Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia managed in clinical practice and it is associated with an increased risk of mortality, stroke and peripheral embolism. Unfortunately, the incidence of atrial fibrillation recurrence ranges from 40 to 50%, despite the attempts of electrical cardioversion and the administration of antiarrhythmic drugs. In this review, the literature data about predictors of atrial fibrillation recurrence are highlighted, with special regard to clinical, therapeutic, biochemical, ECG and echocardiographic parameters after electrical cardioversion and ablation. Identifying predictors of success in maintaining sinus rhythm after cardioversion or ablation may allow a better selection of patients to undergo these procedures. The aim is to reduce healthcare costs and avoid exposing patients to unnecessary procedures and related complications. Recurrent atrial fibrillation depends on a combination of several parameters and each patient should be individually assessed for such a risk of recurrence.

The validation of the estimation model based on the LED index <10 confirmed its high efficacy in predicting simple TLE procedures.

The hybrid approach, with minithoracotomy or thoracoscopy, is feasible and it might increase the safety in the most challenging TLE procedures: the minimally invasive surgical intervention allows for continuous monitoring of the critical cardiac structures and prompt treatment of potential complications.

Aims The aim of the study was to describe ECG modifications and arrhythmic events in COVID-19 patients undergoing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) therapy in different clinical settings. Methods and results COVID-19 patients at seven institutions receiving HCQ therapy from whom a baseline and at least one ECG at 48+ h were available were enrolled in the study. QT/QTc prolongation, QT-associated and QT-independent arrhythmic events, arrhythmic mortality, and overall mortality during HCQ therapy were assessed. A total of 649 COVID-19 patients (61.9 ± 18.7 years, 46.1% males) were enrolled. HCQ therapy was administrated as a home therapy regimen in 126 (19.4%) patients, and as an in-hospital-treatment to 495 (76.3%) hospitalized and 28 (4.3%) intensive care unit (ICU) patients. At 36–72 and at 96+ h after the first HCQ dose, 358 and 404 ECGs were obtained, respectively. A significant QT/QTc interval prolongation was observed (P &lt; 0.001), but the magnitude of the increase was modest [+13 (9–16) ms]. Baseline QT/QTc length and presence of fever (P = 0.001) at admission represented the most important determinants of QT/QTc prolongation. No arrhythmic-related deaths were reported. The overall major ventricular arrhythmia rate was low (1.1%), with all events found not to be related to QT or HCQ therapy at a centralized event evaluation. No differences in QT/QTc prolongation and QT-related arrhythmias were observed across different clinical settings, with non-QT-related arrhythmias being more common in the intensive care setting. Conclusion HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 infection regardless of the clinical setting of delivery, causing only modest QTc prolongation and no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths.

Aims A validated risk stratification schema for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) could improve the management of these procedures. We aimed to derive and validate a scoring system to efficiently predict the need for advanced tools to achieve TLE success. Methods and results Between November 2013 and March 2018, 1960 leads were extracted in 973 consecutive TLE procedures in two national referral sites using a stepwise approach. A procedure was defined as advanced extraction if required the use of powered sheaths and/or snares. The study population was a posteriori 1:1 randomized in derivation and validation cohorts. In the derivation cohort, presence of more than two targeted leads (odds ratio [OR] 1.76, P = 0.049), 3-year-old (OR 3.04, P = 0.001), 5-year-old (OR 3.48, P &lt; 0.001), 10-year-old (OR 3.58, P = 0.008) oldest lead, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR 3.84, P &lt; 0.001), and passive fixation lead (OR 1.91, P = 0.032) were selected by a stepwise procedure and constituted the MB score showing a C-statistics of 0.82. In the validation group, the MB score was significantly associated with the risk of advanced extraction (OR 2.40, 95% confidence interval 2.02-2.86, P &lt; 0.001) and showed an increase in event rate with increasing score. A low value (threshold = 1) ensured 100% sensibility and 100% negative predictive value, while a high value (threshold = 5) allowed a specificity of 92.8% and a positive predictive value of 91.9%. Conclusion In this study, we developed and tested a simple point-based scoring system able to efficiently identify patients at low and high risk of needing advanced tools during TLE procedures.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction:We hypothesized that an accurate assessment of preoperative venography could be useful in predicting transvenous lead extraction (TLE) difficulty. Methods and Results: A dedicated preoperative venogram was performed in consecutive patients with cardiac implantable electronic device who underwent TLE.The level of stenosis was classified as without significant stenosis, moderate, severe, and occlusion. The presence of extensive lead-venous wall adherence (≥50 mm) was also assessed. A total of 105 patients (median age: 71 years; 72% male) with a median of 2 (1-2) leads to extract were enrolled. Preoperative venography showed moderate to severe stenosis in 31 (30%), complete occlusion in 15 (14%), and extensive lead-venous wall adherence in 50 (48%) patients. Complete TLE success was achieved in 103 (98%) patients. A total of 55 (52%) were advanced extractions as they required a powered mechanical and/or laser sheath. They were more prevalent in the group with extensive lead-venous wall adherence (72% vs. 34%, p < .001), while no differences were found between patients with and without venous occlusion. In multivariate analysis, the presence of adherence was a predictor of advanced extraction (odds ratio: 2.89 [1.14-7.32], p = .025). The fluoroscopy time was also significantly longer (14.