Electrical storm (ES) is a state of electrical instability, manifesting as recurrent ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) over a short period of time (three or more episodes of sustained VA within 24 h, separated by at least 5 min, requiring termination by an intervention). The clinical presentation can vary, but ES is usually a cardiac emergency. Electrical storm mainly affects patients with structural or primary electrical heart disease, often with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Management of ES requires a multi-faceted approach and the involvement of multi-disciplinary teams, but despite advanced treatment and often invasive procedures, it is associated with high morbidity and mortality. With an ageing population, longer survival of heart failure patients, and an increasing number of patients with ICD, the incidence of ES is expected to increase. This European Heart Rhythm Association clinical consensus statement focuses on pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and acute and long-term management of patients presenting with ES or clustered VA.

Interference is defined as disturbance generated by an external source that potentially affects the functioning of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs)—i.e. cardiac pacemakers (PMs), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, and implantable loop recorders (ILRs).¹ Energy forms such as radiation, magnetic or electromagnetic fields (EMFs), as well as acoustic signals potentially cause interference due to oversensing (i.e. signals that are sensed by the device that do not reflect myocardial depolarization) and subsequently temporary suppression or inappropriate delivery of device therapy, programming errors (device reset), or even permanent CIED malfunction (Table 2).

Background: Cardiac pacing has been shown to improve quality of life and prognosis of patients with bradycardia for almost 60 years. The latest innovation in pacemaker therapy was miniaturization of generators to allow leadless pacing directly in the right ventricle. There is a long history and extensive experience of leadless ventricular pacing in Austria. However, no recommendations of national or international societies for indications and implantation of leadless opposed to transvenous pacing systems have been published so far. Results: A national expert panel of skilled implanters gives an overview on the two utilized leadless cardiac pacing systems and highlights clinical advantages as well as current knowledge of performance and complication rates of leadless pacing. Furthermore, a national consensus for Austria is presented, based on recent studies and current know-how, specifically including indications for leadless pacing, management of infection, suggestions for qualification, and training of the operators and technical standards. Conclusions: Leadless pacing systems can be implanted successfully with a low complication rate, if suggestions for indications and technical requirements are followed. Condensed An overview of the two utilized leadless cardiac pacing systems is given, specifically highlighting clinical advantages as well as current knowledge of performance and complication rates. Furthermore, a national consensus for Austria is presented, specifically including indications for leadless pacing, management of infection, and suggestions for qualification and technical standards.

Patients presenting with or alerting emergency networks due to acute heart failure (AHF) form a diverse group with a plethora of symptoms, risks, comorbidities, and aetiologies. During AHF, there is an increased risk of destabilizing the functional substrate and modulatory adding to the risk of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) already created by the structural substrate. New VAs during AHF have previously identified patients with higher intra-hospital and 60-day morbidity and mortality. Risk stratification and criteria/best time point for coronary intervention and implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation, however, are still controversial topics in this difficult clinical setting. The characteristics and logistics of pre-hospital emergency medicine, as well as the density of centres capable of treating AHF and VAs, differ massively throughout Europe. Scientific guidelines provide clear recommendations for the management of arrhythmias in patients with chronic heart failure. However, the incidence, significance, and management of arrhythmias in patients with AHF have been less studied. This consensus paper aimed to address the identification and treatment of VAs that complicate the course of patients who have AHF, including cardiogenic shock.

Summary Ibrutinib is the first clinically approved inhibitor of Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, an enzyme that is essential for survival and proliferation of B‑cells by activating the B‑cell receptor signalling pathway. Ibrutinib has been shown to be highly effective in B‑cell malignancies in clinical trials and is recommended in current international guidelines as a first and/or second line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The drug has a favorable tolerability and safety profile but the occurrence of specific side effects (e.g. atrial fibrillation, bleeding and hypertension) may complicate or be of concern for doctors and patients considering the use of this treatment. In many cases, however, it is not necessary to withhold this effective therapy. In contrast, ibrutinib treatment can be initiated or continued, if certain recommendations are followed. The possibilities of prevention, diagnosis and management of specific clinical situations are discussed in detail and recommendations are derived, which should facilitate ibrutinib use.