An alternating QRS: How does it go even though it's pretty slow?

We present the case of a 42 year old patient with a history of childhood lymphoma treated with chemotherapy and radiation who underwent combined aortic and mitral valve replacements and who postoperatively developed an interesting ECG which showed complete heart block and an alternating left bundle branch and narrow complex QRS pattern at a heart rate of 69 beats per minute (bpm). We discuss potential mechanisms for this interesting pattern.

Ventricular Arrhythmia in Cancer Patients: Mechanisms, Treatment Strategies and Future Avenues.

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the US. Despite the significant progress made in cancer treatment leading to improved prognosis and survival, ventricular arrhythmias (VA) remain a known cardiovascular complication either exacerbated or induced by the direct and indirect effects of both traditional and novel cancer treatments. Although interruption of cancer treatment because of VA is rarely required, knowledge surrounding this issue is essential for optimising the overall care of patients with cancer. The mechanisms of cancer-therapeutic-induced VA are poorly understood. This review will discuss the ventricular conduction (QRS) and repolarisation abnormalities (QTc prolongation), and VAs associated with cancer therapies, as well as existing strategies for the identification, prevention and management of cancer-treatment-induced VAs.

Risk of Adverse Outcomes Associated With Cardiac Sarcoidosis Diagnostic Schemes.

BACKGROUND: Multiple cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) diagnostic schemes have been published. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the association of different CS diagnostic schemes with adverse outcomes. The diagnostic schemes evaluated were 1993, 2006, and 2017 Japanese criteria and the 2014 Heart Rhythm Society criteria. METHODS: Data were collected from the Cardiac Sarcoidosis Consortium, an international registry of CS patients. Outcome events were any of the following: all-cause mortality, left ventricular assist device placement, heart transplantation, and appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Logistic regression analysis evaluated the association of outcomes with each CS diagnostic scheme. RESULTS: A total of 587 subjects met the following criteria: 1993 Japanese (n = 310, 52.8%), 2006 Japanese (n = 312, 53.2%), 2014 Heart Rhythm Society (n = 480, 81.8%), and 2017 Japanese (n = 112, 19.1%). Patients who met the 1993 criteria were more likely to experience an event than patients who did not (n = 109 of 310, 35.2% vs n = 59 of 277, 21.3%; OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.38-2.90; P < 0.001). Similarly, patients who met the 2006 criteria were more likely to have an event than patients who did not (n = 116 of 312, 37.2% vs n = 52 of 275, 18.9%; OR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.74-3.71; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant association between the occurrence of an event and whether a patient met the 2014 or the 2017 criteria (OR: 1.39; 95% CI: 0.85-2.27; P = 0.18 or OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.97-2.33; P = 0.067, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CS patients who met the 1993 and the 2006 criteria had higher odds of adverse clinical outcomes. Future research is needed to prospectively evaluate existing diagnostic schemes and develop new risk models for this complex disease.

Multidisciplinary Management of Opioid Use-Related Infective Endocarditis: Treatment, QTc Values, and Cardiac Arrests due to Ventricular Fibrillation.

(1) Background: The opioid epidemic has led to an increase in cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis (IE-CS) related to injection use of opioids (OUD) and other substances and a call for a coordinated approach to initiate substance use disorder treatment, including medication for OUD (MOUD), during IE-CS hospitalizations. We sought to determine the effects of the initiation of a multi-disciplinary endocarditis evaluation team (MEET) on MOUD use, electrocardiographic QTc measurements and cardiac arrests due to ventricular fibrillation (VF) in patients with OUD. (2) Methods and Results: A historical group undergoing IE-CS at Yale-New Haven Hospital prior to MEET initiation, Group I (43 episodes of IE-CS, 38 patients) was compared to 24 patients undergoing IE-CS after MEET involvement (Group II). Compared to Group l, Group II patients were more likely to receive MOUD (41.9 vs. 95.8%, p < 0.0001), predominantly methadone (41.9 vs. 79.2%, p = 0.0035) at discharge. Both groups had similar QTcs: approximately 30% of reviewed electrocardiograms had QTcs ≥ 470 ms and 17%, QTcs ≥ 500 ms. Cardiac arrests due to VF were not uncommon: Group I: 9.3% vs. Group II: 8.3%, p = 0.8914. Half occurred in the 1-2 months after surgery and were contributed to by pacemaker malfunction/ management and half were related to opioid use. (3) Conclusions: MEET was associated with increased MOUD (predominantly methadone) use during IE-CS hospitalizations without an increase in QTc prolongation or cardiac arrest due to VF compared to Group I, but events occurred in both groups. These arrests were associated with pacemaker issues or a return to opioid use. Robust follow-up of IE-CS patients is essential, as is further research to clarify the longer-term effects of MEET on outcomes.

Shark Sighting in an Electrocardiogram.

This case report describes a patient in their late 50s with elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin and a medical history of poorly controlled diabetes and cocaine, cannabis, and tobacco use.

Risk and predictors of mortality after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients with sarcoid cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are recommended for patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) with an indication for pacing, prior ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, or left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, but data on outcomes are limited. METHODS: Using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2015, we evaluated a propensity matched cohort of CS patients implanted with ICDs versus non-ischemic cardiomyopathies (NICM). We compared mortality using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: We identified 1,638 patients with CS and 8,190 propensity matched patients with NICM. The rate of death at 1 and 2 years was similar in patients with CS and patients with NICM (5.2% vs 5.4%, P = 0.75 and 9.0% vs 9.3%, P = 0.72, respectively). After adjusting for other covariates, patients with CS had similar mortality at 2 years after ICD implantations compared with NICM patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87-1.23). Among patients with CS, multivariable logistic regression identified 6 factors significantly associated with increased 2-year mortality: presence of heart failure (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.44-3.22), New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III heart failure (HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16-2.45), NYHA Class IV heart failure (HR 3.08, 95% CI 1.49-6.39), atrial fibrillation/flutter (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.35), chronic lung disease (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.17-2.29), creatinine >2.0 mg/dL (HR 4.07, 95% CI 2.63-6.30), and paced rhythm (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.07-6.59). CONCLUSION: Mortality following ICD implantation was similar in CS patients compared with propensity matched NICM patients. Presence of heart failure, NYHA class, atrial fibrillation/flutter, chronic lung disease, renal dysfunction, and paced rhythm at time of implantation were all predictors of increased 2-year mortality among CS patients with ICDs.

Arrhythmias in Cardiac Sarcoidosis Bench to Bedside: A Case-Based Review.

Cardiac sarcoidosis is a component of an often multiorgan granulomatous disease of still uncertain cause. It is being recognized with increasing frequency, mainly as the result of heightened awareness and new diagnostic tests, specifically cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scans. The purpose of this case-based review is to highlight the potentially life-saving importance of making the early diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis using these new tools and to provide a framework for the optimal care of patients with this disease. We will review disease mechanisms as currently understood, associated arrhythmias including conduction abnormalities, and atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, guideline-directed diagnostic criteria, screening of patients with extracardiac sarcoidosis, and the use of pacemakers and defibrillators in this setting. Treatment options, including those related to heart failure, and those which may help clarify disease mechanisms are included.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease.

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease.

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.