Nils Gosau

Patients presenting with or alerting emergency networks due to acute heart failure (AHF) form a diverse group with a plethora of symptoms, risks, comorbidities, and aetiologies. During AHF, there is an increased risk of destabilizing the functional substrate and modulatory adding to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) already created by the structural substrate. New VAs during AHF have previously identified patients with higher intra-hospital and 60-day morbidity and mortality. Risk stratification and criteria/best time point for coronary intervention and implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation, however, are still controversial topics in this difficult clinical setting. The characteristics and logistics of pre-hospital emergency medicine, as well as the density of centres capable of treating AHF and VAs, differ massively throughout Europe. Scientific guidelines provide clear recommendations for the management of arrhythmias in patients with chronic heart failure. However, the incidence, significance, and management of arrhythmias in patients with AHF have been less studied. This consensus paper aimed to address the identification and treatment of VAs that complicate the course of patients who have AHF, including cardiogenic shock.

We investigated the effect of systemic infection or lead endocarditis on the complexity and the success of laser lead extraction (LLE) procedures. Medical records of all patients undergoing LLE between January 2012 and March 2017 were screened with regard to information on systemic infection or lead endocarditis. We treated 184 patients using high-frequency 80 Hz laser sheaths in patients with lead implant duration of ≥ 12 months. Indications for lead extraction were systemic infection and lead endocarditis in 52 cases (28.3%), local infection in 74 cases (40.2%), lead dysfunction in 37 cases (20.1%) and other indications in 21 cases (11.4%). 386 leads were scheduled for LLE: 235 (60.9%) pacing, 105 (27.2%) ICD and 46 (11.9%) CS leads. The mean time from initial lead implantation (systemic infection 96.8 ± 74.7 months vs. 102.1 ± 82.6 non-infected: months; p = 0.4155) and ratio of ICD leads (26.8 vs. 27.4%; p = 0.3411) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Complete procedural success was significantly higher in the systemic infection group (100 vs. 94.7%; p = 0.0077). The mean laser treatment (60.2 ± 48.7 vs. 72.4 ± 61.5 s; p = 0.2038) was numerically lower in the infection group, while fluoroscopy time (9.3 ± 7.6 vs. 12.8 ± 10.3 min; p = 0.0275) was significantly lower in this group. Minor and major complications were low in both groups and did not reveal any statistically significant difference (infected group: one minor complication; pocket hematoma, non-infected: three major complications; emergent sternotomy due to pericardial tamponade). No extraction related mortality was observed. The presence of systemic infection or lead endocarditis in LLE procedures allows for higher complete procedural success. When compared with LLE of non-infected leads, the infected leads require less laser and fluoroscopy times. Due to the scarcity of minor and major complications in general, no statistical significance was found in that regard.

Implantation of coronary sinus (CS) leads may be a difficult procedure due to different vein anatomies and a possible lead dislodgement. The mode of CS lead fixation has changed and developed in recent years. We compared the removal procedures of active and passive fixation leads. Between January 2009 and January 2014, 22 patients at our centre underwent CS lead removal, 6 active and 16 passive fixation leads were attempted using simple traction or lead locking devices with or without laser extraction sheaths. Data on procedural variables and success rates were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The mean patient age was 67.2 ± 9.8 years, and 90.9% were male. The indication for lead removal was infection in all cases. All active fixation leads were Medtronic^® Attain StarFix^™ Model 4195 (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). The mean time from implantation for the active and passive fixation leads was 9.9 ± 11.7 months (range 1.0–30.1) and 48.7 ± 33.6 months (range 5.7–106.4), respectively (p = 0.012). Only 3 of 6 StarFix leads were successfully removed (50%) compared to 16 of 16 (100%) of the passive fixation CS leads (p = 0.013). No death or complications occurred during the 30-day follow-up. According to our experience, removal of the Starfix active fixation CS leads had a higher procedural failure rate compared to passive.