Background: This is a comparative analysis of upgrade to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) of an existing pacemaker implanted for bradyarrhythmia or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). International guidelines recommend an upgrade to CRT for both groups based on the same criteria; this may lead to a hypothesis of whether we are under-treating a population that would otherwise benefit more from a CRT than the other. Methods: So far, this is the largest multicentre retrospective study that includes in total, 151 (93 upgrades to CRT-P and 58 upgrades to CRT-D) participants who had an upgrade to a CRT device between January 2010 and January 2020. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were analysed both, before and after an upgrade to CRT. Results: EF was greater in patients with PPM, both before and after upgrade. Moreover, the post upgrade increase in EF was significantly greater in patients with PPM. Patients with ICD have, on average, an NYHA class ranking greater than PPM patients, both before and after upgrade. Conclusions: These data show that the PPM group patients have a greater response to upgrade to CRT compared to those from the ICD group. It also demonstrates that patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy are better responders compared to those with ischaemic aetiology.

Cardiac amyloidosis is caused by amyloid fibrils that deposit in the myocardial interstitium, causing restrictive cardiomyopathy and eventually death. The electromechanical, inflammatory, and autonomic changes due to amyloid deposition result in arrhythmias. Atrial fibrillation is by far the most common arrhythmia. Rate control strategy is generally poorly tolerated due to restrictive filling physiology and heart rate dependance, favoring adoption of rhythm control strategy. Anticoagulation for stroke prophylaxis is warranted irrespective of CHA2DS2Vasc score in patients with favorable bleeding profile; data on left appendage closure devices is still insufficient. Ventricular arrhythmias are also not uncommon and the role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in cardiac amyloidosis is controversial. There is no evidence of improvement in outcomes when used for primary prevention in these patients. Bradyarrhythmia is most commonly associated with sudden cardiac death in cardiac amyloidosis. Pacemaker implantation can help provide symptomatic relief but does not confer mortality benefit.

Introduction: Digitalis use in patients with severe heart failure is controversial. We assessed the effects of digitalis therapy on mortality in a large, observational study in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator in three European tertiary referral centers were enrolled and followed for a median of 28 months. Digitalis use was assessed at the time of CRT implantation. Multivariate Cox-regression model and propensity score matching was used to determine all-cause mortality as primary endpoint. CRT-response (defined as improvement of ≥1 NYHA class), echocardiographic improvement (defined as improvement of LVEF of ≥ 5%), and ICD shocks were assessed as secondary endpoints. Results: The study comprised 552 CRT recipients with standard indications, including 219 patients (40%) treated with digitalis. Compared to patients without digitalis, they had more often atrial fibrillation, poorer LVEF and higher NYHA class (all p ≤ 0.002). Crude analysis of all-cause mortality demonstrated a similar relative risk of death for patients with and without digitalis (HR=1.14; 95% CI 0.88-1.5; p=0.40). After adjustment for independent predictors of mortality, digitalis therapy did not alter the risk for death (adjusted HR=1.04; 95% CI 0.75-1.45; p=0.82). Also, in comparison to 286 propensity score matched patients, mortality was not affected by digitalis intake (propensity adjusted HR=1.11; 95% CI 0.72-1.70; p=0.64). CRT response was predominant in digitalis non-users concerning both improvement of HF symptoms and LVEF (NYHA p<0.01; LVEF p<0.01) while patients on digitalis had more often ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring ICD shock (p=0.01). Conclusions: Digitalis therapy had no effect on mortality but did negatively affect CRT response and susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD shock treatment.

Background: our purpose is to assess the effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) in “real-world” patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including a broader spectrum of patients than those in clinical trials and evaluating variables not previously described in the literature. Methods: real-world study in HFrEF patients (N:204), both in and out-patients, who started SV between October 2017 and December 2018. We performed a prospective analysis with a 12-month follow-up. The study outcomes were effectiveness and safety, measured by individual parameters and combined endpoints, comparing the pre and post practice periods. Results: at the end of follow-up, an improvement of left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF): 29.8% vs 33.7; p<0.0001, a decrease in NT-proBNP levels (3928 pg/mL vs 2902 pg/mL; p=0.012), number of hospital admissions (141 vs 35; p<0.0001) and percentage of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) indication (79.9% vs 49.5%; p<0.0001) were observed. Of our population, 81.3% met a combined efficacy endpoint (defined by increase of LVEF, reduction of hospital admission or improvement in functional class). No differences were observed in parameters regarding safety. Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan has brought about a revolution in the therapeutic management of HFrEF patients and its use may raise questions about what is considered "optimal medical therapy" prior to implantation of cardiac devices.