Signal‐averaged electrocardiography records delayed depolarization of myocardial areas with slow conduction that can form the substrate for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. This technique has been examined mostly in patients with coronary artery disease, but its use has been declined over the years. However, several lines of evidence, derived from hitherto clinical data in patients with healed myocardial infarction, indicate that signal‐averaged electrocardiography remains a valuable tool in risk stratification, especially when incorporated into algorithms encompassing invasive and noninvasive indices. Such an approach can aid the more precise identification of candidates for device therapy, in the context of primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. This article reappraises the value of signal‐averaged electrocardiography as a predictor of arrhythmic outcome in patients with ischemic heart disease and discusses potential future indications.

Since the first transvenous pacemaker implantation, which took place 50 years ago, important progress has been achieved in pacing technology. Consequently, at present, more than 700,000 pacemakers are implanted annually worldwide. However, conventional pacemakers' implantation has a non-negligible risk of periprocedural and long-term complications associated with the transvenous leads and pacemaker pocket. Recently, leadless pacing systems have emerged as a therapeutic alternative to conventional pacing systems that provide therapy for patients with bradyarrhythmias, while eliminating potential transvenous lead- and pacemaker pocket-related complications. Initial studies have demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety of currently developed leadless pacing systems, compared to transvenous pacemakers. In the present paper, we review the current evidence and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of this novel technology. New technological advances may allow the next generation of leadless pacemakers to further expand, thereby offering a wireless cardiac pacing in future.

Background: In the PRESERVE‐EF study, a two‐step sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk stratification approach to detect post‐myocardial infarction (MI) patients with left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% at risk for major arrhythmic events (MAEs) was used. Seven noninvasive risk factors (NIRFs) were extracted from a 24‐h ambulatory electrocardiography (AECG) and a 45‐min resting recording. Patients with at least one NIRF present were referred for invasive programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) and inducible patients received an Implantable Cardioverter ‐ Defibrillator (ICD).Methods: In the present study, we evaluated the performance of the NIRFs, as they were described in the PRESERVE‐EF study protocol, in predicting a positive PVS. In the PRESERVE‐EF study, 152 out of 575 patients underwent PVS and 41 of them were inducible. For the present analysis, data from these 152 patients were analyzed.Results: Among the NIRFs examined, the presence of signal averaged ECG‐late potentials (SAECG‐LPs) ≥ 2/3 and non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) ≥1 eposode/24 h cutoff points were important predictors of a positive PVS study, demonstrating in the logistic regression analysis odds ratios 2.285 (p = .027) and 2.867 (p = .006), respectively. A simple risk score based on the above cutoff points in combination with LVEF < 50% presented high sensitivity but low specificity for a positive PVS.Conclusion: Cutoff points of NSVT ≥ 1 episode/24 h and SAECG‐LPs ≥ 2/3 in combination with a LVEF < 50% were important predictors of inducibility. However, the final decision for an ICD implantation should be based on a positive PVS, which is irreplaceable in risk stratification.