Aims The EURO-ENDO registry aimed to study the management and outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE). Methods and results Prospective cohort of 3116 adult patients (2470 from Europe, 646 from non-ESC countries), admitted to 156 hospitals in 40 countries between January 2016 and March 2018 with a diagnosis of IE based on ESC 2015 diagnostic criteria. Clinical, biological, microbiological, and imaging [echocardiography, computed tomography (CT) scan, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT)] data were collected. Infective endocarditis was native (NVE) in 1764 (56.6%) patients, prosthetic (PVIE) in 939 (30.1%), and device-related (CDRIE) in 308 (9.9%). Infective endocarditis was community-acquired in 2046 (65.66%) patients. Microorganisms involved were staphylococci in 1085 (44.1%) patients, oral streptococci in 304 (12.3%), enterococci in 390 (15.8%), and Streptococcus gallolyticus in 162 (6.6%). 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography was performed in 518 (16.6%) patients and presented with cardiac uptake (major criterion) in 222 (42.9%) patients, with a better sensitivity in PVIE (66.8%) than in NVE (28.0%) and CDRIE (16.3%). Embolic events occurred in 20.6% of patients, and were significantly associated with tricuspid or pulmonary IE, presence of a vegetation and Staphylococcus aureus IE. According to ESC guidelines, cardiac surgery was indicated in 2160 (69.3%) patients, but finally performed in only 1596 (73.9%) of them. In-hospital death occurred in 532 (17.1%) patients and was more frequent in PVIE. Independent predictors of mortality were Charlson index, creatinine > 2 mg/dL, congestive heart failure, vegetation length > 10 mm, cerebral complications, abscess, and failure to undertake surgery when indicated. Conclusion Infective endocarditis is still a life-threatening disease with frequent lethal outcome despite profound changes in its clinical, microbiological, imaging, and therapeutic profiles.

AimsThere are limited and contradictory data on the effects of CRT with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (CRT-D) on mortality as compared with CRT with pacemaker (CRT-P).Methods and resultsWe evaluated the long-term outcome of patients implanted with a CRT-D or CRT-P device in our high-volume single-centre experience. Data on all-cause mortality were derived from clinic visits and the Hungarian National Healthcare Fund Death Registry. Kaplan–Meier survival analyses and multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate all-cause mortality in patients with CRT-D vs. CRT-P, stratified by the aetiology of cardiomyopathy. From 2000 to 2011, 1122 CRT devices, 693 CRT-P (LVEF 28.2 ± 7.4%) and 429 CRT-D (LVEF 27.6 ± 6.4%), were implanted at our centre. During the median follow-up of 28 months, 379 patients died from any cause, 250 patients (36%) with an implanted CRT-P and 129 patients (30%) with an implanted CRT-D. There was no evidence of mortality benefit in patients implanted with a CRT-D compared with a CRT-P in the total cohort [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–1.32, P = 0.884]. In patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, CRT-D treatment was associated with a significant 30% risk reduction in all-cause mortality compared with an implanted CRT-P (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.97, P = 0.03). In non-ischaemic patients, there was no mortality benefit of CRT-D over CRT-P (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73–1.32, P = 0.894, interaction P-value = 0.15).ConclusionsIn heart failure patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, CRT-D was associated with a mortality benefit compared with CRT-P, but no benefit of CRT-D over CRT-P in mortality was observed in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

In MADIT-CRT, the clinical benefit of CRT was evident regardless of baseline LVEF, including those with LVEF >30%, whereas the echocardiographic response was increased with increasing LVEF, indicating that CRT might benefit patients with better LVEF. (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [MADIT-CRT]; NCT00180271).

Aims Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has made huge progress with respect to innovation, efficacy, and safety, however, complications are still present. Recent studies examined various predictors of complications. However, limited data exist regarding the role of a repeat procedure. Our aim was the prospective evaluation of the incidence and predictors of complications related to AF ablation procedures in consecutive patients, including repeat procedures. Methods and results All ablation procedures for AF between January 2013 and December 2015 were analysed in our electrophysiology laboratory. During the study period 1243 procedures were analysed [394 female, median age 62 (55–69)]. Overall complication rate was 6.84%, major complication rate was 2.82%. Major complications were the following: 18 pericardial tamponades; 5 pseudoaneurysms; 1 arteriovenous fistula; 6 thromboembolic cerebrovascular events; 3 pulmonary vein stenosis; and 2 atrioventricular blocks. No atrio-oesophageal fistula or procedure related death occurred. Univariate analysis for overall complications showed that age ≥ 65 years ( P = 0.0231), female gender ( P = 0.0438), hypertension ( P = 0.0488), CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 2 ( P = 0.0156), and previous AF ablation procedure ( P < 0.0001) is associated with higher risk for adverse events. Multivariate analysis showed that the only independent predictor of overall complications was previous AF ablation procedure ( P < 0.0001). Similarly, the only predictor of major complications was previous AF ablation procedure ( P < 0.0001). Conclusion Incidence of complications associated with AF ablation in our high volume electrophysiology laboratory is similar to other cohorts. The only independent predictor of complications was previous AF ablation procedure in our series.

AimsData on longer right to left ventricular activation delay (RV-LV AD) predicting clinical outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by left bundle branch block (LBBB) are limited. We aimed to evaluate the impact of RV-LV AD on N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), ejection fraction (EF), and clinical outcome in patients implanted with CRT, stratified by LBBB at baseline.Methods and resultsHeart failure (HF) patients undergoing CRT implantation with EF ≤ 35% and QRS ≥ 120 ms were evaluated based on their RV-LV AD at implantation. Baseline and 6-month clinical parameters, EF, and NT-proBNP values were assessed. The primary endpoint was HF or death, the secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 125 patients with CRT were studied, 62% had LBBB. During the median follow-up of 2.2 years, 44 (35%) patients had HF/death, 36 (29%) patients died. Patients with RV-LV AD ≥ 86 ms (lower quartile) had significantly lower risk of HF/death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.23–0.82; P = 0.001] and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23–1.00; P = 0.05), compared with those with RV-LV AD < 86 ms. Patients with RV-LV AD ≥ 86 ms and LBBB showed the greatest improvement in EF (28–36%; P<0.001), NT-proBNP (2771–1216 ng/mL; P < 0.001), and they had better HF-free survival (HR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11–0.49, P < 0.001) and overall survival (HR: 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16–0.75; P = 0.007). There was no difference in outcome by RV-LV AD in non-LBBB patients.ConclusionLeft bundle branch block patients with longer RV-LV activation delay at CRT implantation had greater improvement in NT-proBNP, EF, and significantly better clinical outcome.