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.

Aims  The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. Methods and results  We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902). Conclusion  In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.

Asymptomatic arrhythmias are frequently encountered in clinical practice. Although studies specifically dedicated to these asymptomatic arrhythmias are lacking, many arrhythmias still require proper diagnostic and prognostic evaluation and treatment to avoid severe consequences, such as stroke or systemic emboli, heart failure, or sudden cardiac death. The present document reviews the evidence, where available, and attempts to reach a consensus, where evidence is insufficient or conflicting.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all‐cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two‐thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post‐implantation follow‐up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post‐procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under‐utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre‐implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term ‘non‐response’ and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post‐implant CRT care pathway.

Despite major therapeutic advances over the last decades, complex supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), particularly in the emergency setting or during revascularization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), remain an important clinical problem. Although the incidence of VAs has declined in the hospital phase of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), mainly due to prompt revascularization and optimal medical therapy, still up to 6% patients with ACS develop ventricular tachycardia and/or ventricular fibrillation within the first hours of ACS symptoms. Despite sustained VAs being perceived predictors of worse in-hospital outcomes, specific associations between the type of VAs, arrhythmia timing, applied treatment strategies and long-term prognosis in AMI are vague. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common supraventricular tachyarrhythmia that may be asymptomatic and/or may be associated with rapid haemodynamic deterioration requiring immediate treatment. It is estimated that over 20% AMI patients may have a history of AF, whereas the new-onset arrhythmia may occur in 5% patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction. Importantly, patients who were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI and developed AF have higher rates of adverse events and mortality compared with subjects free of arrhythmia. The scope of this position document is to cover the clinical implications and pharmacological/non-pharmacological management of arrhythmias in emergency presentations and during revascularization. Current evidence for clinical relevance of specific types of VAs complicating AMI in relation to arrhythmia timing has been discussed.

While CTI-dependent AFL is the most common AT late after open heart surgery, atypical AFL becomes progressively more common with more extensive atriotomy. Right atrial incisional tachycardia is the dominant non-CTI-dependent AFL after opening of the RA, while a perimitral or roof-dependent LA circuit can be expected after LA operations.

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.