Search

This study aimed to review the utility of quinidine in patients presenting with recurrent sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and limited antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) options.Therapeutic options are often limited in patients with structural heart disease and recurrent VAs. Quinidine has an established role in rare arrhythmic syndromes, but its potential use in other difficult VAs has not been assessed in the present era.We performed a retrospective analysis of 37 patients who had in-hospital quinidine initiation after multiple other therapies failed for VA suppression at our tertiary referral center. Clinical data and outcomes were obtained from the medical record.Of 30 patients with in-hospital quantifiable VA episodes, quinidine reduced acute VA from a median of 3 episodes (interquartile range [IQR]: 2 to 7.5) to 0 (IQR: 0 to 0.5) during medians of 3 days before and 4 days after quinidine initiation (p 0.001). VA events decreased from a median of 10.5 episodes per day (IQR: 5 to 15) to 0.5 episodes (IQR: 0 to 4) after quinidine initiation in the 12 patients presenting with electrical storm (p = 0.004). Among the 24 patients discharged on quinidine, 13 (54.2%) had VA recurrence during a median of 138 days. Adverse effects in 9 of the 37 patients (24.3%) led to drug discontinuation, most commonly gastrointestinal intolerance.In patients with recurrent VAs and structural heart disease who have limited treatment options, quinidine can be useful, particularly as a short-term therapy.

Efficacy of Bio-Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope Introduction Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are potentially preventable complications associated with high morbidity, mortality, and cost. A recently developed bio-absorbable antibacterial envelope (TYRX™-A) might prevent CIED infections in high-risk subjects. However, data regarding safety and efficacy have not been published. Methods and Results In a single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared the prevalence of CIED infections among subjects with ≥2 risk factors treated with the TYRX™-A envelope (N = 135), the nonabsorbable TYRX™ envelope (N = 353), and controls who did not receive an envelope (N = 636). Infection was ascertained by individual chart review. The mean (95% confidence interval) number of risk factors was 3.08 (2.84–3.32) for TYRX™-A, 3.20 (3.07–3.34) for TYRX™, and 3.09 (2.99–3.20) for controls, P = 0.3. After a minimum 300 days follow-up, the prevalence of CIED infection was 0 (0%) for TYRX™-A, 1 (0.3%) for TYRX™, and 20 (3.1%) for controls (P = 1 for TYRX™-A vs. TYRX™, P = 0.03 for TYRX™-A vs. controls, and P = 0.002 for TYRX™ vs. controls). In a propensity score-matched cohort of 316 recipients of either envelope and 316 controls, the prevalence of infection was 0 (0%) and 9 (2.8%), respectively, P = 0.004. When limited to 122 TYRX™-A recipients and 122 propensity-matched controls, the prevalence of CIED infections was 0 (0%) and 5 (4.1%), respectively, P = 0.024. Conclusions Among high-risk subjects, the TYRX™-A bio-absorbable envelope was associated with a very low prevalence of CIED related infections that was comparable to that seen with the nonabsorbable envelope.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are potentially preventable complications associated with high morbidity, mortality, and cost. A recently developed bio-absorbable antibacterial envelope (TYRX™-A) might prevent CIED infections in high-risk subjects. However, data regarding safety and efficacy have not been published.In a single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared the prevalence of CIED infections among subjects with ≥2 risk factors treated with the TYRX™-A envelope (N = 135), the nonabsorbable TYRX™ envelope (N = 353), and controls who did not receive an envelope (N = 636). Infection was ascertained by individual chart review. The mean (95% confidence interval) number of risk factors was 3.08 (2.84-3.32) for TYRX™-A, 3.20 (3.07-3.34) for TYRX™, and 3.09 (2.99-3.20) for controls, P = 0.3. After a minimum 300 days follow-up, the prevalence of CIED infection was 0 (0%) for TYRX™-A, 1 (0.3%) for TYRX™, and 20 (3.1%) for controls (P = 1 for TYRX™-A vs. TYRX™, P = 0.03 for TYRX™-A vs. controls, and P = 0.002 for TYRX™ vs. controls). In a propensity score-matched cohort of 316 recipients of either envelope and 316 controls, the prevalence of infection was 0 (0%) and 9 (2.8%), respectively, P = 0.004. When limited to 122 TYRX™-A recipients and 122 propensity-matched controls, the prevalence of CIED infections was 0 (0%) and 5 (4.1%), respectively, P = 0.024.Among high-risk subjects, the TYRX™-A bio-absorbable envelope was associated with a very low prevalence of CIED related infections that was comparable to that seen with the nonabsorbable envelope.