Search

Introduction: Pacemaker-dependent (PM) patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection require implantation of a temporary-pacemaker (TP) and delayed endocardial reimplantation or implantation of an epicardial-pacing-system (EPI) before device extraction. Our aim was to compare the TP and EPI-strategy after CIED extraction through a meta-analysis., Methods: We searched electronic databases up to 25 March 2022, for observational studies that reported clinical outcomes of PM-dependent patients implanted with TP or EPI-strategy after device extraction., Results: 3 studies were included enrolling 339 patients (TP: 156 patients; EPI: 183 patients). TP compared to EPI showed reduction in the composite outcome of relevant complications (all-cause death, infections, need for revision or upgrading of the reimplanted CIED) (12.1% vs 28.9%; RR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.25-0.81; p  = 0.008) and a trend in reduction of all-cause death (8.9% vs 14.2%; RR: 0.58; 95%CI: 0.33-1.05; p  = 0.07). Furthermore, TP-strategy proved to reduce need of upgrading (0% vs 12%; RR: 0.07; 95%CI: 0.01-0.52; p  = 0.009), reintervention on reimplanted CIED (1.9% vs 14.7%; RR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.05-0.48; p  = 0.001) and significant increase in pacing threshold (0% vs 5.4%; RR: 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03-0.92; p  = 0.04), with a longer discharge time (MD: 9.60 days; 95%CI: 1.98-17.22; p  = 0.01)., Conclusion: TP-strategy led to a reduction of the composite outcome of all-cause death and complications, upgrading, reintervention on reimplanted CIED, and risk of increase in pacing threshold compared to EPI-strategy, with longer discharge time.

Background: Implantable loop recorder (ILR) is still underutilized in clinical practice, especially in the setting of elderly patients with recurrent, traumatic, unexplained syncope. Data on the actual risk of traumatic syncopal recurrence during ILR monitoring in this specific patient setting are lacking., Research Design and Methods: Prospective, multicentre registry enrolling consecutive patients undergoing ILR insertion for unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope. In a proportion of enrolled patients, remote monitoring (RM) was used for device follow-up. The risk of traumatic and non-traumatic syncopal recurrences during ILR observation were prospectively assessed., Results: A total of 483 consecutive patients (68±14 years, 59% male) were enrolled. During a median follow-up of 18 months, a final diagnosis was reached in 270 patients (55.9%). The risk of syncopal and traumatic syncopal recurrence was of 26.5 and 9.3%, respectively. RM significantly reduced the time to diagnosis (19.7±10.3 vs. 22.1±10.8 months; p=0.015) and was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of syncope recurrence of 48% (p<0.001), and of traumatic syncope recurrence of 49% (p=0.018)., Conclusions: ILR monitoring is effective and safe in patients with unexplained, recurrent, traumatic syncope. RM reduces the time to diagnosis and significantly reduces the risk of traumatic and non-traumatic syncopal relapses.

Introduction: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the gold standard for lead removal. The increasing rate of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations and of CIED related complications highlight the importance of transvenous lead extraction ., Areas Covered: The TLE scenario is constantly changing. Optimizing lead related technology and improving TLE practice across the world are the cornerstones to improving safety and efficacy. We review the state of the art in TLE, focusing on potential future implications and improvements in terms of skills and technologies. Expert commentary: The increased number of extractions will increase the necessity of safe and effective TLE. New technologies, techniques and appropriate training is warranted across the world.