Editorial: Developments in cardiac implantable electronic device therapy: how can we improve clinical implementation?

Vámos, Máté; Erath, Julia W.; Benz, Alexander P; Duray, Gabor Z.

doi:10.3389/fcvm.2023.1177882

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evolving new implantation techniques should be also mentioned, like conduction system pacing, that might eliminate these issues in the future, and we will have greater freedom selecting the pacing sites so targeting can be more precise [69].…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Useful Electrocardiographic Signs to Support the Prediction of Favorable Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Simon,

Pilecky,

Kiss

et al. 2023

JCDD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a cornerstone therapeutic opportunity for selected patients with heart failure. For optimal patient selection, no other method has been proven to be more effective than the 12-lead ECG, and hence ECG characteristics are extensively researched. The evaluation of particular ECG signs before the implantation may improve selection and, consequently, clinical outcomes. The definition of a true left bundle branch block (LBBB) seems to be the best starting point with which to select patients for CRT. Although there are no universally accepted definitions of LBBB, using the classical LBBB criteria, some ECG parameters are associated with CRT response. In patients with non-true LBBB or non-LBBB, further ECG predictors of response and non-response could be analyzed, such as QRS fractionation, signs of residual left bundle branch conduction, S-waves in V6, intrinsicoid deflection, or non-invasive estimates of Q-LV which are described in newer publications. The most important and recent study results of the topic are summarized and discussed in this current review.

show abstract

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Useful Electrocardiographic Signs to Support the Prediction of Favorable Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Simon,

Pilecky,

Kiss

et al. 2023

JCDD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CIED infection is deemed to be one of the most serious complications since it requires complete system removal with all possible risks of transvenous lead extraction [6][7][8][9][10][11]. Although many preventive strategies-for instance, administration of prophylactic antibiotic therapy before implantation or antibiotic-eluting envelopes for high-risk patients-have been established and were able to demonstrate lower infection rates, uncertainties still exist about other regimens and protocols [9,[12][13][14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning

Schvartz,

Haidary,

Wakili

et al. 2024

JCDD

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032–2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

show abstract

Editorial: Developments in cardiac implantable electronic device therapy: how can we improve clinical implementation?

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Useful Electrocardiographic Signs to Support the Prediction of Favorable Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Useful Electrocardiographic Signs to Support the Prediction of Favorable Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Risk of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infection after Early versus Delayed Lead Repositioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About