For arrhythmia treatment or sudden cardiac death prevention in hemodialysis patients, there is a frequent need for placement of a cardiac implantable electronic device (pacemaker, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization device). Leads from a cardiac implantable electronic device can cause central vein stenosis and carry the risk of tricuspid regurgitation or contribute to infective endocarditis. In patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring vascular access and cardiac implantable electronic device, the best strategy is to create an arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral upper limb for a cardiac implantable electronic device and avoidance of central vein catheter. Fortunately, cardiac electrotherapy is moving toward miniaturization and less transvenous wires. Whenever feasible, one should avoid transvenous leads and choose alternative options such as subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator, epicardial leads, and leadless pacemaker. Based on recent reports on the leadless pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillator effectiveness, in patients with rapid progression of chronic kidney disease (high risk of renal failure) or glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m², this option should be considered by the implanting cardiologist for future access protection.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are a standard therapy utilized for different cardiac conditions. They are implanted in a growing number of patients, including those with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Cardiovascular diseases, including heart failure and malignant arrhythmia, remain the leading cause of mortality among CKD patients, especially in ESKD. CIED implantation procedures are considered minor surgery, typically with transvenous leads inserted via upper central veins, followed by an impulse generator introduced subcutaneously. A decision regarding optimal hemodialysis (HD) modality and the choice of permanent vascular access (VA) could be particularly challenging in CIED recipients. The potential consequences of arteriovenous access on the CIED side are related to (1) venous hypertension from lead-related central vein stenosis and (2) the risk of systemic infection. Therefore, when creating permanent vascular access, the clinical scenario may be complicated by the CIED presence on one side and the lack of suitable vessels for arteriovenous fistula on the contralateral arm. These factors suggest the need for an individualized approach according to different clinical situations: (1) CIED in a CKD patient; (2) CIED in a patient on hemodialysis CIED; and (3) VA in a patient with CIED. This complex clinical conundrum creates the necessity for close cooperation between cardiologists and nephrologists.

Patients with central sleep apnea (CSA) have recently been shown to have improved sleep metrics and quality of life (QoL) with phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS). The aim of this study was to report the results of a partnership between cardiology, sleep medicine, and electrophysiology in a single clinical center as well as the enrollment, implantation, and follow‑up experience demonstrating both the safety and efficacy of PNS. This analysis included data from the pilot and pivotal trials investigating the effect of PNS using an implantable transvenous system in patients with CSA. We present our experience and data on the enrollment processes, implantation feasibility and safety, sleep indices, and QoL at 6 and 12 months of follow‑up. Between June 2010 and May 2015, cardiology patients were prescreened and 588 of them were sent for in‑home sleep test. Ninety‑six patients were referred for polysomnographic studies, and 33 were enrolled and had an implant attempt, with 31 successfully receiving an implant. The apnea-hypopnea index was reduced in the pilot trial (mean [SD] of 48.7 [15.5] events/h to 22.5 [13.2] events/h; P <0.001) and in the pivotal trial (mean [SD] of 48.3 [18.8] events/h to 26.0 [21.9] events/h; P <0.001). Improvement in QoL was also observed. We showed that PNS improved sleep metrics and QoL in patients with CSA, which is a result of multiple factors, including a comprehensive coordination between cardiology, sleep medicine, and electrophysiology. This ensures appropriate patient identification leading to safe implantation and full patient compliance during follow‑up visits.