Valverde, Arturo

Abstract Background Long‐term outcomes of sterile lead management strategies of lead abandonment (LA) or transvenous lead extraction (TLE) remain unclear. Methods We performed a retrospective study of a population residing in southeastern Minnesota with follow‐up at the Mayo Clinic and its health systems. Patients who underwent LA or TLE of sterile leads from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2011, and had follow‐up for at least 10 years or until their death were included. Results A total of 172 patients were included in the study with 153 patients who underwent LA and 19 who underwent TLE for sterile leads. Indications for subsequent lead extraction arose in 9.1% ( n = 14) of patients with initial LA and 5.3% ( n = 1) in patients with initial TLE, after an average of 7 years. Moreover, 28.6% of patients in the LA cohort who required subsequent extraction did not proceed with the extraction, and among those who proceeded, 60% had clinical success and 40% had a clinical failure. Subsequent device upgrades or revisions were performed in 18.3% of patients in the LA group and 31.6% in the TLE group, with no significant differences in procedural challenges (5.2% vs. 5.3%). There was no difference in 10‐year survival probability among the LA group and the TLE group ( p = .64). Conclusion An initial lead abandonment strategy was associated with more complicated subsequent extraction procedures compared to patients with an initial transvenous lead extraction strategy. However, there was no difference in 10‐year survival probability between both lead management approaches.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation is a common clinical manifestation in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Medications used to treat atrial fibrillation, such as antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants, may have significant drug interactions with emerging COVID‐19 treatments. Common unintended nontherapeutic target effects of COVID‐19 treatment include potassium channel blockade, cytochrome P 450 isoenzyme inhibition or activation, and P‐glycoprotein inhibition. Drug‐drug interactions with antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants in these patients may lead to significant bradycardia, ventricular arrhythmias, or severe bleeding. It is important for clinicians to be aware of these interactions, drug metabolism changes, and clinical consequences when choosing antiarrhythmic drugs and anticoagulants for COVID‐19 patients with atrial fibrillation. The objective of this review is to provide a practical guide for clinicians who are managing COVID‐19 patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation.