Our study suggests that CS leads, after medium-term implantation, can be effectively and safely removed using MD with polypropylene sheaths, in the case of unsuccessful LT. No pre-operative elements predictive of LT failure could be identified. Areas of adherence were rarely located in the CS or its tributaries.

Aims About one-third of patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are not responders, due to either patient selection or technical issues. Left ventricular quadripolar passive fixation leads (QPL) and bipolar active fixation (BAF) leads have been designed to ensure a targeted left ventricular stimulation area, minimizing lead dislodgments and phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). The aim was to compare real-world safety and efficacy of BAF (Attain Stability, Medtronic Plc.) and QPL (Attain Performa, Medtronic Plc.). Methods We performed a retrospective analysis examining procedural and follow-up data of 261 BAF and 124 QPL (programmed to single-site left ventricular pacing), included in the ClinicalService project from 16 Italian hospitals. Results At median follow-up of 12 months, no difference in left ventricular pacing threshold was recorded between BAF and QPL (1.3 ± 0.9 V @0.4 ms vs. 1.3 ± 1.0 V @0.4 ms; P = 0.749). Total left ventricular lead dislodgement rate was 1.43/100 patient-years in BAF vs. 2.9/100 patient-years in QPL (P = 0.583). However, no dislodgements occurred among BAF after hospital discharge. Events requiring repeated surgery or permanently turning CRT off occurred in 0.8% of BAF, as compared with 4.0% of QPL (P = 0.025). There was no difference between groups in the echo CRT responders’ rate (70% of BAF and 66% of QPL; P = 0.589) or in the annual rate of heart failure hospitalization (P = 0.513). Conclusions BAF resulted in noninferior clinical outcome and CRT responders’ rate in comparison to QPL. Moreover, BAF ensured more precise and stable placement in cardiac veins, with comparable electrical performance and less than 1% patients with unsolved PNS.

Pacemakers (PMs) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become life-saving therapeutic tools for patients with cardiac arrhythmia. Complications include thrombosis, embolism and infections at a highly variable rate. Surgical removal of the infected device has been perceived as the only way to guarantee a successful outcome and to reduce the high risk of mortality. Recently, a transvenous extraction method has been developed to remove infected intracardiac leads without sternotomy. This survey was designed to evaluate the outcome of an approach combining antibiotic therapy with non-surgical transvenous complete removal for the management of cardiac device infections (CDIs). We reviewed case-histories of 121 patients (105 with PM and 16 with ICD infections). The aim of our retrospective survey was to ascertain that a non-invasive transvenous complete removal of the infected devices is safe and effective when associated with appropriate antibiotic therapy starting 10 days before the procedure and extending to at least three weeks after. The infected devices were successfully removed in all patients with a non-surgical transvenous technique. The infections were most frequently caused by coagulase-negative staphylococci (70%), Staphylococcus aureus (14%), and Gram-negative rods (12%). Polymicrobial infections were documented in 19 patients and represent 16% of all device-related infections. The removal of the devices was done during antibiotic therapy, administered for a median of 26 days (range 23 to 45 days). Neither fatalities nor relapse of infections were recorded in the patient population during the one-year follow-up visits. According to our experience, CDIs can be treated with antibiotic therapy and non-surgical removal of the entire infected device, thus allowing a successful reimplantation. This procedure prevents recurrent infections and operative mortality.

It is well established that coronary artery disease with healed myocardial infarction is the most common backdrop for ventricular tachycardia (VT). Although the clinical benefits of biventricular pacing (BivP) in the treatment of severe heart failure are well documented, exact relation with ventricular arrhythmias remains still unclear. We describe a case of a patient, whitout a previous history of arrhythmic episodes, in which the onset of several episodes of VT presented immediatly after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and did not occur after BivP discontinuation.