Arrhythmias cause disability and an increased risk of premature death in the general population but far more so in patients with renal failure. The association between the cardiac and renal systems is complex and derives in part from common causality of renal and myocardial injury from conditions including hypertension and diabetes. In many cases, there is a causal relationship, with renal dysfunction promoting arrhythmias and arrhythmias exacerbating renal dysfunction. In this review, the authors expand on the challenges faced by cardiologists in treating common and uncommon arrhythmias in patients with renal failure using pharmacological interventions, ablation and cardiac implantable device therapies. They explore the most important interactions between heart rhythm disorders and renal dysfunction while evaluating the ways in which the coexistence of renal dysfunction and cardiac arrhythmia influences the management of both.

Background: Coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) causes severe illness and multi‐organ dysfunction. An abnormal electrocardiogram is associated with poor outcome, and QT prolongation during the illness has been linked to pharmacological effects. This study sought to investigate the effects of the COVID‐19 illness on the corrected QT interval (QTc).Method: For 293 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital via the emergency department for COVID‐19 between 01/03/20 ‐18/05/20, demographic data, laboratory findings, admission electrocardiograph and clinical observations were compared in those who survived and those who died within 6 weeks. Hospital records were reviewed for prior electrocardiograms for comparison with those recorded on presentation with COVID‐19.Results: Patients who died were older than survivors (82 vs 69.8 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have cancer (22.3% vs 13.1%, p = 0.034), dementia (25.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.034) and ischemic heart disease (27.8% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001). Deceased patients exhibited higher levels of C‐reactive protein (244.6 mg/L vs 146.5 mg/L, p < 0.01), troponin (1982.4 ng/L vs 413.4 ng/L, p = 0.017), with a significantly longer QTc interval (461.1 ms vs 449.3 ms, p = 0.007). Pre‐COVID electrocardiograms were located for 172 patients; the QTc recorded on presentation with COVID‐19 was longer than the prior measurement in both groups, but was more prolonged in the deceased group (448.4 ms vs 472.9 ms, pre‐COVID vs COVID, p < 0.01). Multivariate Cox‐regression analysis revealed age, C‐reactive protein and prolonged QTc of >455 ms (males) and >465 ms (females) (p = 0.028, HR 1.49 [1.04‐2.13]), as predictors of mortality. QTc prolongation beyond these dichotomy limits was associated with increased mortality risk (p = 0.0027, HR 1.78 [1.2‐2.6]).Conclusion: QTc prolongation occurs in COVID‐19 illness and is associated with poor outcome.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is performed using non-laser and laser techniques with overall high efficacy and safety. Variation in outcomes between the two approaches does exist with limited comparative evidence in the literature. We sought to compare non-laser and laser TLE in a meta-analysis. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CENTRAL databases for TLE studies published between 1991 and 2021. From the included 68 studies, safety and efficacy data were carefully evaluated and extracted. Aggregated cases of outcomes were used to calculate odds ratio (OR), and pooled rates were synthesized from eligible studies to compare non-laser and laser techniques. Subgroup comparison of rotational tool and laser extraction was also performed. Non-laser in comparison with laser had lower procedural mortality (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.1%, P < 0.01), major complications (pooled rate 0.7% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.01), and superior vena cava (SVC) injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), with higher complete success (pooled rate 96.5% vs. 93.8%, P < 0.01). Non-laser comparatively to laser was more likely to achieve clinical [OR 2.16 (1.77–2.63), P < 0.01] and complete [OR 1.87 (1.69–2.08), P < 0.01] success, with a lower procedural mortality risk [OR 1.6 (1.02–2.5), P < 0.05]. In the subgroup analysis, rotational tool compared with laser achieved greater complete success (pooled rate 97.4% vs. 95%, P < 0.01) with lower SVC injury (pooled rate 0% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.01). Non-laser TLE is associated with a better safety and efficacy profile when compared with laser methods. There is a greater risk of SVC injury associated with laser sheath extraction.

Background: Troponin is a crucial biomarker for the diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It rises in response to myocardial injury from significant acute myocardial ischaemia caused by obstructive coronary artery disease [‘classical’ myocardial infarction (MI)]. However, raised levels have also been noted in conditions not recognized as classical ACS. This may include MI with non-obstructed coronary arteries such as takotsubo cardiomyopathy and other acute or chronic conditions such as pulmonary embolus or chronic kidney disease. This is commonly labelled as a ‘falsely elevated’ troponin although there is some myocardial strain to explain the rise, such as an increase in cardiac oxygen demand. True ‘falsely elevated’ troponin, characterized by a persistent elevation in the absence of cardiac injury does occur and thought to be secondary to an immunoglobulin-troponin complex (macrotroponin). Case summary: A 53-year-old gentleman with a background of diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and hepatitis B was admitted with chest pain and persistently elevated cardiac troponin T (cTnT) levels. Investigations revealed unobstructed coronary arteries and a structurally normal, well-functioning heart. Subsequent biochemical analysis found the persistently elevated cTnT secondary to macrotroponin T. Discussion: Macrotroponin, an immunoglobulin-troponin bound complex should be considered as a differential diagnosis when the biochemistry is not reflective of the clinical picture. Early recognition requires effective collaboration with the biochemistry laboratory for accurate diagnosis.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices are the cornerstone of cardiac rhythm management, with a significant number of implantations annually. A rising prevalence of cardiac implantable electronic devices coupled with widening indications for device removal has fuelled a demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). With advancement of tools and techniques, the safety and efficacy profile of TLE has significantly improved since its inception. Despite these advances, TLE continues to carry risk of significant complications, including a superior vena cava injury and mortality. However, innovative approaches to lead extraction, including the use of the jugular and femoral accesses, offers potential for further gains in safety and efficacy. In this review, the indications and risks of TLE are discussed while examining the evolution of this procedure from simple traction to advanced methodologies, which have contributed to a significant improvement in safety and efficacy.

Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is important in the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices but carries risk. It is most commonly completed from the superior access, often with ‘bail-out’ support via the femoral approach. Superior and inferior access may be used in tandem, which has been proposed as an advance in safety and efficacy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tandem approach. The ‘Tandem’ procedure entailed grasping of the targeted lead in the right atrium to provide countertraction as a rotational dissecting sheath was advanced over the lead from the subclavian access. Consecutive ‘Tandem’ procedures performed by a single operator between December 2020 and March 2023 in a single large-volume TLE centre were included and compared with the conventional superior approach (control) using 1:1 propensity score matching; patients were statistically matched for demographics. The Tandem in comparison with the conventional approach extracted leads of much greater dwell time (148.9 ± 79 vs. 108.6 ± 77 months, P < 0.01) in a shorter procedure duration (96 ± 36 vs. 127 ± 67 min, P < 0.01) but requiring more fluoroscopy (16.4 ± 10.9 vs. 10.8 ± 14.9 min, P < 0.01). The Tandem and control groups had similar clinical (100% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.07) and complete (94.8% vs. 92.8%, P = 0.42) success, with comparable minor (4% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.72) and major (0% vs. 4%, P = 0.25) complications; procedural (0% vs. 1.3%, P = 1) and 30-day (1.3% vs. 4%, P = 0.62) mortality were also similar. The Tandem procedure is as safe and effective as the conventional TLE. It can be applied to leads of a long dwell time with a potentially shorter procedure duration.