Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias related to COVID infection and vaccination in patients with Brugada syndrome: Insights from a large Italian multicenter registry based on continuous rhythm monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Brugada syndrome (BrS) has a dynamic ECG pattern that might be revealed by certain conditions such as fever. We evaluated the incidence and management of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) related to COVID-19 infection and vaccination among BrS patients carriers of an implantable loop recorder (ILR) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and followed by remote monitoring. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study. Patients were carriers of devices with remote monitoring follow-up. We recorded VAs 6 months before COVID-19 infection or vaccination, during infection, at each vaccination, and up to 6-month post-COVID-19 or 1 month after the last vaccination. In ICD carriers, we documented any device intervention. RESULTS: We included 326 patients, 202 with an ICD and 124 with an ILR. One hundred and nine patients (33.4%) had COVID-19, 55% of whom developed fever. Hospitalization rate due to COVID-19 infection was 2.76%. After infection, we recorded only two ventricular tachycardias (VTs). After the first, second, and third vaccines, the incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) was 1.5%, 2%, and 1%, respectively. The incidence of VT was 1% after the second dose. Six-month post-COVID-19 healing or 1 month after the last vaccine, we documented NSVT in 3.4%, VT in 0.5%, and ventricular fibrillation in 0.5% of patients. Overall, one patient received anti-tachycardia pacing and one a shock. ILR carriers had no VAs. No differences were found in VT before and after infection and before and after each vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: From this large multicenter study conducted in BrS patients, followed by remote monitoring, the overall incidence of sustained VAs after COVID-19 infection and vaccination is relatively low.

Development of a carpark cardiac implantable electronic device clinic to improve time efficiency and patient satisfaction in the context of restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated time efficiency and patient satisfaction of a "car park clinic" (CPC) compared to traditional face-to-face (F2F) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending CPC between September 2020 and November 2021 were surveyed. CPC time was recorded by staff. F2F time was reported by patients and administrative data. RESULTS: A total of 591 patients attended the CPC. A total of 176 responses were collected for F2F clinic. Regarding satisfaction, 90% of CPC patients responded "happy" or "very happy." 96% reported feeling "safe" or "very safe." Patients spent significantly less time in CPC compared to F2F (17 ± 8 vs. 50 ± 24 min, p < .001). CONCLUSION: CPC had excellent patient satisfaction and superior time efficiency compared to F2F.

COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on the cardiac implantable electronic devices' implantation rates in Croatia.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has influenced health-care organization worldwide, including management of non-communicable diseases. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac implantable electronic devices' (CIEDs) implantation rates in Croatia. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, national study was conducted. The data on CIEDs' implantation rates from 20 Croatian implantation centres, between January 2018 and June 2021, were extracted from the national Health Insurance Fund registry. Implantation rates before and after COVID-19 pandemic started, were compared. RESULTS: The overall numbers of CIED implantations in Croatia during COVID-19 pandemic were not different in comparison to 2 years pre-COVID-19 time (2618 vs. 2807, p = .081). The pacemaker implantation rates decreased significantly (by 45%) during April (122 vs. 223, p < .001) and May 2020 (135 vs. 244, p = .001), as well as during November 2020 (177 vs. 264, p = .003), but significantly increased during summer months 2020 comparing to 2018 and 2019 (737 vs. 497, p<0.001). The ICD implantation rates decreased significantly by 59% in April 2020 (26 vs. 64, p = .048). CONCLUSION: To the authors best knowledge this is a first study including complete national data on CIED implantation rates and COVID-19 pandemic impact. A significant reduction in number of both pacemaker and ICD implants during specific months of the COVID-19 pandemic was determined. However, afterwards compensation in implants resulted in similar total number when the complete year was evaluated.

Impact of Nationwide COVID-19 Lockdowns on the Implantation Rate of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

AIM: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant decrease in the number of hospital admissions for severe emergent cardiovascular diseases during lockdowns worldwide. This study aimed to determine the impact of both the first and the second Danish nationwide lockdown on the implantation rate of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the number of CIED implantations performed in Denmark and stratified them into 3-week intervals. RESULTS: The total number of de novo CIED implantations decreased during the first lockdown by 15.5% and during the second by 5.1%. Comparing each 3-week interval using rate ratios, a significant decrease in the daily rates of the total number of de novo and replacement CIEDs (0.82, 95% CI [0.70, 0.96]), de novo CIEDs only (0.82, 95% CI [0.69, 0.98]), and non-acute pacemaker implantations (0.80, 95% CI [0.63, 0.99]) was observed during the first interval of the first lockdown. During the second lockdown (third interval), a significant decrease was seen in the daily rates of de novo CIEDs (0.73, 95% CI [0.55, 0.97]), and of pacemakers in total during both the second (0.78, 95% CI [0.62, 0.97]) and the third (0.60, 95% CI [0.42, 0.85]) intervals. Additionally, the daily rates of acute pacemaker implantation decreased during the second interval (0.47, 95% CI [0.27, 0.79]) and of non-acute implantation during the third interval (0.57, 95% CI [0.38, 0.84]). A significant increase was observed in the number of replacement procedures during the first interval of the second lockdown (1.70, 95% CI [1.04, 2.85]). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found only modest changes in CIED implantations in Denmark during two national lockdowns.

COVID-19-associated Brugada pattern electrocardiogram: Systematic review of case reports.

AIMS: To summarize published case reports of patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and Brugada pattern electrocardiogram (ECG). METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist were followed. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus up until September 2021. The incidence, clinical characteristics, and management outcomes of COVID-19 patients with a Brugada pattern ECG were identified. RESULTS: A total of 18 cases were collected. The mean age was 47.1 years and 11.1% were women. No patients had prior confirmed diagnosis of Brugada syndrome. The most common presenting clinical symptoms were fever (83.3%), chest pain (38.8%), shortness of breath (38.8%), and syncope (16.6%). All 18 patients presented with type 1 Brugada pattern ECG. Four patients (22.2%) underwent left heart catheterization, and none demonstrated the presence of obstructive coronary disease. The most common reported therapies included antipyretics (55.5%), hydroxychloroquine (27.7%), and antibiotics (16.6%). One patient (5.5%) died during hospitalization. Three patients (16.6%) who presented with syncope received either an implantable cardioverter defibrillator or wearable cardioverter defibrillator at discharge. At follow-up, 13 patients (72.2%) had resolution of type 1 Brugada pattern ECG. CONCLUSION: COVID-19-associated Brugada pattern ECG seems relatively rare. Most patients had resolution of the ECG pattern once their symptoms have improved. Increased awareness and timely use of antipyretics is warranted in this population.

Quality of life of children and young adults with and without cardiovascular implantable electronic devices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Children with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have a lower quality of life (QoL) compared to the general pediatric population. The combined effect of COVID-19 and CIEDs on the QoL and physical activity (PA) both within and between each population is unknown. METHODS: Individuals 8-25-year-old with and without CIED's were recruited to complete a phone survey. Data collection included demographics, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), and the (PAQ). PedsQL and PAQ scores range from 0-100 and 1-5, respectively, with higher scores indicating a higher QoL and PA. RESULTS: Of the 190 individuals contacted, 148 participated (CIED n = 76, non-CIED n = 72), for an 81% response rate. Participants with and without CIEDs were similar in age (15.5 vs. 16 years, p = .57), gender (male = 57% vs. 42%, p = .07), and self-identified race (white = 79% vs. 81%, p = .44). CIED participants had a lower QoL (70.8 vs. 83.3, p < .001). Lower total scores were noted in CIED participants with structural heart disease compared to those without (71.6 vs. 83.6, p = .035) and those with a history of non-CIED heart or chest surgery compared to those without (71.3 vs. 83.3, p = .035). PAQ scores were similarly lower for CIED participants (2.17 vs. 2.73, p < .001). CONCLUSION: The presence of a CIED negatively impacts the QoL and PA of the pediatric population in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is needed to better understand and address the drivers of decreased QoL and PA in the pediatric CIED population in the setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Real-World Disparities in Remote Follow-Up of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices and Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Center Experience.

Background Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been shown to improve cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. To date, no studies have investigated disparities in use and delivery of RM. This study was performed to investigate if racial and socioeconomic disparities are present in cardiac implantable electronic device RM. Methods and Results This was a retrospective observational cohort study at a single tertiary care center in the United States. Patients who received a newly implanted cardiac implantable electronic device or device upgrade between January 2017 and December 2020 were included. Patients were classified as RM positive (RM+) when they underwent at least ≥2 remote interrogations per year during follow-up. Of all eligible patients, 2520 patients were included, and 34% were women. The mean follow-up was 25 months. Mean age was 71±14 years. Pacemakers constituted 66% of implanted devices, whereas 26% were implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and 8% were cardiac resynchronization therapy with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Most patients (83%) were of European American ancestry. During follow-up, 66% of patients were classified as RM+. Patients who were younger, European American, college-educated, lived in a county with higher median household income, and were active on the hospital's patient portals were more frequently RM+. In an adjusted regression model, RM+ remained associated with the use of the online patient portal (odds ratio [OR], 2.889 [95% CI, 2.387-3.497]), presence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR, 1.489 [95% CI, 1.207-1.835]), advanced college degree (OR, 1.244 [95% CI, 1.014-1.527]), and lastly with European American ancestry (P<0.05). During the years of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of RM+ patients increased, whereas the association with ancestry and ethnicity decreased. Conclusions Despite being offered to all patients at implantation, significant disparities were present in cardiovascular implantable electronic device RM in this cohort. Disparities were partly reversed during COVID-19. Further studies are needed to examine health center- and patient-specific factors to overcome these barriers, and to facilitate equal opportunities to participate in RM.

Ventricular arrhythmia burden in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and remote patient monitoring during different time intervals of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The current study investigated whether the changes in patient care in times of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially the reduction of in-person visits, would result in a deterioration of the arrhythmic and clinical condition of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and remote patient monitoring. METHODS: Data were obtained from a local ICD registry. 140 patients who received ICD implantation at our department and had remote patient monitoring were included. The number of patients with ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD therapy, the number of visits to our outpatient clinic and hospitalization due to acute coronary syndrome, stroke or heart failure were compared during three time intervals of the COVID-19 pandemic (first (LD1) and second (LD2) national lockdown in Germany and the time after the first lockdown (postLD1)) and a time interval 1 year before the pandemic began (preCOV). Each time interval was 49 days long. RESULTS: Patients had significantly fewer visits to our outpatient clinic during LD1 (n = 13), postLD1 (n = 22) and LD2 (n = 23) compared to the time interval before the pandemic (n = 43, each p ≤ 0.05). The number of patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias, appropriate ICD therapy and clinical events showed no significant difference during the time intervals of the COVID-19 pandemic and the time interval 1 year prior. CONCLUSIONS: The lockdown measures necessary to reduce the risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, led to a reduction of in-person patient visits, but did not result in a deterioration of the arrhythmic and clinical condition of ICD patients with remote patient monitoring.

Impact of remote monitoring in heart failure patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices during COVID-19 pandemic: a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had spread into a pandemic affecting healthcare providers worldwide. Heart failure patients with implanted cardiac devices require close follow-up in-spite of pandemic related healthcare restrictions. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively registered and clinical outcomes were compared of 61 remote monitored (RMG) versus 71 conventionally (in-office only) followed (CFG) cardiac device implanted, heart failure patients. Follow-up length was 12 months, during the COVID-19 pandemic related intermittent insitutional restrictions. We used a specified heart failure detection algorithm in RMG. This investigation compared worsening heart failure-, arrhythmia- and device related adverse events as primary outcome and heart failure hospitalization rates as secondary outcome in the two patient groups. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the primary composite end-point during the first 12 months of COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.672). In RMG, patients who had worsening heart failure event had relative modest deterioration in heart failure functional class (p = 0.026), relative lower elevation of N terminal-pro BNP levels (p < 0.01) at in-office evaluation and were less hospitalized for worsening heart failure in the first 6 months of pandemic (p = 0.012) compared to CFG patients. CONCLUSIONS: Specified remote monitoring alert-based detection algorithm and workflow in device implanted heart failure patients may potentially indicate early worsening in heart failure status. Preemptive adequate intervention may prevent further progression of deteriorating heart failure and thus prevent heart failure hospitalizations.

Impact of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on physical activity of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices-A remote monitoring study.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and frequency of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapies of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Physical activity, heart rate and ICD-therapies were assessed via routine remote monitoring over two years. We focussed on a 338-day period during COVID-19 pandemic that was divided in 6 time-intervals defined by public health interventions and compared to the previous regular year. Paired nonparametric longitudinal analysis was performed to detect differences between time-intervals. To model effects of age, sex and time we applied a nonparametric ANOVA-type-statistic. 147 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices were analysed. Longitudinal analysis of physical activity in 2019 and 2020 showed a specific weekly and seasonal pattern. Physical activity was reduced during the pandemic (mean daily physical activity 2019: 12.4% vs. 2020: 11.5%; p<0.0001) with the strongest reductions (fold changes 0.885/0.889, p<0.0001/p<0.0001) during the two lockdown-periods. In older patients (>70 years), physical activity was decreased in every time-interval of the year 2020. In time-intervals of eased restrictions, physical activity of younger patients (≤70 years) was not different compared to 2019. No variation in mean heart rate, arrhythmia-burden and count of ICD-therapies was found. CONCLUSION: Physical activity shows fluctuations dependent on days of the week and time of the year. During the pandemic, physical activity was reduced in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices with the strongest reductions during lockdown-periods. Younger patients resumed former levels of physical activity in times of eased restrictions while older patients remained less active. Thus, activation of the elderly population is important to prevent long-term health impairments due to the pandemic.

Impact of coronavirus disease 19 outbreak on arrhythmic events and mortality among implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients followed up by remote monitoring: a single center study from the Veneto region of Italy.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 outbreak entailed reduced availability of traditional (in-office) cardiology consultations. Remote monitoring is an alternative way of caring that may potentially mitigate the negative effects of the epidemic to the care of cardiovascular diseases. We evaluated the outcome of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) carriers followed up remotely in 2020 (epidemic period) versus 2019 (control). METHODS: We included all patients with an ICD who remained remotely monitored from the beginning to the end of each year. The combined end point included: new-onset atrial fibrillation; sustained ventricular tachycardia >170 bpm without ICD intervention; appropriate ICD intervention (either shock or antitachycardia pacing); any-cause death. Multiple events in the same patients were counted separately if occurring ≥48 h apart. RESULTS: In 2020, 52 end points occurred in 37 of 366 (10%) ICD carriers [0.14/patient (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.11-0.19)] versus 43 end points in 32 of 325 (10%) ICD carriers in 2019 [0.13/patient (95% CI = 0.10-0.18) P  = 0.75]. There was no difference between the distribution of any individual end point in 2020 versus 2019 although a nonsignificant mortality increase was observed (from 2.8% to 4.6%, P  = 0.19). The lowest weekly event rate occurred during the national lock down in spring 2020 but a similar trend occurred also in 2019 suggesting that the effect may not be linked to social distancing measures. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe an increase in a combined end point including arrhythmic events and mortality in ICD carriers who were remotely monitored in 2020, compared to 2019, despite the negative impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak on the healthcare system.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator: a de novo implant in a COVID-19 patient by an echo-guided axillary venous approach.

The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously revolutionized the management of patients who need an implanted cardiac implantable electronic device. We report, for the first time, a successful cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation procedure in an 82-year-old man affected by COVID-19, recent myocardial infarction, second-degree 2:1 atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block.

Fever following Covid-19 vaccination in subjects with Brugada syndrome: Incidence and management.

BACKGROUND: Fever is a potential side effect of the Covid-19 vaccination. Patients with Brugada syndrome (BrS) have an increased risk of life-threatening arrhythmias when experiencing fever. Prompt treatment with antipyretic drugs is suggested in these patients. AIM OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the incidence and management of fever within 48 h from Covid-19 vaccination among BrS patients. METHODS: One hundred sixty-three consecutive patients were enrolled in a prospective registry involving five European hospitals with a dedicated inherited disease ambulatory. RESULTS: The mean age was 50 ± 14 years and 121 (75%) patients were male. Prevalence of Brugada electrocardiogram (ECG) pattern type-1, -2, and -3 was 32%, 44%, and 24%, respectively. Twenty-eight (17%) patients had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Fever occurred in 32 (19%) BrS patients after 16 ± 10 h from vaccination, with a peak of body temperature of 37.9° ± 0.5°. Patients with fever were younger (39 ± 13 vs. 48 ± 13 years, p = .04). No additional differences in terms of sex and cardiovascular risk factors were found between patients with fever and not. Twenty-seven (84%) out of 32 patients experienced mild fever and five (16%) moderate fever. Pharmacological treatment with antipyretic drugs was required in 18 (56%) out of 32 patients and was associated with the resolution of symptoms. No patient required hospital admission and no arrhythmic episode was recorded in patients with ICD within 48 h after vaccination. No induced type 1 BrS ECG pattern and new ECG features were found among patients with moderate fever. CONCLUSION: Fever is a common side effect in BrS patients after the Covid-19 vaccination. Careful evaluation of body temperature and prompt treatment with antipyretic drugs may be needed.

CRT implantation after transvenous lead/device extraction (TLE) in a patient with COVID-19: Endocarditis triggered by syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection? A case report.

In the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections with concomitant viral infection has not been completely defined yet. In this explorable context, we report the first experience of a Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation after transvenous lead extraction for endocarditis in a COVID-19 patient. We describe both the measures and procedures implemented to reduce the cross-infection in the operating room and our clinical practice to improving procedure effectiveness on patient care.

Assessment of pacemaker lead-related infective endocarditis with three-dimensional echocardiography and cardiac computed tomography.

Pacemaker endocarditis is rare and symptoms may be misleading. If missed, it carries significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Advances in multi-modality imaging in recent years have emphasised its role in clinical decision making. This case highlights the ability of multi-modality imaging techniques to individualise diagnosis, management and prognosis in patients with suspected cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) endocarditis.