Health-related quality of life in a large cohort of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices A registry-based study.

Aim: The association of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), namely pacemaker (PM), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy with (CRT-D) or without defibrillator (CRT-P) with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is lacking.

Methods And Results: Data from the Swedish Pacemaker and ICD Registry collected from January 2019 to February 2022 was used to analyze the responses to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) before and after one year of the CIED implant. Descriptive analysis was performed using Pearson's chi-square test, the analysis of variance ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test when appropriate.

Long- and short-term outcomes after transvenous lead extraction in a large single-centre patient cohort using the clinical frailty scale as a risk assessment tool.

Background And Aims: The rate of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations and the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are growing worldwide. This study examined a large Swedish cohort with the aim of identifying possible predictors of post-TLE mortality with special focus on systemic infection patients and frailty.

Methods: This was a single centre study.

Endocardial pacing compared to epicardial left ventricle pacing and right ventricle pacing: A single-center long-term experience in a pediatric population.

Background And Aims: Pediatric pacing is usually performed as epicardial pacing in small children in need of pacemaker therapy. Epicardial pacing compared with transvenous pacing for pediatric complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) has different strengths and weaknesses. The epicardial left ventricular wall position of the lead has been considered superior, in terms of contraction pattern, compared to a transvenous right ventricular stimulation.

Left ventricular ejection fraction digit bias and reclassification of heart failure with mildly reduced vs reduced ejection fraction based on the 2021 definition and classification of heart failure.

Aims: Aims were to evaluate (1) reclassification of patients from heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) to reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction when an EF = 40% was considered as HFrEF, (2) role of EF digit bias, ie, EF reporting favouring 5% increments; (3) outcomes in relation to missing and biased EF reports, in a large multinational HF registry.

Methods And Results: Of 25,154 patients in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF Long-Term registry, 17% had missing EF and of those with available EF, 24% had HFpEF (EF≥50%), 21% HFmrEF (40%-49%) and 55% HFrEF (<40%) according to the 2016 ESC guidelines´ classification. EF was "exactly" 40% in 7%, leading to reclassifying 34% of the HFmrEF population defined as EF = 40% to 49% to HFrEF when applying the 2021 ESC Guidelines classification (14% had HFmrEF as EF = 41% to 49% and 62% had HFrEF as EF≤40%).