Declining Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure: Fact or Myth?

[Treatment with cardiac electronic implantable devices]

Cardiac device therapy provides not only treatment options for bradyarrhythmia but also advanced treatment for heart failure and preventive measures against sudden cardiac death. In heart failure treatment it enables synergistic reverse remodelling and reduces pharmacological side effects. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the treatment of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left bundle branch block by decreasing the mortality and morbidity with improvement of the quality of life and resilience. Conduction system pacing (CSP) as an alternative method of physiological stimulation can improve heart function and reduce the risk of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. Leadless pacers and subcutaneous/extravascular defibrillators offer less invasive options with lower complication rates. The prevention of infections through preoperative and postoperative strategies enhances the safety of these therapies.

Antiarrhythmic Treatment in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Arrhythmias are common in patients with heart failure (HF) and are associated with a significant risk of mortality and morbidity. Optimal antiarrhythmic treatment is therefore essential. Here, we review current approaches to antiarrhythmic treatment in patients with HF.

RECENT FINDINGS

In atrial fibrillation, rhythm control and ventricular rate control are accepted therapeutic strategies. In recent years, clinical trials have demonstrated a prognostic benefit of early rhythm control strategies and AF catheter ablation, especially in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Prevention of sudden cardiac death with ICD therapy is essential, but optimal risk stratification is challenging. For ventricular tachycardias, recent data support early consideration of catheter ablation. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy is an adjunctive therapy in symptomatic patients but has no prognostic benefit and well-recognized (proarrhythmic) adverse effects. Antiarrhythmic therapy in HF requires a systematic, multimodal approach, starting with guideline-directed medical therapy for HF and integrating pharmacological, device, and interventional therapy.

Neurohumoral Activation in Heart Failure

In patients with heart failure (HF), the neuroendocrine systems of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and the arginine vasopressin (AVP) system, are activated to various degrees producing often-observed tachycardia and concomitant increased systemic vascular resistance. Furthermore, sustained neurohormonal activation plays a key role in the progression of HF and may be responsible for the pathogenetic mechanisms leading to the perpetuation of the pathophysiology and worsening of the HF signs and symptoms. There are biomarkers of activation of these neurohormonal pathways, such as the natriuretic peptides, catecholamine levels and neprilysin and various newer ones, which may be employed to better understand the mechanisms of HF drugs and also aid in defining the subgroups of patients who might benefit from specific therapies, irrespective of the degree of left ventricular dysfunction. These therapies are directed against these neurohumoral systems (neurohumoral antagonists) and classically comprise beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and vaptans. Recently, the RAAS blockade has been refined by the introduction of the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan, which combines the RAAS inhibition and neprilysin blocking, enhancing the actions of natriuretic peptides. All these issues relating to the neurohumoral activation in HF are herein reviewed, and the underlying mechanisms are pictorially illustrated.

Length of hospital stay for elective electrophysiological procedures: a survey from the European Heart Rhythm Association

AIMS

Electrophysiological (EP) operations that have traditionally involved long hospital lengths of stay (LOS) are now being undertaken as day case procedures. The coronavirus disease-19 pandemic served as an impetus for many centres to shorten LOS for EP procedures. This survey explores LOS for elective EP procedures in the modern era.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An online survey consisting of 27 multiple-choice questions was completed by 245 respondents from 35 countries. With respect to de novo cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, day case procedures were reported for 79.5% of implantable loop recorders, 13.3% of pacemakers (PMs), 10.4% of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and 10.2% of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. With respect to CIED generator replacements, day case procedures were reported for 61.7% of PMs, 49.2% of ICDs, and 48.2% of CRT devices. With regard to ablations, day case procedures were reported for 5.7% of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablations, 10.7% of left-sided ablations, and 17.5% of right-sided ablations. A LOS ≥ 2 days for CIED implantation was reported for 47.7% of PM, 54.5% of ICDs, and 56.9% of CRT devices and for 54.5% of AF ablations, 42.2% of right-sided ablations, and 46.1% of left-sided ablations. Reimbursement (43-56%) and bed availability (20-47%) were reported to have no consistent impact on the organization of elective procedures.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variation in the LOS for elective EP procedures. The LOS for some procedures appears disproportionate to their complexity. Neither reimbursement nor bed availability consistently influenced LOS.

Management of Ventricular Arrhythmias in Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite substantial progress in medical and device-based heart failure (HF) therapy, ventricular arrhythmias (VA) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) remain a major challenge. Here we review contemporary management of VA in the context of HF with one particular focus on recent advances in imaging and catheter ablation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Besides limited efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), their potentially life-threatening side effects are increasingly acknowledged. On the other hand, with tremendous advances in catheter technology, electroanatomical mapping, imaging, and understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms, catheter ablation has evolved into a safe, efficacious therapy. In fact, recent randomized trials support early catheter ablation, demonstrating superiority over AAD. Importantly, CMR imaging with gadolinium contrast has emerged as a central tool for the management of VA complicating HF: CMR is not only essential for an accurate diagnosis of the underlying entity and subsequent treatment decisions, but also improves risk stratification for SCD prevention and patient selection for ICD therapy. Finally, 3-dimensional characterization of arrhythmogenic substrate by CMR and imaging-guided ablation approaches substantially enhance procedural safety and efficacy. VA management in HF patients is highly complex and should be addressed in a multidisciplinary approach, preferably at specialized centers. While recent evidence supports early catheter ablation of VA, an impact on mortality remains to be demonstrated. Moreover, risk stratification for ICD therapy may have to be reconsidered, taking into account imaging, genetic testing, and other parameters beyond left ventricular function.