Cardiac arrhythmias are responsible for a significant portion of cardiovascular disease among pregnant people. As the incidence of arrhythmias in pregnancy continues to increase, anesthesiologists who care for obstetric patients should be experts managing arrhythmias in pregnancy. This article examines the most common arrhythmias encountered in pregnancy, including risk factors, diagnosis, and management strategies. Peripartum monitoring and labor analgesia recommendations are discussed. Additionally, management of cardioversion, management of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and advanced cardiac life support in the setting of pregnancy is reviewed.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation as the first-line treatment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients with SHD are particularly susceptible to VT, a condition that increases the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can terminate VT and prevent SCD but do not prevent VT recurrence. The efficacy and safety of CA as a first-line treatment in SHD patients with preserved LVEF remain unclear. We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for studies reporting the outcomes of CA therapy in patients with VT and preserved LVEF, published up to January 19, 2023. The primary outcome was the incidence of SCD following catheter ablation as the first-line treatment of VT in patients with SHD and preserved LVEF. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, VT recurrence, procedural complications, CA success rate, and ICD implantation after catheter ablation. We included seven studies in the meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 920 patients. The pooled success rate of catheter ablation was 84.6% (95% CI 67.2-93.6). Complications occurred in 6.4% (95% CI 4.0-9.9) of patients, and 13.9% (95% CI 10.1-18.8) required ICD implantation after ablation. VT recurrence was observed in 23.2% (95% CI 14.8-34.6) of patients, while the rate of sudden cardiac death (SCD) was 3.1% (95% CI 1.7-5.6). The overall prevalence of all-cause mortality in this population was 5% (95% CI 1.8-13). CA appears promising as a first-line VT treatment in patients with SHD and preserved LVEF, especially for monomorphic hemodynamically tolerated VT. However, due to the lack of direct comparisons with ICDs and anti-arrhythmic drugs, further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Pacemakers (PM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are vital devices in contemporary clinical practice, but their growing adoption poses challenges. Complications, including lead migration, infections, and post-implantation venous thrombosis, underscore the importance of comprehensive investigation. This retrospective observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with upper limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) secondary to intracardiac devices at a tertiary hospital from 2015 to 2022. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence and long-term outcomes (bleeding, DVT recurrence and sequelae) in these patients. Across the study period, 2681 intracardiac devices were implanted, with 12 cases of upper limb DVT documented. The majority of patients were male (91.7%), with a mean age of 63.92 years. DVT occurred in patients with PM (50%), implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (25%) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (25%). Treatment encompassed low-molecular-weight heparin (91.7%) during the acute episode and long-term anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants (75%) or vitamin K antagonists (25%). Over a mean follow-up period of 33.17 months, half of the patients exhibited long-term sequelae, notably collateral circulation (66.7%). Remarkably, no thrombosis recurrences were observed during follow-up. However, one patient (8.3%) experienced a major bleeding event during treatment, and one patient (8.3%) required device removal (PM) due to persistent symptoms. This study revealed upper limb DVT occurred in 0.45% of patients after intracardiac device implantation. Rate of thrombosis recurrence was low during follow-up. Although half of the patients developed long-term sequelae, the need for prolonged anticoagulant therapy in these cases remains uncertain.

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an inherited arrhythmogenic disorder marked by distinctive ST-segment elevations on electrocardiograms (ECG) and an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. Characterized by mutations primarily in the SCN5A gene, BrS disrupts cardiac ion channel function, leading to abnormal electrical activity and arrhythmias. Although BrS primarily affects young, healthy males, it poses significant diagnostic challenges due to its often concealed or intermittent ECG manifestations and clinical presentation that can mimic other cardiac disorders. Current management strategies focus on symptom control and prevention of sudden death, with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) serving as the primary intervention for high-risk patients. However, the complications associated with ICDs and the lack of effective pharmacological options necessitate a cautious and personalized approach. Recent advancements in catheter ablation have shown promise, particularly for managing ventricular fibrillation (VF) storms and reducing ICD shocks. Additionally, pharmacological treatments such as quinidine have been effective in specific cases, though their use is limited by availability and side effects. This review highlights significant gaps in the BrS literature, particularly in terms of long-term management and novel therapeutic approaches. The importance of genetic screening and tailored treatment strategies to better identify and manage at-risk individuals is emphasized. The review aims to enhance the understanding of BrS and improve patient outcomes, advocating for a multidisciplinary approach to this complex syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators last longer, and interest in reliable leads with targeted lead placement is growing. The OmniaSecure™ defibrillation lead is a novel small-diameter, catheter-delivered lead designed for targeted placement, based on the established SelectSecure SureScan MRI Model 3830 lumenless pacing lead platform.
OBJECTIVE: This trial assessed safety and efficacy of the OmniaSecure defibrillation lead.
METHODS: The worldwide LEADR pivotal clinical trial enrolled patients indicated for de novo implantation of a primary or secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, all of whom received the study lead. The primary efficacy end point was successful defibrillation at implantation per protocol. The primary safety end point was freedom from study lead-related major complications at 6 months. The primary efficacy and safety objectives were met if the lower bound of the 2-sided 95% credible interval was >88% and >90%, respectively.
RESULTS: In total, 643 patients successfully received the study lead, and 505 patients have completed 12-month follow-up. The lead was placed in the desired right ventricular location in 99.5% of patients. Defibrillation testing at implantation was completed in 119 patients, with success in 97.5%. The Kaplan-Meier estimated freedom from study lead-related major complications was 97.1% at 6 and 12 months. The trial exceeded the primary efficacy and safety objective thresholds. There were zero study lead fractures and electrical performance was stable throughout the mean follow-up of 12.7 ± 4.8 months (mean ± SD).
CONCLUSIONS: The OmniaSecure lead exceeded prespecified primary end point performance goals for safety and efficacy, demonstrating high defibrillation success and a low occurrence of lead-related major complications with zero lead fractures.

The implantation of electrodes for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) requires profound technical understanding and precise execution. The positioning of electrodes in the right ventricle and atrium has significant implications for patient safety and the effectiveness of CIED therapy. Particular focus is given to the distinction between apical and septal stimulation in ventricular positioning. Based on current data, this article provides a practice-oriented guide that leads implanters through the individual steps of electrode positioning. The implantation of electrodes for physiological stimulation (cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT, and conduction system pacing, CSP) is not addressed in this article.
UNASSIGNED: Die Implantation von Elektroden aktiver Herzrhythmusimplantate („cardiac implantable electronic devices“, CIED) erfordert tiefgehendes technisches Verständnis und eine präzise Ausführung. Die Platzierung der Elektroden im rechten Ventrikel und Vorhof hat signifikante Auswirkungen auf die Patientensicherheit und die Effektivität der CIED-Therapie. Insbesondere bei der ventrikulären Platzierung wird dabei der Fokus auf die Unterscheidung zwischen apikaler und septaler Stimulation gelegt. Basierend auf der aktuellen Datenlage, stellt dieser Artikel eine praxisorientierte Anleitung dar, die Implantierende durch die einzelnen Schritte der Elektrodenplatzierung führt. Die Implantation von Elektroden zur physiologischen Stimulation („cardiac resynchronization therapy“, CRT und „conduction system pacing“, CSP) werden an anderer Stelle adressiert und sind nicht Gegenstand dieses Artikels.

UNASSIGNED: Limited real-world evidence exists for outcomes with contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%.
UNASSIGNED: The present study aimed to assess survival associated with GDMT or GDMT with ICD/CRT-D therapy.
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective observational study included real-world de-identified data from January 1, 2016, to December 19, 2023, from 24 U.S. institutions per participating institutional agreements (egnite Database; egnite, Inc.). Patients with a diagnosis of HFrEF and an echocardiographic study documenting LVEF ≤35% were included for analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Of 43,591 patients with eligible index event of LVEF ≤35%, prescription history through ≥1 year preindex, and no ICD/CRT-D therapy preindex, mean ± standard deviation age at index was 71.2 ± 13.2 years; 14,805 (34.0%) patients were female. At 24 months, an estimated 99.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 99.0%-99.2%), 89.9% (95% CI 89.7%-90.1%), 54.8% (95% CI 54.4%-55.2%), and 17.2% (95% CI 16.9%-17.5%), had ≥1, 2, 3, or all 4 GDMT classes prescribed, respectively; an estimated 15.7% (95% CI 15.3%-16.1%) had device placement. Of those without a device, by 24 months, an estimated 45.1% (95% CI 44.4%-45.7%) had a documented LVEF >35%. Counts of GDMT classes prescribed as well as ICD/CRT-D device therapy were associated with lower mortality risk in this population, even after adjustment for patient age, sex, and comorbidities.
UNASSIGNED: Both GDMT classes prescribed and device therapy were independently associated with lower mortality risk, even in the presence of more GDMT options for this more contemporary population.

Ventricular tachyarrhythmias remain a major cause of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) that leads to sudden cardiac death (SCD). Primary prevention strategies to prevent SCD include promoting a healthy lifestyle, following United States Preventive Service Task Force recommendations related to cardiovascular disease, and controlling comorbid conditions. For a patient experiencing SCA, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation should be performed. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators are more effective at secondary prevention compared with drug therapy but medications such as amiodarone, beta-blockers, and sotalol may be helpful adjuncts to reduce the risk of SCD or improve a patient\'s symptoms (eg, palpitations and inappropriate defibrillator shocks).

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) reduces morbidity and mortality. However, many patients are not adherent to RM.
OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of informational postcards on RM adherence.
METHODS: Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial among Veterans with pacemakers and ICDs.
METHODS: In wave 1, Veterans who had sent at least 1 transmission within the past 2 years but had become non-adherent were randomly assigned to receive a postcard or no postcard. Those receiving postcards were randomized to 1 of 2 messages: (1) a\"warning\" postcard describing risks of non-adherence or (2) an \"encouraging\" postcard describing benefits of adherence. In wave 2, Veterans who had either not received a postcard in wave 1 or had since become non-adherent were mailed a postcard (again, randomized to 1 of 2 messages). Patients who did not send an RM transmission within 1 month were mailed a second, identical postcard.
METHODS: Transmission within 70 days.
RESULTS: Overall, 6351 Veterans were included. In waves 1 and 2, postcards were mailed to 5657 Veterans (2821 \"warning\" messages and 2836 \"encouraging\" messages). Wave 1 included 2178 Veterans as controls (i.e., not mailed a postcard), some of whom received a postcard in wave 2 if they remained non-adherent. In wave 2, 3473 postcards were sent. Of the 5657 patients mailed a postcard, 2756 (48.7%) sent an RM transmission within 70 days, compared to 530 (24.3%) of 2178 controls (absolute difference 24.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 22.2%, 26.6%). Of those who sent a transmission, 71.8% did so after the first postcard. Transmission rates at 70 days did not significantly differ between \"warning\" and \"encouraging\" messages (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.92, 1.18).
CONCLUSIONS: Informational postcards led to a 24.4% absolute increase in adherence at 70 days among Veterans with pacemakers and ICDs who were non-adherent to RM.

Upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is an uncommon, under-reported, and difficult-to-diagnose condition. Although the strong provoking risk factors of venous thromboembolism are well described in the literature, the majority of cases are provoked by weak risk factors or are even considered unprovoked. In this case report, we describe a rare case of a brachial DVT in a woman in her 40s following implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. In her first evaluation, slight left arm edema and brachialgia were noted, and physiotherapy was prescribed. One month later, the patient was reevaluated because her complaints did not resolve, and an upper extremity venous ultrasound was done to exclude complications due to ICD implantation. The ultrasound identified an old DVT, which had been completely recanalized. The patient was then referred to a vascular surgery specialty consultation, which confirmed the diagnosis, and an anticoagulant was prescribed for three months. The symptoms resolved, and the patient did not report any more pain.