Background - COVID-19 has led to over 1 million deaths worldwide and has been associated with cardiac complications including cardiac arrhythmias. The incidence and pathophysiology of these manifestations remain elusive. In this worldwide survey of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who developed cardiac arrhythmias, we describe clinical characteristics associated with various arrhythmias, as well as global differences in modulations of routine electrophysiology practice during the pandemic. Methods - We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection worldwide with and without incident cardiac arrhythmias. Patients with documented atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter (AFL), supraventricular tachycardia (SVT), non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), atrioventricular block (AVB), or marked sinus bradycardia (HR<40bpm) were classified as having arrhythmia. De-identified data was provided by each institution and analyzed. Results - Data was collected for 4,526 patients across 4 continents and 12 countries, 827 of whom had an arrhythmia. Cardiac comorbidities were common in patients with arrhythmia: 69% had hypertension, 42% diabetes mellitus, 30% had heart failure and 24% coronary artery disease. Most had no prior history of arrhythmia. Of those who did develop an arrhythmia, the majority (81.8%) developed atrial arrhythmias, 20.7% developed ventricular arrhythmias, and 22.6% had bradyarrhythmia. Regional differences suggested a lower incidence of AF in Asia compared to other continents (34% vs. 63%). Most patients in in North America and Europe received hydroxychloroquine, though the frequency of hydroxychloroquine therapy was constant across arrhythmia types. Forty-three percent of patients who developed arrhythmia were mechanically ventilated and 51% survived to hospital discharge. Many institutions reported drastic decreases in electrophysiology procedures performed. Conclusions - Cardiac arrhythmias are common and associated with high morbidity and mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. There were significant regional variations in the types of arrhythmias and treatment approaches.

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.

Available data on continuous rhythm monitoring by implantable loop recorders (ILRs) in patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) are scarce. The aim of this multi-centre study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and clinical implication of a continuous rhythm monitoring strategy by ILRs in a large cohort of BrS patients and to assess the precise arrhythmic cause of syncopal episodes. A total of 370 patients with BrS and ILRs (mean age 43.5 ± 15.9, 33.8% female, 74.1% symptomatic) from 18 international centers were included. Patients were followed with continuous rhythm monitoring for a median follow-up of 3 years. During follow-up, an arrhythmic event was recorded in 30.7% of symptomatic patients [18.6% atrial arrhythmias (AAs), 10.2% bradyarrhythmias (BAs), and 7.3% ventricular arrhythmias (VAs)]. In patients with recurrent syncope, the aetiology was arrhythmic in 22.4% (59.3% BAs, 25.0% VAs, and 15.6% AAs). The ILR led to drug therapy initiation in 11.4%, ablation procedure in 10.9%, implantation of a pacemaker in 2.5%, and a cardioverter-defibrillator in 8%. At multivariate analysis, the presence of symptoms [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5, P = .001] and age >50 years (HR 1.7, P = .016) were independent predictors of arrhythmic events, while inducibility of ventricular fibrillation at the electrophysiological study (HR 9.0, P < .001) was a predictor of VAs. ILR detects arrhythmic events in nearly 30% of symptomatic BrS patients, leading to appropriate therapy in 70% of them. The most commonly detected arrhythmias are AAs and BAs, while VAs are detected only in 7% of cases. Symptom status can be used to guide ILR implantation. In our large cohort of 370 Brugada syndrome (BrS) patients from 18 international centers monitored continuously with an implantable loop recorder (ILR) for 3 years, 25.4% of the patients experienced an arrhythmic event (per-patient analysis). Specifically, 16% experienced an atrial arrhythmia, 5% a ventricular arrhythmia (VA), and 8% a bradyarrhythmia (per-event analysis). The occurrence of arrhythmic syncope in the whole cohort was 8.6% (32/370). The induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) during an electrophysiological (EP) study emerged as the only predictor of VAs in this cohort. The clinical implications are detailed in the lower right part of the figure (SCD, sudden cardiac death; PM, pacemaker; ICD, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Drugs include anti-arrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants; CA, catheter ablation for atrial arrhythmias or VAs).

Introduction: The prediction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias among patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators is difficult with available clinical tools. We sought to assess whether in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction with defibrillators, physiological sensor‐based HF status, as summarized by the HeartLogic index, could predict appropriate device therapies.Methods: Five hundred and sixty‐eight consecutive HF patients with defibrillators (n = 158, 28%) or cardiac resynchronization therapy‐defibrillators (n = 410, 72%) were included in this prospective observational multicenter analysis. The association of both HeartLogic index and its physiological components with defibrillator shocks and overall appropriate therapies was assessed in regression and time‐dependent Cox models.Results: Over a follow‐up of 25 (15–35) months, 122 (21%) patients received an appropriate device therapy (shock, n = 74, 13%), while the HeartLogic index crossed the threshold value (alert, HeartLogic ≥ 16) 1200 times (0.71 alerts/patient‐year) in 370 (65%) subjects. The occurrence of ≥1 HeartLogic alert was significantly associated with both appropriate shocks (Hazard ratios [HR]: 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.49–3.97, p = .003), and any appropriate defibrillator therapies. In multivariable time‐dependent Cox models, weekly IN‐alert state was the strongest predictor of appropriate defibrillator shocks (HR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.73–5.01, p < .001) and overall therapies. Compared with stable patients, patients with appropriate shocks had significantly higher values of HeartLogic index, third heart sound amplitude, and resting heart rate 30–60 days before device therapy.Conclusion: The HeartLogic index is an independent dynamic predictor of appropriate defibrillator therapies. The combined index and its individual physiological components change before the arrhythmic event occurs.