Search

Background The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome. Objective To evaluate patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD. Methods Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation. Results 176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] versus 56 [50-81], p=0.029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] versus 25 [10-50], p=0.019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] versus 81 [63-94], p=0.02). Conclusions Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

In the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections with concomitant viral infection has not been completely defined yet. In this explorable context, we report the first experience of a Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation after transvenous lead extraction for endocarditis in a COVID-19 patient. We describe both the measures and procedures implemented to reduce the cross-infection in the operating room and our clinical practice to improving procedure effectiveness on patient care. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare disease with a significant impact and an increasing mortality despite earlier diagnosis and surgical intervention. It is related to several and the main etiological agents are the Gram-positive cocci. The new guidelines propose new diagnostic criteria that consider the potentiality on integrated multimodality imaging. Echocardiography (TTE) plays a key role for the diagnosis of IE and must be performed as soon as IE is suspected. It allows to identify vegetation, abscess, new dehiscence of prosthetic valve and assesses the number, size, shape, location, echogenicity and mobility of vegetations so it also useful for prediction embolic risk. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is indicated when TTE is positive or non diagnostic, in case of suspected complications and when intracardiac device leads are present. We underline the increasing role of three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography in overcoming the limit of 2DTEE in selecting the maximum true diameter of irregular masses (ie, vegetation). We also underline the diagnostic value of multislice computed tomograpfy (MSCT), cerebral magnetic resonance (RMI) and nuclear imaging and also emphasize the emerging role of particular types of endocarditis specially Lead Endocarditis. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the imaging techniques useful for the diagnosis and identification of any complications. In our opinion, the management of IE is complex, based on an "Endocarditis team " composed by several specialist and an integrated multimodality imaging is essential for the diagnostic approach.

BACKGROUND The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted. AIMS We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique. METHODS We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique. RESULTS A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been implicated in a wide spectrum of cardiac manifestations following the acute phase of the disease. Objectives: To assess the range of cardiac sequelae after COVID-19 recovery. Data sources: PubMed, Embase, Scopus (inception through 17 February 2021) and Google scholar (2019 through 17 February 2021). Study eligibility criteria: Prospective and retrospective studies, case reports and case series. Participants: Adult patients assessed for cardiac manifestations after COVID-19 recovery. Exposure: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection diagnosed by PCR. Methods: Systematic review. Results: Thirty-five studies (fifteen prospective cohort, seven case reports, five cross-sectional, four case series, three retrospective cohort and one ambidirectional cohort) evaluating cardiac sequelae in 52 609 patients were included. Twenty-nine studies used objective cardiac assessments, mostly cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in 16 studies, echocardiography in 15, electrocardiography (ECG) in 16 and cardiac biomarkers in 18. Most studies had a fair risk of bias. The median time from diagnosis/recovery to cardiac assessment was 48 days (1–180 days). Common short-term cardiac abnormalities (

BackgroundRemote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC).MethodsWe used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients.ResultsHCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (€1044.89 ± €1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (€482.87 ± €2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: €`886.67 ± €1979.13 vs RM: €432.34 ± €2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: €169.49 ± €189.50 vs RM: €56.87 ± €80.22; P < .0001). Patients’ quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group.ConclusionRM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.

Aims Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with a subsequent increased risk of death, and an elevation of cardiac enzymes has been measured after defibrillation testing (DFT). In an experimental swine study, subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) shocks caused less myocardial damage than traditional ICD shocks. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between S-ICD shock and acute cardiac damage in humans, as evaluated by means of sensitive and highly specific circulating biomarkers.Methods and results We calculated the variation in the serum levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-CTnI) and creatine kinase- and results MB mass concentration (CK-MB mass), measured before and after an S-ICD shock delivered during intraoperative DFT. We also measured the degree of haemodynamic stress, as the variation in the serum levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and copeptin (CP), after the S-ICD shock. We analysed 30 consecutive patients who received an S-ICD and who underwent DFT by means of a single 65) shock. The levels of biomarkers did not change from baseline to 1h post-shock, i.e. hs-CTnI (from 0.029 +/- 0.005 ng/mL to 0.030 +/- 0.005 ng/mL, P = 0.079) and CK-MB mass (from 1.37 +/- 0.17 ng/mL to 1.41 +/- 0.18, P= 0.080) and remained stable 6 and 24h after DFT. The plasma NT-proBNP did not change, whereas CP levels were significantly higher at 1 h post-shock evaluation. However, 6 h after DFT, the levels had returned to the baseline and remained stable at 24 h.Conclusion The S-ICD shock did not seem to cause myocardial injuries. Although CP levels temporarily rose after DFT, they returned to basal levels within 6 h, which suggests that DFT does not have long-term prognostic implications. ICD shocks are associated with a subsequent increased risk of death, and an elevation of cardiac enzymes has been measured after DFT. We showed that serum levels of biomarkers of myocardial damage did not increase after high-energy DFT in patients who had undergone S-ICD device implantation. This suggests that S-ICD shock does not have long-term prognostic implications.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban is the first novel oral anticoagulant to receive regulatory approval for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients who require cardioversion. The MonaldiVert real life experience showed positive benefit-risk profile of short term rivaroxaban administration for transesophageal echocardiogram guided cardioversion in patients who had not achieved adequate pre-procedural vitamin K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulation.METHODS: Aim of our study was to perform a budget impact analysis of MonaldiVert anticoagulation strategy for direct current cardioversion in NVAF patients and to compare the following costs borne by the Regional Healthcare System (RHS) with those for a hypothetical cohort of identical patients underwent from the beginning to early rivaroxaban treatment before direct current cardioversion.RESULTS: The mean costs per each NVAF patient treated with VKA strategy and rivaroxaban rescue strategy were (sic) 134.53 and (sic) 189.83, respectively. Considering a hypothetical scenario in which all study population would be treated from the beginning with rivaroxaban (rivaroxaban early strategy), the mean cost per patient would have been (sic) 81.11. The total cost borne by the RHS, including the cost of the cardioversion procedure, for the two therapeutic strategies carried out at Monaldi Hospital (VKA strategy and Rivaroxaban rescue strategy) was (sic) 88,458.53. The total cost would be borne by the RHS for rivaroxaban early strategy, if applied to all study population, would have been (sic) 69,989.15 with a saving of (sic) 18,469.38 compared to the actually applied strategy.CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban rescue strategy for transesophageal echocardiography guided direct current cardioversion in NVAF patients, who had not achieved adequate pre-procedural VKA anticoagulation, is an effective and safe strategy, which allows to not delay the procedure, reducing times and wastage of cardioversion slots, without substantial costs increase.

Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may spontaneously recover sinus rhythm during follow-up. We tested the feasibility and efficacy of electrical cardioversion attempted after 3 months of CRT in patients with permanent AF and measured the long-term maintenance of sinus rhythm. Twenty-eight consecutive patients with permanent AF in whom CRT defibrillators had been implanted were scheduled for internal electrical cardioversion after 3 months (group A) and were compared with a control group of 27 patients (group B). In group A, 22 patients (79 %) were eligible for cardioversion; sinus rhythm was restored in 18 (82 %) of these, with no procedural complications. After 12 months, 16 patients (58 %) in group A were in sinus rhythm, compared with one group B patient who spontaneously recovered sinus rhythm (4 %, p

In recent years, increasing surgical experience in high-volume centers, greater consistency in surgical technique, and the support of sophisticated electromedical navigation tools have increased the success treatment of atrial fibrillation ablation to 80% after the first procedure and to > 90% after the second procedure. Moreover, these results are associated with a progressive decrease in the incidence of complications. According to the data in Table 1, taken from a study published in 2003–2004 [1], major complications associated with the ablation of all pulmonary veins outside the tubular segment occurred in 2.9% of cases, as reported by the six leading centers that have adopted this approach. This compares favorably with the 5.9% reported in a worldwide survey of such procedures performed between 1995 and 2002 [2].