Background: Regulatory authorities of most industrialized countries recommend 6 months of private driving restriction after implantation of a secondary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). These driving restrictions result in significant inconvenience and social implications. This study aimed to assess the incidence rate of appropriate device therapies in contemporary recipients of a secondary prevention ICD. Methods: This retrospective study at 3 Canadian tertiary care centers enrolled consecutive patients with new secondary prevention ICD implants between 2016 and 2020. Results: For a median of 760 days (324, 1190 days), 721 patients were followed up. The risk of recurrent ventricular arrhythmia was highest during the first 3 months after device insertion (34.4%) and decreased over time (10.6% between 3 and 6 months, 11.7% between 6 and 12 months). The corresponding incidence rate per 100 patient-days was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.35–0.64) at 90 days, 0.28 (95% CI, 0.17–0.45) at 180 days, and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.13–0.33) between 181 and 365 days after ICD insertion ( P <0.001). The cumulative incidence of arrhythmic syncope resulting in sudden cardiac incapacitation was 1.8% within the first 90 days and subsequently dropped to 0.4% between 91 and 180 days ( P <0.001) after ICD insertion. Conclusions: The incidence rate of appropriate therapies resulting in sudden cardiac incapacitation in contemporary recipients of a secondary prevention ICD is much lower than previously reported and declines significantly after the first 3 months. Lowering driving restrictions to 3 months after the index cardiac event seems safe, and revision of existing guidelines should be considered in countries still adhering to a 6-month period. Existing restrictions for private driving after implantation of a secondary prevention ICD should be reconsidered.

Background: Pericardial effusion is a common complication of percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure. Acute management is the cornerstone of pericardial effusion treatment and interrupting the intervention is often required. Case summary: A 65-year-old man presented an acute 10 mm pericardial effusion following pigtail contrast appendage injection. A rapid Watchman Flex 24 mm (Boston Scientific) deployment permitted bleeding interruption. A needle pericardiocentesis was achieved in order to prevent any haemodynamical instability. Discussion: This case report describes an atypical cause of pericardial effusion and a technique for bleeding control with LAA closure device deployment.

Twiddler syndrome is an uncommon yet dangerous phenomenon usually resulting in lead displacement with loss of capture of cardiac implantable electronic devices. In this case report, we present an interesting case of Twiddler syndrome without lead dislodgment which was detected by an alert triggered by an increase in impedance on remote monitoring.

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an alternative to oral anticoagulants (OAC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and contraindication to long-term OAC. Combined strategy with percutaneous LAAC at the same time of other cardiac structural or electrophysiological procedures has emerged as an alternative to a staged strategy. Aim: To describe our experience with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ devices. Methods: All patients with combined LAAC procedures using Watchman™ (WN) devices performed from 2016 to 2021 were included. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of periprocedural complications and adverse events during the follow-up. The primary efficacy endpoint included strokes, systemic embolisms, major bleeding and cardiovascular death. Results: From 2016, among 160 patients who underwent LAAC using WN devices, 19 underwent a combined strategy: 7 transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TEMVR) (37%), 6 typical atrial flutter ablation (31%), 2 leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation (10%) and 4 AF ablation (22%). The WN device was successfully implanted in 98% and 100% of cases for single and combined LAAC procedures, respectively (p = 0.63). Median follow-up was 13 months (IQR 25/75 3/24). Device-related complications occurred in 6 out of 141 patients (4%) who underwent single LAAC and in no (0/19) patient in the combined LAAC procedure (p = ns). The procedural-related complications did not differ significantly between groups (5% vs. 10%, respectively, in the single and combined group, p = 0.1). Conclusion: Combined procedure using the Watchman™ devices and one other structural or electrophysiological procedure appears safe and effective. Larger series are needed to confirm these results.