During transvenous lead extraction (TLE) longer dwelling time often requires the use of powered sheaths. This study aimed to compare outcomes with the laser and powered mechanical tools. Single-centre data from consecutive patients undergoing TLE between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Efficacy and safety of the primary extraction tool were compared. Procedures requiring crossover between powered sheaths were also analysed. Moreover, we examined the efficacy of each level of the stepwise approach. Out of 166 patients, 142 (age 65.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent TLE requiring advanced techniques with 245 leads (dwelling time 9.4 ± 6.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 64.9%, powered mechanical sheaths in 35.1% of the procedures as primary extraction tools. Procedural success rate was 85.5% with laser and 82.5% with mechanical sheaths (P = 0.552). Minor and major complications were observed in similar rate. Procedural mortality occurred only in the laser group in the case of three patients. Crossover was needed in 19.5% after laser and in 12.8% after mechanical extractions (P = 0.187). Among crossover procedures, only clinical success favoured the secondary mechanical arm (87.1 vs. 54.5%, aOR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01–0.79, P = 0.030). After step-by-step efficacy analysis, procedural success was 64.9% with the first-line extraction tool, 75.1% after crossover, 84.5% with bailout femoral snare, and 91.8% by non-emergency surgery. The efficacy and safety of laser and mechanical sheaths were similar, however in the subgroup of crossover procedures mechanical tools had better performance regarding clinical success. Device diversity seems to help improving outcomes, especially in the most complicated cases.

Mexiletine is a class IB sodium-channel blocker. Unlike class IA or IC antiarrhythmic drugs, mexiletine rather shortens than prolongs action potential duration; therefore, is less associated with proarrhythmic effects. Recently, new European Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death were published including a reappraisal of some established older antiarrhythmic drugs. Mexiletine offers a first-line, genotype-specific treatment strategy for LQT3 patients as emphasized by the most recent guidelines. Besides this recommendation, current study reports suggest that in therapy-refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias and electrical storms adjunctive mexiletine treatment may offer the possibility of stabilizing patients with or without concomitant interventional therapy such as catheter ablation.

Background/Objectives: Calcified coronary lesions require plaque modification techniques for optimal stent apposition, of which rotational atherectomy (RA) is the most commonly used one. Challenging cases require the use of additional dedicated devices (such as modified balloons, MB); however, data available for evidence-based device selection are limited. The aim of this study is to determine the impact of the balloon-based technology used after successful RA treatment on outcomes. Methods: This study was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Embase databases were systematically searched for eligible randomized and non-randomized studies. Results: A total of nine studies and 1024 patients were included in the analysis. Patients were treated with RA followed by either plain balloon angioplasty (RA + BA) or modified balloon (RA + MB) treatment prior to stent implantation. There was no significant difference in MACE (major adverse cardiovascular events; OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.21–1.34; p = 0.153), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.33–1.42; p = 0.265), and target lesion revascularization (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.27–1.55; p = 0.264) between the two groups. However, a sensitivity analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in MACE for patients with severely calcified lesions (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.25–0.70; p = 0.009) in the RA + MB group. The analyses of the safety outcomes of slow flow/no reflow (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.29–1.22; p = 0.128) and coronary artery perforation (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.70–1.99; p = 0.480) showed no difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that the benefit of the more invasive RA + MB treatment is statistically significant for severely calcified lesions, but is not associated with additional procedural complications.

(1) Background: Early reintervention increases the risk of infection of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Some operators therefore delay lead repositioning in the case of dislocation by weeks; however, there is no evidence to support this practice. The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of the timing of reoperation on infection risk. (2) Methods: The data from consecutive patients undergoing lead repositioning in two European referral centers were retrospectively analyzed. The odds ratio (OR) of CIED infection in the first year was compared among patients undergoing early (≤1 week) vs. delayed (>1 week to 1 year) reoperation. (3) Results: Out of 249 patients requiring CIED reintervention, 85 patients (34%) underwent an early (median 2 days) and 164 (66%) underwent a delayed lead revision (median 53 days). A total of nine (3.6%) wound/device infections were identified. The risk of infection was numerically lower in the early (1.2%) vs. delayed (4.9%) intervention group yielding no statistically significant difference, even after adjustment for typical risk factors for CIED infection (adjusted OR = 0.264, 95% CI 0.032–2.179, p = 0.216). System explantation/extraction was necessary in seven cases, all being revised in the delayed group. (4) Conclusions: In this bicentric, international study, delayed lead repositioning did not reduce the risk of CIED infection.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is an established alternative to oral anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of thromboembolic events or bleeding complications. Methods: In this single-center retrospective study, we analyzed 70 consecutive patients who underwent successful LAAC with the Watchman™ device between 2012 and 2024. Acute procedural outcomes, long-term thromboembolic and bleeding events, transfusion requirements and mortality were evaluated. Mean follow-up duration was 1210 days. Results: Procedural success was achieved in 98.6% of cases with a low periprocedural complication rate. Ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack occurred in 2.8% of patients; no hemorrhagic strokes or stroke-related deaths were observed. LAAC resulted in a significant reduction in both the number (144 vs. 56 events; 2.36 vs. 1.55 events per patient, p < 0.05) and severity of bleeding events. Nonetheless, 42.9% of patients required bleeding-related hospitalization after implantation, predominantly within the first 6 months during dual antiplatelet therapy. Overall mortality was 40% with a 12% yearly mortality rate; heart failure and infections were leading causes of death. Pre- and postprocedural transfusion requirements were independently associated with a six-fold increase in mortality risk (HR = 5.97). Conventional risk scores (CHA₂DS₂-VASc, HAS-BLED) failed to predict transfusion needs; atrial enlargement, right ventricular dysfunction, smoking and alcohol consumption were associated with higher risk. Conclusions: LAAC is a safe and effective alternative to long-term anticoagulation, significantly reducing bleeding burden without increasing thromboembolic mortality. Persistent postprocedural bleeding remains a major determinant of long-term prognosis, underscoring the need for individualized, multidisciplinary post-implant management.

Aims: Suboptimal device programming is frequent in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the role of device optimization and the most appropriate technique are still unknown. The aim of our study was to analyse the effect of different CRT optimization techniques within a network meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for studies comparing outcomes with empirical device settings or optimization using echocardiography, static algorithms or dynamic algorithms. Studies investigating the effect of optimization in non-responders were also analysed. Results: A total of 17 studies with 4346 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Of the treatments and outcomes examined, a significant difference was found only between dynamic algorithms and echocardiography, with the former leading to a higher echocardiographic response rate [odds ratio (OR): 2.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21–3.35], lower heart failure hospitalization rate (OR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.57–0.99) and greater improvement in 6-minute walk test [mean difference (MD): 45.52 m, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3.91–82.44 m]. We found no significant difference between empirical settings, static algorithms and dynamic algorithms. Seven studies with 228 patients reported response rates after optimization in non-responders. Altogether, 34.3%–66.7% of initial non-responders showed improvement after optimization, depending on response criteria. Conclusions: At the time of CRT implantation, dynamic algorithms may serve as a resource-friendly alternative to echocardiographic optimization, with similar or better mid-term outcomes. However, their superiority over empirical device settings needs to be investigated in further trials. For non-responders, CRT optimization should be considered, as the majority of patients experience improvement.