Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread in nearly 200 countries in less than 4 months since its first identification; accordingly, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 2019) has affirmed itself as a clinical challenge. The prevalence of pre-existing cardiovascular diseases in patients with COVID19 is high and this dreadful combination dictates poor prognosis along with the higher risk of intensive care mortality. In the setting of chronic heart failure, SARS-CoV-2 can be responsible for myocardial injury and acute decompensation through various mechanisms. Given the clinical and epidemiological complexity of COVID-19, patiens with heart failure may require particular care since the viral infection has been identified, considering an adequate re-evaluation of medical therapy and a careful monitoring during ventilation.

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), whether for destination therapy or bridge to transplantation, has gained increasing validation in recent years in patients with advanced heart failure. Arrhythmias can be the most challenging variables in the management of such patients but the main attention has always been focused on ventricular arrhythmias given the detrimental impact on mortality. Nevertheless, atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disorder associated with advanced heart failure and may therefore characterize the LVADs’ pre- and postimplantation periods. Indeed, the consequences of AF in the population suffering from standard heart failure may require a more comprehensive evaluation in the presence of or in sight of an LVAD, making the AF clinical management in these patients potentially complex. Several studies have been based on this subject with different and often conflicting results, leaving many questions unresolved. The purpose of this review is to summarize the main pieces of evidence about the clinical impact of AF in LVAD patients, underlining the main implications in terms of hemodynamics, thromboembolic risk, bleeding and prognosis. Therapeutic considerations about the clinical management of these patients are also made according to the latest evidence.

Left ventricular assist device implantation is a recognized treatment option for patients with advanced heart failure refractory to medical therapy and can be used both as bridge to transplantation and as destination therapy. The risk of ventricular arrhythmias is common after left ventricular assist device implantation and is influenced by pre‐, peri and post‐operative determinants. The management of ventricular arrhythmias can be a challenge when they become refractory to medication or to device therapy and their impact on prognosis can be detrimental despite the mechanical support. In this setting, catheter ablation is being increasingly recognized as a feasible option for patients in which standard therapeutic strategies fail, but also with preventive purpose. Catheter ablation is being increasingly considered for the management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular assist device despite complex clinical and technical peculiarities due to the characteristics of the mechanical support. Much conflicting data exist regarding the predictors of success of the procedure and the rate of recurrence. In this review we discuss the latest evidences regarding catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in this subset of patients, focusing on clinical characteristics, arrhythmia etiology, technical aspects and postprocedural features which must be considered by the electrophysiologist.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually performed with biventricular pacing (BiVP), but recently, conduction system pacing (CSP) has been proposed as an alternative in case of BiVP failure. The aim of this study is to define an algorithm to choose between BiVP and CSP resynchronization using the interventricular conduction delays (IVCD) as a guide. Methods: Consecutive patients from January 2018 to December 2020 with an indication for CRT were prospectively enrolled in the study group (delays-guided resynchronization group, DRG). A treatment algorithm based on IVCD was used to decide whether to leave the left ventricular (LV) lead to perform BiVP or pull it out and perform CSP. Outcomes from the DRG group were compared to a historical cohort of CRT patients who underwent CRT procedures between January 2016 and December 2017 (resynchronization standard guide group, SRG). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or HF event at 1 year after the date of intervention. Results: The study population consisted of 292 patients, of which 160 (54.8%) were in the DRG and 132 (45.2%) in the SRG. In the DRG, 41 of 160 patients underwent CSP based on the treatment algorithm (25.6%). The primary endpoint was significantly higher in the SRG (48/132, 36.4%) compared to the DRG (35/160, 21.8%) (hazard ratio (HR): 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12–2.65; p = 0.013). Conclusions: A treatment algorithm based on IVCD shifted one patient out of every four from BiVP to CSP, with consequent reduction in the primary endpoint after implantation. Therefore, its application could be useful to determine whether to perform BiVP or CSP.