overestimated. Irrespectively, it is important to point out that there is little information with regards to real-life battery longevity for the studied CRT-D device (Quadra Assura MP, St Jude) given its fairly recent commercialization. Nonetheless, we believe the main value of the present study lies in the reported proportional differences in battery longevity between the different pacing programming protocols. Our results may therefore help clinicians make more informed decisions when considering MPP activation, given the current scarcity of information regarding its impact on battery longevity. ConclusionsIn most cases, MPP activation significantly reduces battery longevity compared with that for conventional CRT configuration. However, when reasonable MPP LV vector PCTs (< _4.0 V) are achieved, the decrease in battery longevity is relatively small and this may prompt the clinician to activate MPP in such scenarios.

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Background— Although routinely administered, definitive evidence for the benefits of prophylactic antibiotics before the implantation of permanent pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from a large double-blinded placebo-controlled trial is lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine whether prophylactic antibiotic administration reduces the incidence of infection related to device implantation. Methods and Results— This double blinded study included 1000 consecutive patients who presented for primary device (Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) implantation or generator replacement randomized in a 1:1 fashion to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Intravenous administration of 1 g of cefazolin (group I) or placebo (group 2) was done immediately before the procedure. Follow-up was performed 10 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. The primary end point was any evidence of infection at the surgical incision (pulse generator pocket), or systemic infection related to be procedure. The safety committee interrupted the trial after 649 patients were enrolled due to a significant difference in favor of the antibiotic arm (group I: 2 of 314 infected patients—0.63%; group II: 11 of 335 to 3.28%; RR=0.19 ; P =0.016). The following risk factors were positively correlated with infection by univariate analysis: nonuse of preventive antibiotic ( P =0.016); implant procedures (versus generator replacement: P =0.02); presence of postoperative hematoma ( P =0.03) and procedure duration ( P =0.009). Multivariable analysis identified nonuse of antibiotic ( P =0.037) and postoperative hematoma ( P =0.023) as independent predictors of infection. Conclusions— Antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduces infectious complications in patients undergoing implantation of pacemakers or cardioverter-defibrillators.

The incidence of venous lesions after permanent pacemaker insertion is around 45%. However, this incidence has been based on retrospective studies in a small series; moreover, factors predicting the development of these venous injuries have not been clearly defined. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for higher incidence of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis after transvenous permanent pacemaker insertion. The study included 229 patients and the criteria were age above 12 years and first permanent transvenous pacemaker implant. Exclusion criteria were pulmonary embolism, lower or upper extremity deep venous thrombosis, previous use of central venous catheters, coagulation disturbances, and malignancy. Age, race, sex, underlying cardiac disease, functional class to heart failure, LVEF, venous access, number, material and caliber of the leads, and previous use of a transvenous temporary pacemaker were considered. Six months after the pacemaker was implanted, 202 patients were submitted to digital subtraction venography ipsilateral to pacemaker implant. The venographies were normal in 73 (36%) patients and abnormal in 129 (64%) patients. Patients with previous use of transvenous temporary leads (P = 0,0001, OR = 4,260, confidence limits = 2,133-8,465) and LVEF < or = 40% (P = 0,0378, OR = 3,437, confidence limits = 1,064-12,326), had higher incidence of venous lesions. Previous use of a temporary pacemaker and LVEF < or = 0.40 were considered independent risk factors to a higher incidence of venous stenosis or thrombosis 6 months after permanent pacemaker insertion.

Improvement in CSA correlated with a positive CRT response. Lower MIBG uptake before therapy was associated with CRT nonresponse. The H/M ratio could be helpful in selecting patients for CRT.

Aims Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection rates are increasing. Worldwide compliance and disparities to published guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis and management of these conditions are not well elucidated. The purpose of this survey, therefore, was to clarify these issues through an inquiry to arrhythmia-related associations and societies worldwide. Methods and results A questionnaire comprising 15 questions related to CIED infections was distributed among members of seven arrhythmia societies worldwide. A total of 234 centres in 62 countries reported implantation rates of which 159 (68.0%) performed more than 200 device implantations per year and 14 (6.0%) performed fewer than 50 implantations per year. The reported rates of CIED infections for 2017 were ≤2% in 78.7% of the centres, while the infection rates exceeded 5% in 7.8% of the centres. Preventive measures for CIED infection differed from published recommendations and varied among different regions mainly in terms of pocket irrigation and administering post-operative antimicrobial therapy the use of which was reported by 39.9% and 44% of the respondents, respectively. Antibacterial envelopes were used by 37.7% of the respondents in selected circumstances. In terms of pocket infection management, 62% of the respondents applied complete system removal as an initial step. Diagnostic pocket needle aspiration and pocket surgical debridement were reported by 15.8% and 11.8% of centres, respectively. Conclusion Clinical practices for prevention and management of CIED do not fully comply with current recommendations and demonstrate considerable regional disparities. Further education and programmes for improved implementation of guidelines are mandatory.

No abstract