COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on the organization of care in Italy, and a survey to evaluate provision of for arrhythmia during COVID-19 outbreak (March-April 2020) was launched. A total of 104 physicians from 84 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. The vast majority of participating centres (95.2%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective pacemaker implantations during the outbreak period compared to the corresponding two months of year 2019 (50.0% of centres reported a reduction of > 50%). Similarly, 92.9% of participating centres reported a significant reduction in the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations for primary prevention, and 72.6% a significant reduction of ICD implantations for secondary prevention (> 50% in 65.5 and 44.0% of the centres, respectively). The majority of participating centres (77.4%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective ablations (> 50% in 65.5% of the centres). Also the interventional procedures performed in an emergency setting, as well as acute management of atrial fibrillation had a marked reduction, thus leading to the conclusion that the impact of COVID-19 was disrupting the entire organization of health care, with a massive impact on the activities and procedures related to arrhythmia management in Italy.

Background— Ventricular tachycardia (VT) substrate ablation usually requires extensive ablation. Scar dechanneling technique may limit the extent of ablation needed. Methods and Results— The study included 101 consecutive patients with left ventricular scar–related VT (75 ischemic patients; left ventricular ejection fraction, 36±13%). Procedural end point was the elimination of all identified conducting channels (CCs) by ablation at the CC entrance followed by abolition of residual inducible VTs. By itself, scar dechanneling rendered noninducibility in 54.5% of patients; ablation of residual inducible VT increased noninducibility to 78.2%. Patients needing only scar dechanneling had a shorter procedure (213±64 versus 244±71 minutes; P =0.027), fewer radiofrequency applications (19±11% versus 27±18%; P =0.01), and external cardioversion/defibrillation shocks (20% versus 65.2%; P <0.001). At 2 years, patients needing scar dechanneling alone had better event-free survival (80% versus 62%) and lower mortality (5% versus 11%). Incomplete CC-electrogram elimination was the only independent predictor (hazard ratio, 2.54 [1.06–6.10]) for the primary end point. Higher end point-free survival rates were observed in patients noninducible after scar dechanneling (log-rank P =0.013) and those with complete CC-electrogram elimination (log-rank P =0.013). The complications rate was 6.9%, with no deaths. Conclusions— Scar dechanneling alone results in low recurrence and mortality rates in more than half of patients despite the limited ablation extent required. Residual inducible VT ablation improves acute results, but patients who require it have worse outcomes. Recurrences are mainly related to incomplete CC-electrogram elimination.

Aims In the Multisensor Chronic Evaluation in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients study, a novel algorithm for heart failure (HF) monitoring was implemented. The HeartLogic (Boston Scientific) index combines data from multiple implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD)‐based sensors and has proved to be a sensitive and timely predictor of impending HF decompensation. The remote monitoring of HF patients by means of HeartLogic has never been described in clinical practice. We report post‐implantation data collected from sensors, the combined index, and their association with clinical events during follow‐up in a group of patients who received a HeartLogic‐enabled device in clinical practice. Methods and results Patients with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy ICD were remotely monitored. In December 2017, the HeartLogic feature was activated on the remote monitoring platform, and multiple ICD‐based sensor data collected since device implantation were made available: HeartLogic index, heart rate, heart sounds, thoracic impedance, respiration, and activity. Their association with clinical events was retrospectively analysed. Data from 58 patients were analysed. During a mean follow‐up of 5 ± 3 months, the HeartLogic index crossed the threshold value (set by default to 16) 24 times (over 24 person‐years, 0.99 alerts/patient‐year) in 16 patients. HeartLogic alerts preceded five HF hospitalizations and five unplanned in‐office visits for HF. Symptoms or signs of HF were also reported at the time of five scheduled visits. The median early warning time and the time spent in alert were longer in the case of hospitalizations than in the case of minor events of clinical deterioration of HF. HeartLogic contributing sensors detected changes in heart sound amplitude (increased third sound and decreased first sound) in all cases of alerts. Patients with HeartLogic alerts during the observation period had higher New York Heart Association class ( P = 0.025) and lower ejection fraction ( P = 0.016) at the time of activation. Conclusions Our retrospective analysis indicates that the HeartLogic algorithm might be useful to detect gradual worsening of HF and to stratify risk of HF decompensation.

No abstract

No abstract

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) have a lower prevalence in women than men; although, a higher mortality rate and a poorer prognosis are more common in women. However, there is a misperception of CVD female risk since women have commonly been considered more protected so that the real threat is vastly underestimated. Consequently, female patients are more likely to be treated less aggressively, and a lower rate of diagnostic and interventional procedures is performed in women than in men. In addition, there are substantial sex differences in CVD, so different strategies are needed. This review aims to evaluate the main gender-specific approaches in CVD.

No abstract

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is as effective in improving LVEF in elderly as in non-elderly patients. Age alone should not be a determinant to restrict resynchronization therapy in HF patients.