Purpose To compare lead failure manifestation and lead performance of the Biotronik Linox/Sorin Vigila defibrillator lead (Linox group) with the St. Jude Medical Riata/Riata ST (Riata group) and Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator leads (Fidelis group). Methods We assessed the performance of all aforementioned leads implanted at our center and investigated the manifestation of lead failures. Results Of 93 Linox, 86 Riata, and 81 Fidelis leads implanted at our center, 11 (12%), 22 (26%), and 25 (31%) leads failed during a median follow-up of 46, 61, and 84 months, respectively. Inappropriate shocks were delivered in 64% (Linox), 5% (Riata), and 32% (Fidelis) of lead failures; a device alert was noted in none (Linox), 5% (Riata), and 52% (Fidelis); and lead failure was a coincidental finding in 36% (Linox), 91% (Riata), and 16% (Fidelis) of cases (p < 0.001). Non-physiological high rate signals were observed in 73% (Linox), 27% (Riata), and 80% (Fidelis) of lead failures (p = 0.001) and damaged lead integrity was found in 36% (Linox), 73% (Riata), and 24% (Fidelis) of cases (p = 0.064). Lead survival at 5 years was 88%, 92%, and 71% for Linox, Riata, and Fidelis group, respectively. Conclusions The most frequent clinical manifestation of lead failure was inappropriate shocks for Linox, coincidental finding for Riata and device alert for Fidelis leads. Non-physiological high rate signals were frequently observed in Linox and Fidelis lead failures whereas in Riata lead failures, a damaged lead integrity was the predominant finding.

Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), hypertensive heart disease (HHD) and athletes’ heart share an increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation. Atrial cardiomyopathy in these patients may have different characteristics and help to distinguish these conditions. Methods: In this single-center study, we prospectively collected and analyzed electrocardiographic (12-lead ECG, signal-averaged ECG (SAECG), 24 h Holter ECG) and echocardiographic data in patients with HCM and HHD and in endurance athletes. Patients with atrial fibrillation were excluded. Results: We compared data of 27 patients with HCM (70% males, mean age 50 ± 14 years), 324 patients with HHD (52% males, mean age 75 ± 5.5 years), and 215 endurance athletes (72% males, mean age 42 ± 7.5 years). HCM patients had significantly longer filtered P-wave duration (153 ± 26 ms) and PR interval (191 ± 48 ms) compared to HHD patients (144 ± 16 ms, p = 0.012 and 178 ± 31, p = 0.034, respectively) and athletes (134 ± 14 ms, p = 0.001 and 165 ± 26 ms, both p < 0.001, respectively). HCM patients had a mean of 4.9 ± 16 premature atrial complexes per hour. Premature atrial complexes per hour were significantly more frequent in HHD patients (27 ± 86, p < 0.001), but not in athletes (2.7 ± 23, p = 0.639). Left atrial volume index (LAVI) was 43 ± 14 mL/m2 in HCM patients and significantly larger than age- and sex-corrected LAVI in HHD patients 30 ± 10 mL/m2; p < 0.001) and athletes (31 ± 9.5 mL/m2; p < 0.001). A borderline interventricular septum thickness ≥13 mm and ≤15 mm was found in 114 (35%) HHD patients, 12 (6%) athletes and 3 (11%) HCM patients. Conclusion: Structural and electrical atrial remodeling is more advanced in HCM patients compared to HHD patients and athletes.

Background: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is high in older patients. The present study aimed to estimate the age and sex specific prevalence of clinical and screen-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) in hospitalized patients. Methods: The STAR-FIB cohort study was a prospective cohort study recruiting participants from a large source population of hospitalized patients aged 65–84 years. The estimated size of the source population was 26,035 (95% CI 25,918–26,152), and 795 consenting patients without clinical AF were included in the cohort study after stratification by sex and age (49.2% females; mean age 74.7 years). Patients in the cohort study underwent three seven-day Holter ECGs in intervals of two months to screen for AF. Results: In the source population, the estimated prevalence of clinical AF was 22.2% (95% CI 18.4–26.1), 23.8% for males (95% CI 20.9–26.6) and 19.8% for females (95% CI 17.3–22.4; p for difference between sexes, 0.004). There was a linear trend for an increase in the prevalence of clinical AF with increasing age, overall and in both sexes. In the cohort study, AF was newly diagnosed in 38 patients, for an estimated prevalence of screen-detected AF of 4.9% overall (95% CI 3.3–6.6), 5.5% in males (95% CI 3.2–7.8) and 4.0% in females (95% CI 2.0–6.0; p for difference between sexes, 0.041). The estimated prevalence of screen-detected AF in the source population was 3.8% overall, 4.2% in males and 3.2% in females. Conclusion: In a large hospital-based patient population aged 65–84 years, the prevalence of clinical AF and of screen-detected AF was 22.2% and 3.8%, respectively, and significantly higher in males than females.