Optimal perioperative antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery still remains poorly defined and a matter of debate among cardiologists, surgeons and anaesthesiologists. Surgery represents one of the most common reasons for premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, which is associated with a significant increase in mortality and major adverse cardiac events, in particular stent thrombosis. Clinical practice guidelines provide little support with regard to managing antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative phase in the case of patients with non-deferrable surgical interventions and/or high haemorrhagic risk. Moreover, a standard definition of ischaemic and haemorrhagic risk has never been determined. Finally, recommendations shared by cardiologists, surgeons and anaesthesiologists are lacking. The present consensus document provides practical recommendations on the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery. Cardiologists, surgeons and anaesthesiologists have contributed equally to its creation. On the basis of clinical and angiographic data, the individual thrombotic risk has been defined. All surgical interventions have been classified according to their inherent haemorrhagic risk. A consensus on the optimal antiplatelet regimen in the perioperative phase has been reached on the basis of the ischaemic and haemorrhagic risk. Aspirin should be continued perioperatively in the majority of surgical operations, whereas dual antiplatelet therapy should not be withdrawn for surgery in the case of low bleeding risk. In selected patients at high risk for both bleeding and ischaemic events, when oral antiplatelet therapy withdrawal is required, perioperative treatment with short-acting intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (tirofiban or eptifibatide) should be taken into consideration.

Background Left cardiac sympathetic denervation (LCSD) is an established therapy for refractory ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in channelopathies. A multicentric American and Indian case series suggested a greater efficacy of bilateral denervation (BCSD) in patients with structural heart disease (SHD). Purpose To describe our single-center experience with BCSD in SHD. Methods Nine patients (78% male, mean 55±18 yrs, mean LVEF 31±14%) with SHD and refractory VAs underwent BCSD. All had a Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS), in 2 cases associated with the robotic technique. The underlying cardiomyopathy (CMP) was non-ischemic (NICMP) in most cases (n=5, 55%), ischemic in 2 cases, arrhythmogenic right ventricular (ARVC) in one and related to lamin A/C deficiency in one. All patients had an ICD, 44% (n=4) a CRT-D. NYHA functional class I was present in 4 patients, the rest were in NYHA class II (n=3) or III (n=2). Three patients were candidates to heart transplant/LV assistance device. The arrhythmic burden pre BCSD included in 7 pts (78%) a history of electrical storm (ES); the median number of shocks/patient in the 12 months before BCSD was 5 (IQ range 3–18). Except for 2 patients with previous thyrotoxicosis, the remaining were either on amiodarone (n=6) or on sotalol (n=1) before BCSD. Main BCSD indications were represented by drug refractory fast VT in 7 pts (cycle <250 msec) and by recurrent monomorphic VT episodes (mean cycle 351 msec) after endocardial VT ablation in 2 patients. Results No major complication occurred. One patient (NICMP, NYHA II), has an uneventful follow up (FU) of less than 1 month and was excluded from the efficacy analysis. The median FU in the remaining 8 patients is 10 months (IQ range 6–19), during which the median number of shocks/patients was 0.5 (IQ range 0–3). Overall, 4 patients (50%) had ICD shock recurrences. Two cases (mean LVEF 17.5%, NYHA class III) had an ES during severe hemodynamic instability and subsequently died because of cardiogenic shock respectively 1 and 7 months after BCSD. One case had three, not consecutive ICD shocks 20 months after BCSD in the setting of severe amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis. Finally, one patient received a single intra-hospital ICD shock 5 days after BCSD before reintroduction of full-dose beta-blockers. The figure summarizes ICD shocks burden in the 6 months before and after BCSD. Among the 5 patients with NICMP/ARVC (4 in NYHA class I), only 1 had a single ICD shock recurrence. ICD shocks pre versus post BCSD, n=8 Conclusions Our case series, although numerically small, has a good follow-up and is the first reported in Europe. The results are in agreement with the suggested remarkable efficacy of BCSD in patients with good functional capacity and fast VAs. Therefore, cardiac sympathetic denervation should always be considered in patients with SHD and refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias, especially in case VT ablation is either not indicated or fails.

Background Cardiac conduction disturbances frequently occur following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). As this procedure is getting more and more common, more research efforts should focus on post procedural rhythm disturbances and their evolution over time Purpose To evaluate the percentage of pacing in patients who underwent a TAVR procedure and developed a conduction disturbance requiring a transvenous pacemaker (PM) implantation Methods We considered all the patients who underwent a TAVR procedure between march 2009 and november 2018 in our centre. Patients implanted with a PM or an ICD before the TAVR procedure or 30 days after the TAVR were not considered eligible for our analysis, because likely not related to TAVR. The percentage of effective right ventricular pacing was assessed both at mid- and long-term follow-up Results 265 patients underwent TAVR in the study period (45% males, 81±6 years). 20 patients already had a PM and were excluded. 39 of the 245 patients (16%) were implanted with a PM after TAVR, 26 of them were implanted within 30 days (median time TAVR-PM implant: 8±7 days). The rate of PM implant within 30 days after TAVR was 8% (20/246) for patients implanted with an Edward Sapien valve, 25% (4/16) for patients with an Evolute Pro valve and 66% (2/3) in patients with a Lotus Edge valve. The indication for PM implant was a permanent 3rd degree A-V block in 12 patients, a paroxysmal A-V block in 4, a bifascicular A-V block with an infra-hisian disease in 5, a II degree Mobitz II A-V block in 2, an atrial fibrillation with slow A-V conduction in 2 and a 2:1 A-V block with infra-hisian disease in 1. The first follow-up after the PM implantation was available in 24 patients (mean 78±87 days after PM implant) and the second in 15 patients (372±267 days after PM implant). The patients were divided into two groups based on the presence/absence of permanent 3rd degree AV block at the time of implantation. At the first follow-up the percentage of pacing was significantly higher in patients implanted with vs. without a permanent 3rd degree AV block (98.5% vs 11%, p<0.001). Notably, in none of the patients without a permanent 3rd AV block at baseline conduction disturbances progressed toward a permanent AV block during long-term follow-up. Accordingly, at the second follow-up patients without permanent 3rd AV block at baseline showed a significantly lower percentage of pacing (1% vs 100%; p<0.01) Conclusion Patients implanted with a PM after TAVR in the absence of a permanent 3rd AV block have a very low likelihood of progression to a permanent AV conduction disturbance and show a negligible percentage of pacing during follow-up. Our results may impact the choice of the correct timing of PM implantation after TAVR and the potential indication for a leadless PM.