Background: The HeartLogic algorithm measures data from multiple implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator‐based sensors and combines them into a single index. The associated alert has proved to be a sensitive and timely predictor of impending heart failure (HF) decompensation.Hypothesis: We describe a multicenter experience of remote HF management by means of HeartLogic and appraise the value of an alert‐based follow‐up strategy.Methods: The alert was activated in 104 patients. All patients were followed up according to a standardized protocol that included remote data reviews and patient phone contacts every month and at the time of alerts. In‐office examinations were performed every 6 months or when deemed necessary.Results: During a median follow‐up of 13 (10–16) months, the overall number of HF hospitalizations was 16 (rate 0.15 hospitalizations/patient‐year) and 100 alerts were reported in 53 patients. Sixty alerts were judged clinically meaningful, and were associated with multiple HF‐related conditions. In 48 of the 60 alerts, the clinician was not previously aware of the condition. Of these 48 alerts, 43 triggered clinical actions. The rate of alerts judged nonclinically meaningful was 0.37/patient‐year, and the rate of hospitalizations not associated with an alert was 0.05/patient‐year. Centers performed remote follow‐up assessments of 1113 scheduled monthly transmissions (10.3/patient‐year) and 100 alerts (0.93/patient‐year). Monthly remote data review allowed to detect 11 (1%) HF events requiring clinical actions (vs 43% actionable alerts, P < .001).Conclusions: HeartLogic allowed relevant HF‐related clinical conditions to be identified remotely and enabled effective clinical actions to be taken; the rates of unexplained alerts and undetected HF events were low. An alert‐based management strategy seemed more efficient than a scheduled monthly remote follow‐up scheme.

Background: The HeartLogic algorithm combines multiple implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensors to identify patients at risk of heart failure (HF) events. We sought to evaluate the risk stratification ability of this algorithm in clinical practice. We also analyzed the alert management strategies adopted in the study group and their association with the occurrence of HF events. Methods: The HeartLogic feature was activated in 366 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients at 22 centers. The median follow-up was 11 months [25th–75th percentile: 6–16]. The HeartLogic algorithm calculates a daily HF index and identifies periods IN alert state on the basis of a configurable threshold. Results: The HeartLogic index crossed the threshold value 273 times (0.76 alerts/patient-year) in 150 patients. The time IN alert state was 11% of the total observation period. Patients experienced 36 HF hospitalizations, and 8 patients died of HF during the observation period. Thirty-five events were associated with the IN alert state (0.92 events/patient-year versus 0.03 events/patient-year in the OUT of alert state). The hazard ratio in the IN/OUT of alert state comparison was (hazard ratio, 24.53 [95% CI, 8.55–70.38], P <0.001), after adjustment for baseline clinical confounders. Alerts followed by clinical actions were associated with less HF events (hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14–0.99], P =0.047). No differences in event rates were observed between in-office and remote alert management. Conclusions: This multiparametric algorithm identifies patients during periods of significantly increased risk of HF events. The rate of HF events seemed lower when clinical actions were undertaken in response to alerts. Extra in-office visits did not seem to be required to effectively manage HeartLogic alerts. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02275637.

Background: The incidence of infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patient outcomes are not fully known. Aim: To provide a contemporary assessment of the risk of CIEDs infection and associated clinical outcomes. Methods: In Italy, 18 centres enrolled all consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure and entered a 12-months follow-up. CIED infections, as well as a composite clinical event of infection or all-cause death were recorded. Results: A total of 2675 patients (64.3% male, age 78 (70–84)) were enrolled. During follow up 28 (1.1%) CIED infections and 132 (5%) deaths, with 152 (5.7%) composite clinical events were observed. At a multivariate analysis, the type of procedure (revision/upgrading/reimplantation) (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.38–12.08) and diabetes (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.02–4.84) were found as main clinical factors associated to CIED infection. Both the PADIT score and the RI-AIAC Infection score were significantly associated with CIED infections, with the RI-AIAC infection score showing the strongest association (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.60–3.55 for each point), with a c-index = 0.64 (0.52–0.75), p = 0.015. Regarding the occurrence of composite clinical events, the Kolek score, the Shariff score and the RI-AIAC Event score all predicted the outcome, with an AUC for the RI-AIAC Event score equal to 0.67 (0.63−0.71) p < 0.001. Conclusions: In this Italian nationwide cohort of patients, while the incidence of CIED infections was substantially low, the rate of the composite clinical outcome of infection or all-cause death was quite high and associated with several clinical factors depicting a more impaired clinical status.

Transcatheter ablation was increasingly and successfully used to treat symptomatic drug refractory patients affected by supraventricular arrhythmias. Antiarrhythmic drug treatment still plays a major role in patient management, alone or combined with non-pharmacological therapies. Flecainide is an IC antiarrhythmic drug approved in 1984 from the Food and Drug Administration for the suppression of sustained ventricular tachycardia and later for acute cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and for sinus rhythm maintenance. Currently, flecainide is mostly used for sinus rhythm maintenance in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients without structural cardiomyopathy although recent studies enrolling different patient populations have demonstrated a good effectiveness and safety profile. How should we interpret the results of the CAST after the latest evidence? Is it possible to expand the indications of flecainide, and therefore, its use? This review aims to highlight the main characteristics of flecainide, as well as its optimal clinical use, delineating drug indications and contraindications and appropriate monitoring, based on the most recent evidence.

Flecainide is an IC antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) that received in 1984 Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and subsequently for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently, flecainide is mainly employed for sinus rhythm maintenance in AF and the treatment of idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (IVA) in absence of ischaemic and structural heart disease on the basis of CAST data. Recent studies enrolling patients with different structural heart diseases demonstrated good effectiveness and safety profile of flecainide. The purpose of this review is to assess current evidence for appropriate and safe use of flecainide, 30 years after CAST data, in the light of new diagnostic and therapeutic tools in the field of ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart disease.