Recurring episodes of bundle branch reentry ventricular tachycardia due to aortitis preceded by SARS-CoV-2 infection: a case report.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 may trigger both vasculitis and arrhythmias as part of a multisystem inflammatory syndrome described in children as well as in adults following COVID-19 infection with only minor respiratory symptoms. The syndrome denotes a severe dysfunction of one or more extra-pulmonary organ systems, with symptom onset approximately 2-5 weeks after the COVID-19 infection. In the present case, a seemingly intractable ventricular tachycardia preceded by SARS-CoV2 infection was only managed following the diagnosis and management of aortitis. CASE PRESENTATION: A 69-year-old woman was hospitalized due to syncope, following a mild COVID-19 infection. She presented with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and intermittent ventricular tachycardia interpreted as a septum-triggered bundle branch reentry ventricular tachycardia, unaffected by amiodaron, lidocaine and adenosine. A CT-scan revealed inflammation of the aortic arch, extending into the aortic root. In the following days, the tachycardia progressed to ventricular storm with intermittent third-degree AV block. A temporary pacemaker was implanted, and radiofrequency ablation was performed to both sides of the ventricular septum after which the ventricular tachycardia was non-inducible. Following supplemental prednisolone treatment, cardiac symptoms and arrythmia subsided, but recurred after tapering. Long-term prednisolone treatment was therefore initiated with no relapse in the following 14 months. CONCLUSION: We present a rare case of aortitis complicated with life-threatening ventricular tachycardia presided by Covid-19 infection without major respiratory symptoms. Given a known normal AV conduction prior to the COVID-19 infection, it seems likely that the ensuing aortitis in turn affected the septal myocardium, enabling the reentry tachycardia. Generally, bundle branch reentry tachycardia is best treated with radiofrequency ablation, but if it is due to aortitis with myocardial affection, long-term anti-inflammatory treatment is mandatory to prevent relapse and assure arrhythmia control. Our case highlights importance to recognize the existence of the multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A) following COVID-19 infection in patients with alarming cardiovascular symptoms. The case shows that the early use of an CT-scan was crucial for both proper diagnosis and treatment option.

Driving following defibrillator implantation: a nationwide register-linked survey study.

AIMS: Patients are restricted from driving following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation or shock. We sought to investigate how many patients are aware of, and adhere to, the driving restrictions, and what proportion experience an ICD shock or other cardiac symptoms while driving. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a nationwide survey of all living Danish residents 18 years or older who received a first-time ICD between 2013 and 2016 (n = 3913) and linked their responses with nationwide registers. Of 2741 respondents (47% primary prevention, 83% male, median age 67 years), 2513 (92%) held a valid driver's license at ICD implantation, 175 (7%) of whom had a license for professional driving. Many drivers were unaware of driving restrictions: primary prevention 58%; secondary prevention 36%; post-appropriate shock 28%; professional drivers 55%. Almost all (94%) resumed non-professional driving after ICD implantation, more than one-third during the restricted period; 35% resumed professional driving. During a median follow-up of 2.3 years, 5 (0.2%) reported receiving an ICD shock while driving, one of which resulted in a traffic accident. The estimated risk of harm was 0.0002% per person-year. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide study, many ICD patients were unaware of driving restrictions, and more than one third resumed driving during a driving restriction period. However, the rate of reported ICD shocks while driving was very low.

Long-term follow-up of abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads: a nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: Commonly, a dysfunctional defibrillator lead is abandoned and a new lead is implanted. Long-term follow-up data on abandoned leads are sparse. We aimed to investigate the incidence and reasons for extraction of abandoned defibrillator leads in a nationwide cohort and to describe extraction procedure-related complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: All abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads were identified in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register from 1991 to 2019. The event-free survival of abandoned defibrillator leads was studied, and medical records of patients with interventions on abandoned defibrillator leads were audited for procedure-related data. We identified 740 abandoned defibrillator leads. Meantime from implantation to abandonment was 7.2 ± 3.8 years with mean patient age at abandonment of 66.5 ± 13.7 years. During a mean follow-up after abandonment of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, 65 (8.8%) abandoned defibrillator leads were extracted. Most frequent reason for extraction was infection (pocket and systemic) in 41 (63%) patients. Procedural outcome after lead extraction was clinical success in 63 (97%) patients. Minor complications occurred in 3 (5%) patients, and major complications in 1 (2%) patient. No patient died from complication to the procedure during 30-day follow-up after extraction. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of abandoned defibrillator leads do not need to be extracted during long-term follow-up. The most common indication for extraction is infection. Abandoned defibrillator leads can be extracted with high clinical success rate and low risk of major complications at high-volume centres.