How to Implant a Leadless Pacemaker With a Tine-Based Fixation.

Two major studies have shown that leadless pacemakers are safe and effective for patients requiring right ventricular rate responsive pacing therapy. This positive result recently led to FDA approval of one of the available leadless pacing devices. While this new technology is promising, it requires a different skill set for safe implantation. In this article, we review in detail the different steps required for implantation of tine-based leadless pacemakers while providing tips and tricks to minimize complications.

Effects of a high dose intravenous bolus amiodarone in patients with atrial fibrillation and a rapid ventricular rate.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone, given as intravenous bolus has not yet been studied in patients with atrial fibrillation and a high ventricular rate. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation and a ventricular rate above 135 bpm were randomized to receive either 450 mg amiodarone or 0.6 mg digoxin given as a single bolus through a peripheral venous access. If the ventricular rate exceeded 100 bpm after 30 min, another 300 mg amiodarone or 0.4 mg digoxin were added. Primary endpoints of the study were the ventricular rate and the occurrence of sinus rhythm after 30 and 60 min. Secondary endpoints were blood pressure during the first hour after drug administration, and safety regarding drug induced hypotension, and phlebitis at the infusion site. RESULTS: Baseline heart rate was 144+/-19 in the amiodarone group and 145+/-15 in the digoxin group (p=0.72). Following amiodarone, heart rate was 104+/-25 after 30 min compared to 116+/-23 in the digoxin group (p=0.02) and 94+/-22 versus 105+/-22 after 60 min (p=0.03). After 30 min, sinus rhythm was documented in 14 (28%) patients following amiodarone compared to 3 (6%) patients in the digoxin group (p=0.003), and after 60 min in 21 (42%) versus 9 (18%) patients (p=0.012). Asymptomatic hypotension was observed in 4 amiodarone treated patients, and superficial phlebitis in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone, given as an intravenous bolus is relatively safe and more effective than digoxin for heart rate control and conversion to sinus rhythm in patients with atrial fibrillation and a rapid ventricular rate.

Intravenous amiodarone bolus for treatment of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced congestive heart failure or cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of patients with advanced organic heart disease is often complicated by the occurrence of atrial fibrillation. Slowing the ventricular rate and, if possible, restoration of normal sinus rhythm is crucial but difficult in the state of decreased ventricular function. METHODS: We included 78 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation and heart rate above 135 beats min(-1) in an observational, uncontrolled study in the coronary care unit of a tertiary care center. Thirty-nine patients suffered from advanced congestive heart failure, 26 patients had pulmonary edema, and 13 patients were in cardiogenic shock. All patients were treated with 450 mg amiodarone given as a single intravenous bolus through a peripheral venous access without further infusion. Ventricular heart rate and cardiac rhythm were measured within 30 minutes after drug administration. Cardiac rhythm was monitored for 24 hours. The site of venous access was examined 30 minutes after drug administration and every 6 hours until the needle was removed after a maximum of 48 hours. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (32%) converted to normal sinus rhythm within 30 minutes. Another 15 (19%) reverted into sinus rhythm during the following 24 hours. Within 30 minutes after amiodarone administration, ventricular heart rate decreased significantly from 152 +/- 12 to 88 +/- 17 (p < 0.0001) beats min(-1) in patients who converted to sinus rhythm and from 157 +/- 14 to 98 +/- 16 beats min(-1) in patients who did not. The degree of reduction in heart rate was similar among patients presenting with exacerbated congestive heart failure, pulmonary edema, or cardiogenic shock. Systolic blood pressure decreased in two patients, from 115 to 80 mmHg and from 130 to 100 mmHg, but was reversible after 10 and 90 minutes respectively without specific intervention. No proarrhythmia or clinical relevant bradycardia was observed, and no inflammation detected at the site of venous access. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone, given as a single intravenous bolus through a peripheral vein rapidly reduced ventricular rate and was well tolerated in patients with atrial fibrillation, even in the presence of congestive heart failure and cardiogenic shock.

Mid-term outcome after carotid artery stenting depends on presence of coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Longer-term outcome of patients following carotid artery revascularization depends predominantly on cardiac events rather than neurological events. AIM: To assess the longer-term outcomes of patients with known coronary artery morphology undergoing carotid artery stenting. METHOD: In a prospective observational study including 549 consecutive patients undergoing carotid artery stenting, a coronary angiography was performed in a single session unless a recent angiogram was available. Following the intervention, patients were followed prospectively to determine neurological events as well as major adverse coronary events (MACE) during long-term follow-up. RESULTS: Coronary artery disease was present in 378 patients including 92 patients without current significant stenosis. The MACE rate was 6.4% in patients without coronary artery disease compared to 28.3% in patients with coronary artery disease (P<0.00001). Cardiac and all-cause mortality were statistically significantly higher in patients with a significant coronary stenosis than in patients without coronary artery disease (P<0.001 and P<0.01). Cardiac mortality and all-cause mortality were 2.3% and 7.6% in patients without coronary artery disease (patient group I), 7.6% and 13.0% in patients with coronary artery disease but no current significant stenosis (patient group II), and 10.5% and 16.1% in patients with significant coronary stenosis (patient group III). Neurological events, however, were distributed equally among the three patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the longer term, outcomes in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting depend on concomitant coronary artery disease rather than neurological events, cardiac mortality and even all-cause mortality depending on a significant coronary artery stenosis.