and were included in the analysis sent at least one of their scheduled data transmissions during their 12 months of follow-up. Participants were eligible if they were willing to use their own smart phone or pad that could interact with their cardiac implant, and included both first-time implant recipients as well as some patients who received replacement units.

Personal device–based data transmission from cardiac implants “will no doubt change the way we manage patients,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans, and a designated discussant for the report. “Every implanted cardiac device should be able to connect with a phone, which can improve adoption and adherence,” he said.

But the study has several limitations for interpreting the implications of the findings, starting with its limited size and single-arm design, noted a second discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. Another issue is the generalizability of the findings, which are likely biased by involving only patients who own a smart phone or tablet and may be more likely to transmit their data regardless of the means. And comparing transmission success in a prospective study with rates that occurred during real-world, routine practice could have a Hawthorne effect bias, where people under study behave differently than they do in everyday life. But that effect may be mitigated by confirmatory findings from a real-world group that also used smart-device transmission included in the report. Despite these caveats, it’s valuable to develop new ways of improving data collection from cardiac devices, Dr. Tung said.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Bluetooth-enabled cardiac devices. Dr. Tarakji has been a consultant to Medtronic, and also to AliveCor, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and he has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Tarakji KG. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A phone, an app, and the next generation of implanted cardiac device data signaling produced an unprecedented level of data transmission compliance in a single-arm, multicenter, pilot study with 245 patients, adding momentum to the expanding penetration of personal smart devices into cardiac electrophysiology.

During 12-month follow-up, the 245 patients who received either a medically indicated pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)–pacemaker equipped with Bluetooth remote transmission capability had successful data transfer to their clinicians for 95% of their scheduled data uploads while using a personal phone or tablet as the link between their heart implant and the Internet. This rate significantly surpassed the transmission-success rates tallied by traditional, bedside transmitters in historical control groups, Khaldoun G. Tarakji, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

A related analysis by Dr. Tarakji and colleagues of 811 patients from real-world practice who received similar implanted cardiac devices with the same remote-transmission capability showed a 93% rate of successful data transfers via smart devices.

In contrast, historical performance showed a 77% success rate in matched patients drawn from a pool of more than 69,000 people in routine care who had received a pacemaker or CRT-pacemaker that automatically transmitted to a bedside monitor. Historical transmission success among matched patients from a pool of more than 128,000 routine-care patients with similar implants who used a wand to interrogate their implants before the attached monitor transmitted their data had a 56% rate of successful transmissions.

Cardiac device signals that flow directly into a patient’s phone or pad and then relay automatically via an app to the clinic “are clearly much easier,” than the methods now used, observed Dr. Tarakji, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Cleveland Clinic. “It is truly as seamless as possible. Patients don’t really need to do anything,” he said during a press briefing. The key is that most patients tend to keep their smart devices, especially their phones, near them all the time, which minimizes the chance that the implanted cardiac device might try to file a report when the patient is not positioned near the device that’s facilitating transmission. When patients use conventional, bedside transmitters they can forget to bring them on trips, while many fewer fail to take their phone. Another advantage is that the link between a phone and a cardiac implant can be started in the clinic once the patient downloads an app. Bedside units need home setup, and “some patients never even get theirs out of the box,” Dr. Tarakji lamented.

Another feature of handheld device transmissions that run off an app is that the app can display clinical metrics, activity, device performance, and transmission history, as well as educational information. All of these features can enhance patient engagement with their implanted device, their arrhythmia, and their health status. Bedside units often give patients little feedback, and they don’t display clinical data. “The real challenge for clinicians is what data you let patients see. That’s complicated,” Dr. Tarakji said.

“This study was designed to see whether the technology works. The next step is to study how it affects risk-factor modification” or other outcomes. “There are many opportunities” to explore with this new data transmission and processing capability, he concluded.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study enrolled patients at 20 centers in the United States, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom during 2018, and the 245 patients who received a BlueSync device and were included in the analysis sent at least one of their scheduled data transmissions during their 12 months of follow-up. Participants were eligible if they were willing to use their own smart phone or pad that could interact with their cardiac implant, and included both first-time implant recipients as well as some patients who received replacement units.

Personal device–based data transmission from cardiac implants “will no doubt change the way we manage patients,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University in New Orleans, and a designated discussant for the report. “Every implanted cardiac device should be able to connect with a phone, which can improve adoption and adherence,” he said.

But the study has several limitations for interpreting the implications of the findings, starting with its limited size and single-arm design, noted a second discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. Another issue is the generalizability of the findings, which are likely biased by involving only patients who own a smart phone or tablet and may be more likely to transmit their data regardless of the means. And comparing transmission success in a prospective study with rates that occurred during real-world, routine practice could have a Hawthorne effect bias, where people under study behave differently than they do in everyday life. But that effect may be mitigated by confirmatory findings from a real-world group that also used smart-device transmission included in the report. Despite these caveats, it’s valuable to develop new ways of improving data collection from cardiac devices, Dr. Tung said.

The BlueSync Field Evaluation study was sponsored by Medtronic, the company that markets Bluetooth-enabled cardiac devices. Dr. Tarakji has been a consultant to Medtronic, and also to AliveCor, Boston Scientific, and Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and he has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Tarakji KG. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The implantable defibrillator with subcutaneous leads, designed in part to minimize the risk for potentially serious lead-related complications, has reached a milestone by turning in a “noninferior” performance when it was compared with transvenous-lead devices in a first-of-its-kind head-to-head study.

Patients implanted with the subcutaneous-lead S-ICD (Boston Scientific) defibrillator showed a 4-year risk for inappropriate shocks or device-related complications similar to that seen with standard transvenous-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) in a randomized comparison.

At the same time, the S-ICD did its job by showing a highly significant three-fourths reduction in risk for lead-related complications, compared with ICDs with standard leads, in the trial with more than 800 patients, called PRAETORIAN.

The study population represented a mix of patients seen in “real-world” practice who have an ICD indication, of whom about two-thirds had ischemic cardiomyopathy, said Reinoud Knops, MD, PhD, Academic Medical Center, Hilversum, the Netherlands. About 80% received the devices for primary prevention.

Knops, the trial’s principal investigator, presented the results online May 8 as one of the Heart Rhythm Society 2020 Scientific Sessions virtual presentations.

“I think the PRAETORIAN trial has really shown now, in a conventional ICD population – the real-world patients that we treat with ICD therapy, the single-chamber ICD cohort – that the S-ICD is a really good alternative option,” he said to reporters during a media briefing.

“The main conclusion is that the S-ICD should be considered in all patients who need an ICD who do not have a pacing indication,” Knops said.

This latter part is critical, because the S-ICD does not provide pacing therapy, including antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and the trial did not enter patients considered likely to benefit from it. For example, it excluded anyone with bradycardia or treatment-refractory monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) and patients considered appropriate for CRT.

In fact, there are a lot reasons clinicians might prefer a transvenous-lead ICD over the S-ICD, observed Anne B. Curtis, MD, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, who is not associated with PRAETORIAN.

A transvenous-lead system might be preferred in older patients, those with heart failure, and those with a lot of comorbidities. “A lot of these patients already have cardiomyopathies, so they’re more likely to develop atrial fibrillation or a need for CRT,” conditions that might make a transvenous-lead system the better choice, Curtis told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“For a lot of patients, you’re always thinking that you may have a need for that kind of therapy.”

In contrast, younger patients who perhaps have survived cardiac arrest and probably don’t have heart failure, and so may be less likely to benefit from pacing therapy, Curtis said, “are the kind of patient who you would probably lean very strongly toward for an S-ICD rather than a transvenous ICD.”

Remaining patients, those who might be considered candidates for either kind of device, are actually “a fairly limited subset,” she said.

The trial randomized 849 patients in Europe and the United States, from March 2011 to January 2017, who had a class I or IIa indication for an ICD but no bradycardia or need for CRT or ATP, to be implanted with an S-ICD or a transvenous-lead ICD.

The rates of the primary end point, a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks at a median follow-up of 4 years, were comparable, at 15.1% in the S-ICD group and 15.7% for those with transvenous-lead ICDs.

The incidence of device-related complications numerically favored the S-ICD group, and the incidence of inappropriate shocks numerically favored the transvenous-lead group, but neither difference reached significance.

Knops said the PRAETORIAN researchers are seeking addition funding to extend the follow-up to 8 years. “We will get more insight into the durability of the S-ICD when we follow these patients longer,” he told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

The investigator-initiated trial received support from Boston Scientific. Knops discloses receiving consultancy fees and research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Cairdac, and holding stock options from AtaCor Medical.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with atrial fibrillation, even those on oral anticoagulant therapy, developed clinically silent brain infarctions at a striking rate of close to 3% per year, according to results from SWISS-AF, a prospective of study of 1,227 Swiss patients followed with serial MR brain scans over a 2 year period.

The results also showed that these brain infarctions – which occurred in 68 (5.5%) of the atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients, including 58 (85%) who did not have any strokes or transient ischemic attacks during follow-up – appeared to represent enough pathology to link with a small but statistically significant decline in three separate cognitive measures, compared with patients who did not develop brain infarctions during follow-up.

“Cognitive decline may go unrecognized for a long time in clinical practice because usually no one tests for it,” plus “the absolute declines were small and probably not appreciable” in the everyday behavior of affected patients, David Conen, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. But “we were surprised to see a significant change after just 2 years. We expect much larger effects to develop over time,” he said during a press briefing.

Another key finding was that roughly half the patients had large cortical or noncortical infarcts, which usually have a thromboembolic cause, but the other half had small noncortical infarcts that likely have a different etiology involving the microvasculature. Causes for those small infarcts might include localized atherosclerotic disease or amyloidosis, proposed Dr. Conen, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

This finding also suggests that, as a consequence, anticoagulation alone may not be enough to prevent this brain damage in Afib patients. “It calls for a more comprehensive approach to prevention,” with attention to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors in AFib patients, including interventions that address hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking cessation. “Anticoagulation in AFib patients is critical, but it also is not enough,” Dr. Conen said.

These data “are very important. The two pillars for taking care of AFib patients have traditionally been to manage the patient’s stroke risk and to treat symptoms. Dr. Conen’s data suggest that simply starting anticoagulation is not sufficient, and it stresses the importance of continued management of hypertension, diabetes, and other medical and social issues,” commented Fred Kusumoto, MD, director of heart rhythm services at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

“The risk factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease are similar to those associated with the development of AFib and heart failure. It is important to understand the importance of managing hypertension, diabetes, and obesity; encouraging exercise and a healthy diet; and stopping smoking in all AFib patients as well as in the general population. Many clinicians have not emphasized the importance of continually addressing these behaviors,” Dr. Kusumoto said in an interview.

The SWISS-AF (Swiss Atrial Fibrillation Cohort) study enrolled 2,415 AFib patients at 14 Swiss centers during 2014-2017, and obtained both a baseline brain MR scan and baseline cognitive-test results for 1,737 patients (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar;73[9]:989-99). Patients retook the cognitive tests annually, and 1,227 had a second MR brain scan after 2 years in the study, the cohort that supplied the data Dr. Conen presented. At baseline, these patients averaged 71 years of age, just over a quarter were women, and 90% were on an oral anticoagulant, with 84% on an oral anticoagulant at 2-year follow-up. Treatment split roughly equally between direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists like warfarin.

Among the 68 patients with evidence for an incident brain infarct after 2 years, 59 (87%) were on treatment with an OAC, and 51 (75%) who were both on treatment with a direct-acting oral anticoagulant and developed their brain infarct without also having a stroke or transient ischemic attack, which Dr. Conen called a “silent event.” The cognitive tests that showed statistically significant declines after 2 years in the patients with silent brain infarcts compared with those without a new infarct were the Trail Making Test parts A and B, and the animal-naming verbal fluency test. The two other tests applied were the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Digital Symbol Substitution Test.

Results from several prior studies also indicated a relationship between AFib and cognitive decline, but SWISS-AF is “the largest study to rigorously examine the incidence of silent brain infarcts in AFib patients,” commented Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Silent infarcts could be the cause, at least in part, for the cognitive decline and dementia associated with AFib,” she noted. But divining the therapeutic implications of the finding will require further investigation that looks at factors such as the impact of anticoagulant type, other treatment that addresses AFib such as ablation and rate control, the duration and type of AFib, and the prevalence of hypertension and other stroke risk factors, she said as a designated discussant for Dr. Conen’s report.

SWISS-AF received no commercial funding. Dr. Conen has been a speaker on behalf of Servier. Dr. Kusumoto had no disclosures. Dr. Albert has been a consultant to Roche Diagnostics and has received research funding from Abbott, Roche Diagnostics, and St. Jude Medical.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and a sharply reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less safely received treatment from a refined, subcutaneous device that produced one of the lowest rates of inappropriate cardiac shocks ever seen in a reported ICD study, in a single-arm trial with 1,111 patients followed for 18 months.

The results showed “high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming” despite being “the ‘sickest’ cohort studied to date” for use of a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), Michael R. Gold, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. The 3.1% 1-year rate of patients who received at least one inappropriate shock was “the lowest reported for the S-ICD, and lower than in many transvenous ICD device studies,” and was also “the lowest 1-year rate reported to date for a multicenter ICD trial,” said Dr. Gold, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The upshot is that these data may help convince clinicians to be more liberal about offering a S-ICD device to patients with left ventricular function in this low range who need an ICD and do not need pacing.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from inappropriate shocks during 18 months of follow-up, which happened in 95.9% of patients and was highly statistically significant for meeting the prespecified performance goal of 91.6% that had been set using “standard Food and Drug Administration benchmarks,” with particular reliance on the performance shown in the MADIT-RIT trial (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367[24]:2275-83).
 

S-ICDs maintain ‘niche’ status despite advantages

The S-ICD first received Food and Drug Administration clearance for U.S. use in 2012, but despite not requiring placement of a transvenous lead and thus eliminating the possibility for lead complications and deterioration, it so far has had very modest penetration into American practice. Recently, roughly 4% of U.S. patients who’ve received an ICD have had a subcutaneous model placed, relegating the S-ICD to “niche device” status, noted Andrea M. Russo, MD, director of electrophysiology and arrhythmia services at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. A major limitation of S-ICD devices is that they cannot provide chronic pacing and so aren’t an option for the many patients who also need this function in addition to protection from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

“We have had a bias for whom we place an S-ICD,” explained Dr. Gold. “They have mostly been used in younger patients with less heart disease,” but when used in the current study cohort with markedly depressed heart function, the results showed that “we didn’t appear to harm patients in any way,” including no episodes of syncope because of an arrhythmia. Compared with other S-ICD studies, the patients in the new study, UNTOUCHED, had “lower ejection fractions, more heart failure diagnoses, and a higher rate of ischemic etiology.”

The tested S-ICD device appears to have safety and efficacy that is “just as good, and perhaps better” than many ICDs that use transvenous leads, “which was very surprising to us,” said Dr. Gold during a press briefing. “I think it will change practice” for ICD placement in patients who do not need pacing. “We found the device works even in the sickest patients.”

“This was a classic ICD population, with a low ejection fraction, and the results showed that the device performed well,” commented Dr. Russo, who served on the steering committee for the study. “I agree that the results will help” increase use of this device, but she added that other factors in addition to concerns about the inappropriate shock rate and the lack of most pacing functions have hobbled uptake since the device came on the market. These notably include a somewhat different placement approach than operators need to learn. The device is not always offered as an option to patients by their clinicians “in part because of their lack of familiarity, and concern about inappropriate shocks,” she said in an interview. That’s despite the clear attractions of a leaderless device, which obviates issues of lead deterioration, lead placement complications like perforations and pneumothorax, and sizing issues that can come up for women with narrower veins, as well as cutting the risk both for infections overall and for infections that progress to bacteremia, noted Dr. Russo, who is president of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 

Device improvements boost performance

The low 1-year and 18-month rates of inappropriate shocks likely occurred because of new filtering and programming incorporated into the tested device. “By changing the filter, we could make it more like a transvenous device” that is not fooled by T wave over sensing. The programing also included a high beat threshold, with a conditional zone above 200 beats per minute and an “aggressive shock zone” of 250 bpm, Dr. Gold said. This helped make the tested S-ICD more immune to inappropriately shocking a supraventricular arrhythmia; the study recorded no inappropriate shocks of this type, he reported.

The UNTOUCHED study enrolled 1,116 patients at any of 110 sites in the United States and elsewhere who had a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, no need for pacing, and had successfully passed an S-ICD screening test. The investigators were able to include 1,111 of these patients in their endpoint analysis. Patients averaged 56 years of age, a quarter were women, and their average ejection fraction was 26%.

In addition to the primary endpoint and the 1-year inappropriate-shock rate, the results also showed an all-cause shock-free rate of 90.6% during 18-months’ follow-up, which significantly surpassed the prespecified performance goal for this metric of 85.8%. The tested device also appeared to successfully apply appropriate shocks when needed, delivering a total of 64 of these with just 1 shock failure, a case where the patient spontaneously reverted to normal rhythm. During the study period, 53 patients died (5%), including 3 arrhythmia-related deaths: 1 caused by asystole and 2 from pulseless electrical activity.

“The data show that in a standard ICD population, the device worked well, and was safe and effective,” Dr. Russo said. “These data say, at least consider this device along with a transvenous device” for appropriate patients. “It’s a great option for some patients. I’ve seen so may lead problems, and this avoids them.”

UNTOUCHED was sponsored by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the tested S-ICD. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic and has been an investigator for trials sponsored by each of these companies. Dr. Russo served on the steering committee for UNTOUCHED but received no compensation and has no financial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and a sharply reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less safely received treatment from a refined, subcutaneous device that produced one of the lowest rates of inappropriate cardiac shocks ever seen in a reported ICD study, in a single-arm trial with 1,111 patients followed for 18 months.

The results showed “high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming” despite being “the ‘sickest’ cohort studied to date” for use of a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), Michael R. Gold, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. The 3.1% 1-year rate of patients who received at least one inappropriate shock was “the lowest reported for the S-ICD, and lower than in many transvenous ICD device studies,” and was also “the lowest 1-year rate reported to date for a multicenter ICD trial,” said Dr. Gold, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The upshot is that these data may help convince clinicians to be more liberal about offering a S-ICD device to patients with left ventricular function in this low range who need an ICD and do not need pacing.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from inappropriate shocks during 18 months of follow-up, which happened in 95.9% of patients and was highly statistically significant for meeting the prespecified performance goal of 91.6% that had been set using “standard Food and Drug Administration benchmarks,” with particular reliance on the performance shown in the MADIT-RIT trial (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367[24]:2275-83).
 

S-ICDs maintain ‘niche’ status despite advantages

The S-ICD first received Food and Drug Administration clearance for U.S. use in 2012, but despite not requiring placement of a transvenous lead and thus eliminating the possibility for lead complications and deterioration, it so far has had very modest penetration into American practice. Recently, roughly 4% of U.S. patients who’ve received an ICD have had a subcutaneous model placed, relegating the S-ICD to “niche device” status, noted Andrea M. Russo, MD, director of electrophysiology and arrhythmia services at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. A major limitation of S-ICD devices is that they cannot provide chronic pacing and so aren’t an option for the many patients who also need this function in addition to protection from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

“We have had a bias for whom we place an S-ICD,” explained Dr. Gold. “They have mostly been used in younger patients with less heart disease,” but when used in the current study cohort with markedly depressed heart function, the results showed that “we didn’t appear to harm patients in any way,” including no episodes of syncope because of an arrhythmia. Compared with other S-ICD studies, the patients in the new study, UNTOUCHED, had “lower ejection fractions, more heart failure diagnoses, and a higher rate of ischemic etiology.”

The tested S-ICD device appears to have safety and efficacy that is “just as good, and perhaps better” than many ICDs that use transvenous leads, “which was very surprising to us,” said Dr. Gold during a press briefing. “I think it will change practice” for ICD placement in patients who do not need pacing. “We found the device works even in the sickest patients.”

“This was a classic ICD population, with a low ejection fraction, and the results showed that the device performed well,” commented Dr. Russo, who served on the steering committee for the study. “I agree that the results will help” increase use of this device, but she added that other factors in addition to concerns about the inappropriate shock rate and the lack of most pacing functions have hobbled uptake since the device came on the market. These notably include a somewhat different placement approach than operators need to learn. The device is not always offered as an option to patients by their clinicians “in part because of their lack of familiarity, and concern about inappropriate shocks,” she said in an interview. That’s despite the clear attractions of a leaderless device, which obviates issues of lead deterioration, lead placement complications like perforations and pneumothorax, and sizing issues that can come up for women with narrower veins, as well as cutting the risk both for infections overall and for infections that progress to bacteremia, noted Dr. Russo, who is president of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 

Device improvements boost performance

The low 1-year and 18-month rates of inappropriate shocks likely occurred because of new filtering and programming incorporated into the tested device. “By changing the filter, we could make it more like a transvenous device” that is not fooled by T wave over sensing. The programing also included a high beat threshold, with a conditional zone above 200 beats per minute and an “aggressive shock zone” of 250 bpm, Dr. Gold said. This helped make the tested S-ICD more immune to inappropriately shocking a supraventricular arrhythmia; the study recorded no inappropriate shocks of this type, he reported.

The UNTOUCHED study enrolled 1,116 patients at any of 110 sites in the United States and elsewhere who had a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, no need for pacing, and had successfully passed an S-ICD screening test. The investigators were able to include 1,111 of these patients in their endpoint analysis. Patients averaged 56 years of age, a quarter were women, and their average ejection fraction was 26%.

In addition to the primary endpoint and the 1-year inappropriate-shock rate, the results also showed an all-cause shock-free rate of 90.6% during 18-months’ follow-up, which significantly surpassed the prespecified performance goal for this metric of 85.8%. The tested device also appeared to successfully apply appropriate shocks when needed, delivering a total of 64 of these with just 1 shock failure, a case where the patient spontaneously reverted to normal rhythm. During the study period, 53 patients died (5%), including 3 arrhythmia-related deaths: 1 caused by asystole and 2 from pulseless electrical activity.

“The data show that in a standard ICD population, the device worked well, and was safe and effective,” Dr. Russo said. “These data say, at least consider this device along with a transvenous device” for appropriate patients. “It’s a great option for some patients. I’ve seen so may lead problems, and this avoids them.”

UNTOUCHED was sponsored by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the tested S-ICD. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic and has been an investigator for trials sponsored by each of these companies. Dr. Russo served on the steering committee for UNTOUCHED but received no compensation and has no financial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardiac defibrillator for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death and a sharply reduced left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less safely received treatment from a refined, subcutaneous device that produced one of the lowest rates of inappropriate cardiac shocks ever seen in a reported ICD study, in a single-arm trial with 1,111 patients followed for 18 months.

The results showed “high efficacy and safety with contemporary devices and programming” despite being “the ‘sickest’ cohort studied to date” for use of a subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), Michael R. Gold, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19. The 3.1% 1-year rate of patients who received at least one inappropriate shock was “the lowest reported for the S-ICD, and lower than in many transvenous ICD device studies,” and was also “the lowest 1-year rate reported to date for a multicenter ICD trial,” said Dr. Gold, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. The upshot is that these data may help convince clinicians to be more liberal about offering a S-ICD device to patients with left ventricular function in this low range who need an ICD and do not need pacing.

The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of freedom from inappropriate shocks during 18 months of follow-up, which happened in 95.9% of patients and was highly statistically significant for meeting the prespecified performance goal of 91.6% that had been set using “standard Food and Drug Administration benchmarks,” with particular reliance on the performance shown in the MADIT-RIT trial (N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 13;367[24]:2275-83).
 

S-ICDs maintain ‘niche’ status despite advantages

The S-ICD first received Food and Drug Administration clearance for U.S. use in 2012, but despite not requiring placement of a transvenous lead and thus eliminating the possibility for lead complications and deterioration, it so far has had very modest penetration into American practice. Recently, roughly 4% of U.S. patients who’ve received an ICD have had a subcutaneous model placed, relegating the S-ICD to “niche device” status, noted Andrea M. Russo, MD, director of electrophysiology and arrhythmia services at Cooper University Health Care in Camden, N.J. A major limitation of S-ICD devices is that they cannot provide chronic pacing and so aren’t an option for the many patients who also need this function in addition to protection from life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias.

“We have had a bias for whom we place an S-ICD,” explained Dr. Gold. “They have mostly been used in younger patients with less heart disease,” but when used in the current study cohort with markedly depressed heart function, the results showed that “we didn’t appear to harm patients in any way,” including no episodes of syncope because of an arrhythmia. Compared with other S-ICD studies, the patients in the new study, UNTOUCHED, had “lower ejection fractions, more heart failure diagnoses, and a higher rate of ischemic etiology.”

The tested S-ICD device appears to have safety and efficacy that is “just as good, and perhaps better” than many ICDs that use transvenous leads, “which was very surprising to us,” said Dr. Gold during a press briefing. “I think it will change practice” for ICD placement in patients who do not need pacing. “We found the device works even in the sickest patients.”

“This was a classic ICD population, with a low ejection fraction, and the results showed that the device performed well,” commented Dr. Russo, who served on the steering committee for the study. “I agree that the results will help” increase use of this device, but she added that other factors in addition to concerns about the inappropriate shock rate and the lack of most pacing functions have hobbled uptake since the device came on the market. These notably include a somewhat different placement approach than operators need to learn. The device is not always offered as an option to patients by their clinicians “in part because of their lack of familiarity, and concern about inappropriate shocks,” she said in an interview. That’s despite the clear attractions of a leaderless device, which obviates issues of lead deterioration, lead placement complications like perforations and pneumothorax, and sizing issues that can come up for women with narrower veins, as well as cutting the risk both for infections overall and for infections that progress to bacteremia, noted Dr. Russo, who is president of the Heart Rhythm Society.
 

Device improvements boost performance

The low 1-year and 18-month rates of inappropriate shocks likely occurred because of new filtering and programming incorporated into the tested device. “By changing the filter, we could make it more like a transvenous device” that is not fooled by T wave over sensing. The programing also included a high beat threshold, with a conditional zone above 200 beats per minute and an “aggressive shock zone” of 250 bpm, Dr. Gold said. This helped make the tested S-ICD more immune to inappropriately shocking a supraventricular arrhythmia; the study recorded no inappropriate shocks of this type, he reported.

The UNTOUCHED study enrolled 1,116 patients at any of 110 sites in the United States and elsewhere who had a need for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, no need for pacing, and had successfully passed an S-ICD screening test. The investigators were able to include 1,111 of these patients in their endpoint analysis. Patients averaged 56 years of age, a quarter were women, and their average ejection fraction was 26%.

In addition to the primary endpoint and the 1-year inappropriate-shock rate, the results also showed an all-cause shock-free rate of 90.6% during 18-months’ follow-up, which significantly surpassed the prespecified performance goal for this metric of 85.8%. The tested device also appeared to successfully apply appropriate shocks when needed, delivering a total of 64 of these with just 1 shock failure, a case where the patient spontaneously reverted to normal rhythm. During the study period, 53 patients died (5%), including 3 arrhythmia-related deaths: 1 caused by asystole and 2 from pulseless electrical activity.

“The data show that in a standard ICD population, the device worked well, and was safe and effective,” Dr. Russo said. “These data say, at least consider this device along with a transvenous device” for appropriate patients. “It’s a great option for some patients. I’ve seen so may lead problems, and this avoids them.”

UNTOUCHED was sponsored by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the tested S-ICD. Dr. Gold has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and Medtronic and has been an investigator for trials sponsored by each of these companies. Dr. Russo served on the steering committee for UNTOUCHED but received no compensation and has no financial disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.

Moderate, daily coffee consumption had no apparent adverse effect for triggering incident heart arrhythmias, and even linked with a small but statistically significant drop in arrhythmias in an analysis of prospectively collected data from nearly 300,000 U.K. residents.

“In this large, population-based, prospective study, moderate habitual coffee drinking was associated with a lower risk of arrhythmia,” EunJeong Kim, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

Her analysis found that on average each additional daily cup of coffee that people said they drank reduced the incidence of arrhythmic episodes by a statistically significant 3%, compared with those who drank fewer daily cups. The relationship held for people who reported drinking as many as five or six cups of coffee daily.

“The main message of our study is that it does not appear to be deleterious to continue with moderate amounts of habitual coffee intake regarding a risk of overall arrhythmia,” said Dr. Kim, a cardiac electrophysiologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Evidence builds for coffee’s safety

The finding adds to a substantial existing evidence base documenting the safety of moderate, habitual coffee drinking when it comes to heart rhythms. For example, a recent report from the Physicians Health Study of nearly 19,000 American men showed a statistically significant decrease in the incidence of atrial fibrillation during an average follow-up of 9 years among men who reported drinking one to three cups of coffee daily (J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Aug 6;8[15]:e011346). In addition, a recent review of several reports found that “mild-to-moderate habitual consumption of caffeinated beverages, particularly a daily intake of 2-3 cups of coffee or tea, appears to be safe across a broad range of cardiovascular conditions, and may even be beneficial with respect to diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, heart failure, arrhythmia and total mortality,” but also concluded that “acute consumption of high doses of caffeine, particularly in the form of energy drinks, is best avoided”(Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2019 Aug;29[6]:345-50). Specifically about cardiac arrhythmias, the review said “while caffeine is commonly considered a trigger for arrhythmias by physicians and patients alike there is minimal evidence to support this misconception. Rather caffeine is associated with a mild reduction in the incidence of atrial fibrillation in observational studies.”

“There has been a lot of public interest about a possible association of caffeine and arrhythmias,” but an adverse effect from daily consumption of a moderate amount of coffee “is more legend and anecdote than fact based,” commented Andrew D. Krahn, MD, an electrophysiologist, professor of medicine, and head of cardiology at the University of British Columbia and St. Paul’s Hospital in Vancouver. “Increasingly we’re finding that there really is nothing here” when the proarrhythmic effects of moderate coffee undergo detailed assessment, he said in an interview.
 

What the study did

The study run by Dr. Kim and her associates used prospectively collected data from 296,227 participants in the UK Biobank during 2006-2016 who had complete data on their coffee intake and for the other covariables used in the analysis. During an average 5.25 years of follow-up, these people had more than 13,000 incident arrhythmic events, including 4,748 episodes of atrial fibrillation or flutter and 798 supraventricular tachycardia events, as well as fewer numbers of ventricular arrhythmias and many episodes of less clinically relevant events like skipped beats.

The multivariate analysis the researchers ran controlled for more than 20 demographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables, including adjustment for tea intake but not for consumption of other caffeine-containing drinks.

The adjusted analysis showed an average, statistically significant 3% incremental drop in both all incident arrhythmias and in incident atrial fibrillation episodes for each additional cup of coffee drunk a day, for up to 6 daily cups.

A strength of this study is that it included a large number of people, Dr. Krahn noted, and “the UK Biobank includes a very diverse, community-based sample” of people, said Dr. Kim. The analysis excluded people with prevalent arrhythmia at baseline, so the study couldn’t address the impact of coffee consumption in this setting. A limitation of the study is that participants in the UK Biobank are all volunteers, which could result in a selection bias, Dr. Krahn said.
 

What it tells us

While the main message from the results is that moderate daily coffee drinking is not arrhythmogenic, “it is also possible that coffee is beneficial” based on the small but statistically significant decline in new-onset events, Dr. Kim added. “Multiple studies revealed that caffeine and potentially other constituents in coffee have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Multiple studies have reported the potential benefit of coffee in multiple chronic medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancers, as well as for all-cause mortality.”

“It’s plausible that a moderate amount of coffee intake a day will not cause big physiologic changes, and moderate coffee intake may link with other characteristics” of moderate behavior that result in average or better than average outcomes, Dr. Krahn commented. “These results add to the existing data in a different and large population,” which strengthens the case that moderate coffee intake isn’t harmful, he said.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kim and Dr. Krahn had no disclosures. The senior author on Dr. Kim’s study, Gregory M. Marcus, MD, has been a consultant to Johnson & Johnson and Incardia, has an equity interest in Incardia, and has received research funding from Baylis, Eight Sleep, and Medtronic.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kim EJ et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, abstract D-PO01-032.