2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the management of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 14, 2022, to November 22, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 23, 2023, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy remains a common genetic heart disease reported in populations globally. Recommendations from the "2020 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator use in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy in North America and Europe.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are critical for preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). This study aims to identify cross-continental differences in utilization of primary prevention ICDs and survival free from sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in ARVC. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of ARVC patients without prior VA enrolled in clinical registries from 11 countries throughout Europe and North America. Patients were classified according to whether they received treatment in North America or Europe and were further stratified by baseline predicted VA risk into low- (<10%/5 years), intermediate- (10%-25%/5 years), and high-risk (>25%/5 years) groups. Differences in ICD implantation and survival free from sustained VA events (including appropriate ICD therapy) were assessed. RESULTS: One thousand ninety-eight patients were followed for a median of 5.1 years; 554 (50.5%) received a primary prevention ICD, and 286 (26.0%) experienced a first VA event. After adjusting for baseline risk factors, North Americans were more than three times as likely to receive ICDs {hazard ratio (HR) 3.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5, 3.8]} but had only mildly increased risk for incident sustained VA [HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1, 1.8)]. North Americans without ICDs were at higher risk for incident sustained VA [HR 2.1 (95% CI 1.3, 3.4)] than Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: North American ARVC patients were substantially more likely than Europeans to receive primary prevention ICDs across all arrhythmic risk strata. A lower rate of ICD implantation in Europe was not associated with a higher rate of VA events in those without ICDs.

Regional disparities and risk factors of mortality among patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death in emerging countries: a nonrandomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive data on patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in emerging countries are lacking. The aim was to deepen our understanding of the SCD phenotype and identify risk factors for death among patients at high risk of SCD in emerging countries. METHODS: Patients who met the class I indication for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation according to guideline recommendations in 17 countries and regions underrepresented in previous trials were enrolled. Countries were stratified by the WHO regional classification. Patients were or were not implanted with an ICD at their discretion. The outcomes were all-cause mortality and SCD. RESULTS: We enrolled 4222 patients, and 3889 patients were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up period was 21.6 ± 10.2 months. There were 433 (11.1%) instances of all-cause mortality and 117 (3.0%) cases of SCD. All-cause mortality was highest in primary prevention (PP) patients from Southeast Asia and secondary prevention (SP) patients from the Middle East and Africa. The SCD rates among PP and SP patients were both highest in South Asia. Multivariate Cox regression modelling demonstrated that in addition to the independent predictors identified in previous studies, both geographic region and ICD use were associated with all-cause mortality in patients with high SCD risk. Primary prophylactic ICD implantation was associated with a 36% (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.531-0.802, p < 0.0001) lower all-cause mortality risk and an 80% (HR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.116-0.343, p < 0.0001) lower SCD risk. CONCLUSIONS: There was significant heterogeneity among patients with high SCD risk in emerging countries. The influences of geographic regions on patient characteristics and outcomes were significant. Improvement in increasing ICD utilization and uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy in emerging countries is urgent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02099721.

Wideband black-blood late gadolinium enhancement imaging for improved myocardial scar assessment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

PURPOSE: Wideband phase-sensitive inversion recovery (PSIR) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) enables myocardial scar imaging in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) patients, mitigating hyperintensity artifacts. To address subendocardial scar visibility challenges, a 2D breath-hold single-shot electrocardiography-triggered black-blood (BB) LGE sequence was integrated with wideband imaging, enhancing scar-blood contrast. METHODS: Wideband BB, with increased bandwidth in the inversion pulse (0.8-3.8 kHz) and T2 preparation refocusing pulses (1.6-5.0 kHz), was compared with conventional and wideband PSIR, and conventional BB, in a phantom and sheep with and without ICD, and in six patients with cardiac devices and known myocardial injury. ICD artifact extent was quantified in the phantom and specific absorption rate (SAR) was reported for each sequence. Image contrast ratios were analyzed in both phantom and animal experiments. Expert radiologists assessed image quality, artifact severity, and scar segments in patients and sheep. Additionally, histology was performed on the sheep's heart. RESULTS: In the phantom, wideband BB reduced ICD artifacts by 62% compared to conventional BB while substantially improving scar-blood contrast, but with a SAR more than 24 times that of wideband PSIR. Similarly, the animal study demonstrated a considerable increase in scar-blood contrast with wideband BB, with superior scar detection compared with wideband PSIR, the latter confirmed by histology. In alignment with the animal study, wideband BB successfully eliminated severe ICD hyperintensity artifacts in all patients, surpassing wideband PSIR in image quality and scar detection. CONCLUSION: Wideband BB may play a crucial role in imaging ICD patients, offering images with reduced ICD artifacts and enhanced scar detection.

The clinical and economic impact of extended battery longevity of a substernal extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

INTRODUCTION: The extravascular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (EV ICD) has extended projected battery longevity compared to the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD). This study used modeling to characterize the need for generator changes, long-term complications, and overall costs for both the EV ICD and S-ICD in healthcare systems of various countries. METHODS: Battery longevity data were modeled using a Markov model from averages reported in device labeling for the S-ICD and with engineering estimates based on real life usage from EV ICD Pivotal Study patient data to introduce variability. Clinical demographic data were derived from published literature. The primary outcomes were defined as the number of generator replacement surgeries, complications, and total healthcare system costs due to battery depletion over the expected lifetime of patients receiving EV ICD or S-ICD therapy. RESULTS: Average modeled battery longevity was determined to be 7.3 years for the S-ICD versus 11.8 years for the EV ICD. The probability of a complication after a replacement procedure was 1.4%, with an operative mortality rate of 0.02%. The use of EV ICD was associated with 1.4-1.6 fewer replacements on average over an expected patient lifetime as compared to S-ICD and a 24.3%-26.0% reduction in cost. A one-way sensitivity analysis of the model for the US healthcare system found that use of an EV ICD resulted in a reduction in replacement surgeries of greater than 1 (1.1-1.6) along with five-figure cost savings in all scenarios ($18 602-$40 948). CONCLUSION: The longer projected battery life of the EV ICD has the potential to meaningfully reduce long-term morbidity and healthcare resources related to generator changes from the perspective of multiple diverse healthcare systems.

Incidence and economics of transvenous ICD lead complications: Implications for tricuspid valve function and interventions.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are used globally and are reliable, but complications related to transvenous leads remain a concern. Evidence related to the incidence and costs of those complications is heterogeneous with respect to scope and healthcare system. This analysis aims to create estimates of the incidence and costs of tricuspid valve (TV) complications, lead failures, and lead extractions from a single large real-world data set. METHODS AND RESULTS: This retrospective longitudinal cohort study used the deidentified Medicare Fee for Service administrative claims database. A total of 116 036 patients with de novo transvenous ICD implant were analyzed. Mean hospital costs were $26 903 for tricuspid valve complications, $20 851 for lead failures, and $22 278 for lead extractions. CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous ICD lead complications incur significant costs to patients, hospitals, and payers when they occur. Advancements in lead technology that reduce these complications could bring significant clinical and economic value.

Managing ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardiac defibrillator shocks after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are common, are mostly secondary to underlying myocardial scar, and have a higher incidence in patients with pre-LVAD VA. Sustained VA is well tolerated in the LVAD patient but can result in implantable defibrillator (ICD) shocks, right ventricular failure, hospitalizations, and reduced quality of life. There is limited data regarding best practices for the medical management of VA as well as the role for procedural interventions in patients with uncontrolled VA and/or ICD shocks. Vast majority of CF-LVAD patients have a preexisting cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) and ICD and/or cardiac resynchronization therapies are continued in many. Several questions, however, remain regarding the efficacy of ICD and CRT following CF-LVAD. Moreover, optimal CIED programming after CF-LVAD implantation. Therefore, the primary objective of this review article is to provide the most up-to-date evidence and to provide guidance on the clinical significance, pathogenesis, predictors, and management strategies for VA and ICD therapies in the CF-LVAD population. We also discuss knowledge gaps as well as areas for future research.

Comparison of outcomes and required tools between transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: Insight from single high-volume center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Reports of comparison with procedural outcomes for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker (PM) transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are old and limited. We sought to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural properties of ICD and PM TLE and assess the impact of lead age. METHODS: The study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD and PM TLE in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry between 2013 and 2022. Extraction success, complications, and failure employed the definitions described in the HRS 2017 TLE guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 885 ICD leads, a median implant duration of 8 (5-11) years in 810 patients, and 1352 PM leads of 7 (3-13) years in 807 patients were included. Procedural success rates in ICD patients were superior to those of PM in >20 years leads but similar in ≤20 years leads. In the PM group, the complete success rate of TLE decreased significantly according to the increase of lead age, but not in the ICD group. ICD TLE required more extraction tools compared with PM TLE but cases with older leads required non-laser sheath extraction tools in both groups. The most common injury site in major complication cases differed between ICD and PM TLE, although major complication rates showed no difference in both groups (2.7% vs. 1.6%, p = .12). CONCLUSION: The procedural success rate by TLE is greater for ICD patients than PM patients with leads >20 years old but requires more extraction tools. Common vascular complication sites and the impact of lead age on procedural outcomes and required tools differed between ICD and PM TLE.

Association between COVID-19 vaccination and atrial arrhythmias in individuals with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of mRNA-based coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines on atrial arrhythmias (AA) and ventricular arrhythmias incidence is unknown. METHODS: BIOTRONIK Home Monitoring data and Medicare Claims data were utilized to identify individuals implanted with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) between 2010 and 2020 who received one or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. The burden of AA (%) in the 3 months postvaccination was compared to those noted in the preceding 3 months using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Sub-analyses comparing the effects of the influenza vaccine against the COVID-19 vaccine were also evaluated for individuals who received the influenza vaccine in 2020. A 1:1 propensity score match comparison between COVID-19 vaccine and non-vaccinated patients was also performed. RESULTS: First and second doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were administered to 7757 and 6579 individuals with a CIED (age 76.2 ± 9.0 years, 49% males), respectively. While a small but statistically significant increase in the burden of AA was noted in the 3 months postvaccination compared to the preceding 3 months after the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine (0.43 ± 9.04%, p = .028) a similar rise in AA was found following the influenza vaccine and for matched patients who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. No significant difference in device therapies was seen pre- and postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Though we report a small but significant increase in the number of CIED-detected AAs following vaccination for COVID-19 over a 3-month window, we believe these results correlate more with time and the progressive nature of AF rather than the vaccine itself. While these data should not dissuade from the use of these vaccines, increased vigilance and prompt treatment of AF is required for high-risk groups, specifically males over 70 years of age, following vaccination.

Ten years of subcutaneous defibrillator therapy: Consolidated clinical evidence and future perspectives.

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) was developed as an alternative to the traditional transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (TV-ICD), aiming to provide easier implantation, simplified detection algorithm of malignant ventricular arrhythmias and prevention from placing components in the cardiovascular system. The S-ICD is implanted subcutaneously or intramuscularly with the generator placed in the left midaxillary line and the lead tunneled subcutaneously in the left para-sternal region. Preimplant electrocardiogram screening is recommended to prevent implantation in patients at high risk of T wave over-sensing. Currently, the S-ICD is unsuitable for patients requiring pacing or cardiac resynchronization. Since the beginning, the S-ICD underwent extensive preclinical investigation until the first prospective multicentre trial demonstrating high efficacy and safety led to market release. While earlier studies focused on younger patients with higher ejection fraction, more recent studies showed favorable outcomes even in patients with comorbidities similar to those typically observed in patients receiving TV-ICD. The development of second and third generation devices has contributed to reduce inappropriate shocks and overcome previous limitations. The aim of this paper is to review the evidence in the literature over the past decade supporting S-ICD as a valid alternative to TV-ICD in terms of safety and efficacy, highlighting the improvements in technology, as well as outcomes.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure and revision following transcutaneous bicaval valve (TricValve®) implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Tricuspid regurgitation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and occurs at a higher rate in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Percutaneous strategies for managing tricuspid regurgitation are evolving, including the development of bicaval valve implantation which has been successfully used in patients with pacing leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present the first documented case of lead failure following TricValve® implantation, a dedicated self-expanding system for bicaval valve implantation, and the first successful lead revision procedure in this setting. CONCLUSION: The case illustrates important considerations in undertaking percutaneous intervention in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices, and their ongoing management.

The impact of supraventricular arrhythmias on the outcomes of guideline-compliant implantable cardioverter defibrillator programming.

INTRODUCTION: Several implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) programming strategies are applied to minimize ICD therapy, especially unnecessary therapies from supraventricular arrhythmias (SVA). However, it remains unknown whether these optimal programming recommendations only benefit those with SVAs or have any detrimental effects from delayed therapy on those without SVAs. This study aims to assess the impact of SVA on the outcomes of ICD programming based on 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement and 2019 focused update on optimal ICD programming and testing guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent ICD insertion for primary prevention were classified into four groups based on SVA status and ICD programming: (1) guideline-concordant group (GC) with SVA, (2) GC without SVA, (3) nonguideline concordant group (NGC) with SVA, and (4) NGC without SVA. Cox proportional hazard models were analyzed for freedom from ICD therapies, shock, and mortality. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-two patients (median age, 64 years) were enrolled. ICD therapies were the most frequent in NGC with SVA (24.0%), followed by NGC without SVA (19.9%), GC without SVA (11.6%), and GC with SVA (8.1%). Guideline concordant programming was associated with 68% ICD therapy reduction (HR 0.32, p = .007) and 67% ICD shock reduction (HR 0.33, p = .030) in SVA patients and 44% ICD therapy reduction in those without SVA (HR 0.56, p = .030). CONCLUSION: Programming ICDs in primary prevention patients based on current guidelines reduces therapy burden without increasing mortality in both SVA and non-SVA patients. A greater magnitude of reduced ICD therapy was found in those with supraventricular arrhythmias.

Clinical use of CRT-D devices with left ventricular sensing: Impact of the desynchronization-detection algorithm.

The use of CRT-D devices with left ventricular (LV) sensing has created controversy about programming various parameters especially the left ventricular T wave protection (LVTP) designed to prevent the delivery of a pacing stimulus into the LV vulnerable period. Such devices are available from two manufacturers. This review focuses only on those provided by Biotronik. As the LVTP controls LV sensing, some investigators have advocated turning off the LVTP to prevent episodic desynchronization known a CRT pacing interrupt. However, LVTP off reduces but does not eliminate this type of desynchronization if triggering of an LV stimulus upon right ventricular sensing (RVs) is programmed on. Deactivation of the LVTP incurs loss of diagnostic data provided by CRT pacing interrupt itself. By choice, the occurrence of CRT pacing interrupt can be totally eliminated by appropriate programming of the LV upper rate interval, LVTP and triggering of an LV pacing event upon RVs. Various programmability options are available according to clinical circumstances. As a rule, clinical judgement must weigh the potential diagnostic benefit of preserving the LVTP capable of recording of episodic CRT pacing interrupt against the loss of diagnostic benefit when LVTP is programmed off (with or without triggering of an LV stimulus upon RVs).

Normalization of increasing shocking coil impedance with full output synchronized shock.

INTRODUCTION: Impedance is a crucial parameter in cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Clinically, most CIEDs measure impedance using low voltage sub-threshold measurement (LVSM). Although the LVSM of shock impedance (LVSM-SI) is generally comparable with high voltage shock impedance (HVSI), LVSM-SI might be inaccurate if peri-lead tissue degeneration occurs. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a case of elevated LVSM-SI occurring 8 years post-lead implantation, possibly attributed to encapsulation of the right ventricular lead coil. After 0.1 J shock was delivered, a full output synchronized shock was administered to measure HVSI, revealing a normal value. Furthermore, LVSM-SI was normalized and maintained within the normal range during long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest conducting a full-output synchronized shock test to assess HVSI when abnormal LVSM-SI is detected in the remote phase post-ICD implantation, which may be considered to help normalize LVSM shock impedance.

Comparison of novel intrinsic versus conventional antitachycardia pacing for ventricular tachycardia among implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Intrinsic antitachycardia pacing (iATP) is a novel automated antitachycardia pacing (ATP) that provides individual treatment to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, the clinical efficacy of iATP in comparison with conventional ATP is unknown. We aim to compare the termination rate of VT between iATP and conventional ATP in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using a unique setting of different sequential orders of both ATP algorisms. METHODS: Patients with the iATP algorithm were assigned to iATP-first and conventional ATP-first groups sequentially. In the iATP-first group, a maximum of seven iATP sequences were delivered, followed by conventional burst and ramp pacing. In contrast, in the conventional ATP-first group, two bursts and ramp pacing were initially programmed, followed by iATP sequences. We compared the success rates of VT termination in the first and secondary programmed ATP zones between the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty-eight and 56 patients were enrolled in the iATP-first and conventional ATP-first groups, and 67 and 44 VTs were analyzed in each group, respectively. At the first single ATP therapy, success rates were 64% and 70% in the iATP and conventional groups, respectively. At the end of the first iATP treatment zone, the success rate increased from 64% to 85%. Moreover, secondary iATP therapy following the failure of conventional ATPs increased the success rate from 80% to 93%. There was a significant benefit of alternative iATP for VT termination compared to secondary conventional ATP (100% vs. 33%, p = .028). CONCLUSIONS: iATP may be beneficial as a secondary therapy after failure of conventional ATP to terminate VT.

Effect of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators in Nonischemic Heart Failure According to Background Medical Therapy: Extended Follow-up of the DANISH Trial.

BACKGROUND: The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) score integrates types and dosages of guideline-directed pharmacotherapies for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We examined the effects of cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation according to the modified HFC (mHFC) score in 1116 patients with nonischemic HFrEF from the Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Nonischemic Systolic HF on Mortality (DANISH). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were assigned scores for renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (0, no use; 1, < 50% of maximum dosage; 2, ≥ 50% of maximum dosage). The maximum score was 6, corresponding to ≥ 50% of maximum dosage for all therapies. The median baseline mHFC score was 4, and the median follow-up was 9.5 years. Compared with an mHFC score of 3-4, an mHFC score of 1-2 was associated with a higher rate of all-cause death (mHFC = 1-2: adjusted HR 1.67 [95% CI, 1.23-2.28]; mHFC = 3-4, reference; mHFC = 5-6: adjusted HR 1.07 [95% CI, 0.87-1.31]). ICD implantation did not reduce all-cause death compared with control (reference) (HR 0.89 [95% CI, 0.74-1.08]), regardless of mHFC score (mHFC = 1-2: HR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.56-1.71]; mHFC = 3-4: HR 0.89 [95% CI,0.66-1.20]; mHFC = 5-6: HR 0.85 [95% CI, 0.64-1.12]; Pinteraction, 0.65). Similarly, ICD implantation did not reduce cardiovascular death (HR 0.87 [95% CI, 0.70-1.09]), regardless of mHFC score (Pinteraction, 0.59). The ICD group had a lower rate of sudden cardiovascular death (HR, 0.60 [95% CI,0.40-0.92]); this association was not modified by mHFC score (Pinteraction, 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Lower mHFC scores were associated with higher rates of all-cause death. ICD implantation did not result in an overall survival benefit in patients with nonischemic HFrEF, regardless of mHFC score.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization treatment in people with type 2 diabetes: a comparison with age- and sex matched controls from the general population.

BACKGROUND: Increased risk of severe tachyarrhythmias is reported in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The aim of this study was to explore if treatment with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) such as implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy- pacemaker and -defibrillator (CRT-P/CRT-D) differed in patients with vs. without T2DM. A secondary aim was to identify patient characteristics indicating an increased CIED treatment. METHOD: 416 162 adult patients with T2DM from the Swedish National Diabetes Registry and 2 081 087 controls from the Swedish population, matched for age, sex and living area, were included between 1/1/1998 and 31/12/2012 and followed until 31/12/2013. They were compared regarding prevalence of ventricular tachycardia (VT) at baseline and the risk of receiving a CIED during follow-up. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate the risk of CIED-treatment and factors identifying patients with such risk. RESULTS: Ventricular fibrillation (VF) (0.1% vs 0.0004%) and (VT) (0.2% vs. 0.1%) were more frequent among patients with T2DM compared to controls. CIED-treatment was significantly increased in patients with T2DM both in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. HR and 95% CI, after adjustment for sex, age, marital status, income, education, country of birth, coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure, were 1.32 [1.21-1.45] for ICD, 1.74 [1.55-1.95] for CRT-P and 1.69 [1.43-1.99] for CRT-D. Blood-pressure and lipid lowering therapies were independent risk factors associated to receiving CIED, while female sex was protective. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proportion of VT/VF was low, patients with T2DM had a higher prevalence of these conditions and increased risk for treatment with CIED compared to controls. This underlines the importance of recognizing that T2DM patients have an increased need of CIED.

Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature.

Implantable cardiac devices are a vital treatment option in the management of tachy/brady-arrhythmias and heart failure with conduction disease. In the recent years, these devices have become increasingly sophisticated, with high implantation success rates and longevity. However, these devices are not without risks and complications, which need to be carefully considered before implantation. In an era of rapidly evolving cardiac device therapies, this review article will provide an update on the literature and outline some of the emerging technologies that aim to maximise the efficiency of implantable devices and reduce complications. We discuss novel pacing techniques, including alternative pacing sites in anti-bradycardia and biventricular pacing, as well as the latest evidence surrounding leadless device technologies and patient selection for implantable device therapies.

Compliance with Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Early Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Activation in Heart Failure: A Retrospective Study.

Background: This study was conducted to evaluate compliance with guideline-directed optimal medical therapy (OMT) and its association with early implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) activation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: Retrospective data from 307 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention from 2011 to 2017 were collected and analyzed. Results: Among the study participants, only 23.8% received the maximum tolerated dose of OMT prior to ICD implantation, with 59.0% receiving all three OMT medication groups. No significant difference in OMT compliance was found between patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and those with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). However, DCM patients received ICDs more frequently at the time of diagnosis than ICM patients (13.8% vs. 0.7%). Early ICD activation (within 3 months) occurred in only one patient who had not received appropriate OMT, representing 0.7% of all ICM patients. Furthermore, early activation was also infrequent in patients who received OMT (2.9% of ICM patients and 2.6% of DCM patients). Echocardiography follow-up data revealed that 20.4% of ICM patients and 29.8% of DCM patients who did not receive OMT before ICD implantation showed improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to 35% or more. Conclusions: This study found suboptimal compliance with OMT prior to ICD implantation in HFrEF patients. The results showed that early ICD activation was rare in all patient groups, especially those who did not receive the prescribed 3 months of OMT. More research is needed to investigate longer waiting periods for the evaluation of potential EF improvement, and to better evaluate the eligibility of HFrEF patients for ICD. The current findings have potential implications for clinical practice and patient outcomes.

The Impact of Ipsilateral Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Axillary Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Support as Bridge to Heart Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The axillary artery (AX) access for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) as a bridge to heart transplant (HT) allows mobility while awaiting a suitable donor. As end-stage heart failure patients often have an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) on the left side, the left AX approach may be avoided due to the perception of difficult access and proximity of two devices. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients bridged to HT with a left-sided AX IABP with or without ipsilateral ICDs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed HT candidates at our institution supported by left-sided axillary IABP from November 2019 to February 2024, dividing them into two groups based on the presence (Group ICD, n = 48) or absence (Group No-ICD, N = 19) of an ipsilateral left-sided ICD. The exposure time was defined as the time from skin incision to the beginning of anastomoses of a Dacron graft. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in 100% of the cohort, with median exposure times for AX access similar between groups (ICD, 12 [7.8, 18.2] vs. No ICD, 11 [7, 19] min; p = 0.75). The rate of procedural adverse events, such as significant access site bleeding and ipsilateral limb ischemia, did not significantly differ between both groups. Device malfunction rates were comparable (ICD, 29.2% vs. No ICD, 15.8%; p = 0.35). Posttransplant, in-hospital mortality, severe primary graft dysfunction, and stroke rates were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: The presence of an ipsilateral left-sided ICD does not adversely impact the procedural efficacy, complication rates, or posttransplant outcomes of left-sided AX IABP insertion in HT candidates.