Permanent pacing for late-onset atrioventricular block in patients with heart transplantation: a single center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence, mechanisms, clinical associations, and outcomes in patients with late-onset (>3 months) atrioventricular (AV) block following heart transplantation are not well known. This study will characterize late-onset AV block following cardiac transplantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our databases to identify patients who required pacemakers for late-onset AV block postheart and heart-lung transplantation from January 1990 to December 2007. Orthotopic heart and heart-lung transplantation were separately analyzed. RESULTS: This study included 588 adults who received cardiac transplants over a 17-year period at our center (519 orthotopic, 64 heart-lung transplants, and five heterotopic heart transplants). Of the 519 patients with orthotopic heart transplant, 39 required pacing (7.5%), 17 (3.3%) within 3 months posttransplant, 11 (2.1%) for late-onset sinus node dysfunction (SND), 11 (2.1%) for late-onset AV block. Also, five patients (7.8%) out of 64 heart-lung transplants required pacemakers, two (3.1%) for late-onset SND, three (4.7%) for late-onset AV block. None of the five patients who underwent heterotopic transplant required cardiac pacing prior to or posttransplant. CONCLUSIONS: Late-onset AV block occurs in 2.4% of patients with orthotopic heart transplant or heart-lung transplant. AV block is predominantly intermittent and, often, does not progress to permanent AV block. There are no predictable factors for its onset.

Left ventricular mechanical assist devices and cardiac device interactions: an observational case series.

BACKGROUND: Nonpulsatile left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used for treatment of refractory heart failure. A majority of such patients have implanted cardiac devices, namely implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) devices. However, potential interactions between LVADs and cardiac devices in this category of patients remain unknown. METHODS: We reviewed case records and device logs of 15 patients with ICDs or CRT-P or CRT-D devices who subsequently had implantation of a VentrAssist LVAD (Ventracor Ltd., Chatswood, Australia) as destination therapy or bridge to heart transplantation. Pacemaker and ICD lead parameters before and after LVAD implant were compared. In addition, ventricular tachyarrhythmia event logs and potential electromagnetic interference reports were evaluated. RESULTS: Right ventricular (RV) sensing decreased in the first 6 months post-LVAD. Mean R-wave amplitude preimplant was 10.9 +/- 5.25 mV compared with 7.2 +/- 3.4 mV during follow-up (P = 0.02). RV impedance also decreased from 642 +/- 240 ohms at baseline to 580 +/- 212 ohms at follow-up (P = 0.007). There was a significant increase in RV stimulation threshold following implantation of the LVAD from 0.8 +/- 0.6 V at baseline to 1.4 +/- 1.0 V in the first 6 months postimplant (P = 0.01). A marked increase in ventricular tachyarrhythmia burden was observed in three patients. One patient displayed electromagnetic interference between the LVAD and defibrillator, resulting in inappropriate defibrillation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: LVADs have a definite impact on cardiac devices in respect with alteration of lead parameters, ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and electromagnetic interference.

Ventricular tachycardia following ingestion of a commonly used antihistamine.

This report describes ventricular tachycardia, likely to have been torsade de pointes, following ingestion of the non-sedating antihistamine loratadine. Documentation of the arrhythmia was made possible by the automatic electrogram storage facility of an implanted defibrillator in a patient with no prior history of cardiac arrhythmia.