Search

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy is an essential element in treating cardiac arrhythmias. Despite their benefits, conventional transvenous CIEDs are associated with a significant risk of mainly pocket- and lead-related complications. To overcome these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs), such as the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and intracardiac leadless pacemaker, have been developed. In the near future, several other innovative EVDs will become available. However, it is difficult to evaluate EVDs in large studies because of high costs, lack of long-term follow-up, imprecise data or selected patient populations. To improve evaluation of these technologies, real-world, large-scale, long-term data are of utmost importance. A Dutch registry-based study seems to be a unique possibility for this goal due to early involvement of Dutch hospitals in novel CIEDs and an existing quality control infrastructure, the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR). Therefore, we will soon start the Netherlands—ExtraVascular Device Registry (NL-EVDR), a Dutch nationwide registry with long-term follow-up of EVDs. The NL-EVDR will be incorporated in NHR’s device registry. Additional EVD-specific variables will be collected both retrospectively and prospectively. Hence, combining Dutch EVD data will provide highly relevant information on safety and efficacy. As a first step, a pilot project has started in selected centres in October 2022 to optimise data collection.

BackgroundCounseling of Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients with regard to individual risks and benefits is challenging. An evidence-based decision aid tailored to the needs of Dutch ICD patients is not yet available. The objective of this pilot project was to structurally evaluate the current clinical practice in The Netherlands and the ICD patient experience, in order to develop an online decision aid to facilitate shared decision making in ICD procedures.MethodsBetween June 2016 and December 2017, a Dutch web-based decision aid was developed according to the Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) using the RAND-UCLA/multi-stepped Delphi model. Development process consisted of 5 stages in which the Dutch clinical practice was reviewed (stage 1), patients’ needs and their history of decision making was structurally assessed (stages 2A and B) and a modified Delphi consensus process was performed with an expert panel consisting of representatives from different medical fields (stage 3). Results from stages 1–3 were used to design and structure the content of an online-based decision aid (stage 4) which was finally evaluated in a usability testing by patients in stage 5.Results and conclusionThis study describes the evidence-based approach to the development of the Dutch ICD decision aid. In our population, levels of shared decision-making experience were low. The ICD decision aid was structurally developed for the Dutch ICD patient population. Our upcoming multicenter stepped wedge clustered randomized trial will further evaluate the ICD decision aid in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease who are undergoing dialysis are reported to be at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD), and to date, no therapy has been shown to be effective in reducing this risk. The feasibility and value of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to prevent SCD is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted the ICD2 trial (Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Dialysis Patients), a prospective, randomized, controlled study investigating the value and safety of ICD implantation to prevent SCD in 200 patients on dialysis with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥35%, after adequate screening and optimization of other treatments. The primary end point was SCD. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality and ICD-related complications. RESULTS: The trial was stopped as per the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board for futility reasons after inclusion of 188 patients, 97 in the ICD group and 91 in the control group. The median duration of follow-up was 6.8 years (interquartile range, 3.8-8.8 years). SCD occurred in 19 of 188 cases (10.1%), 11 of 97 in the ICD group and 8 of 91 in the control group. The cumulative SCD incidence at 5 years was 9.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-16.2%) in the ICD group and 7.9% (95% CI, 1.7-14.0%) in the control group, resulting in a hazard ratio of 1.32 (95% CI, 0.53-3.29; P=0.55). Overall, 99 of 188 patients died (52.7%), 52 in the ICD group and 47 in the control group. Five-year survival probability was 50.6% (95% CI, 39.8%-61.5%) in the ICD group and 54.5% (95% CI, 43.0-66.0%) in the control group, resulting in a hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% CI, 0.69-1.52; P=0.92). Among 80 patients who received an ICD, 25 adverse events related to ICD implantation occurred. CONCLUSIONS: In a well-screened and well-treated population undergoing dialysis, prophylactic ICD therapy did not reduce the rate of SCD or all-cause mortality, which remained high. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN20479861.

Objectives: This study sought to determine prospectively the rate of conductor externalization (CE), and whether this was associated with electrical failure. Background: The Riata family of defibrillator leads was placed under U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory as of November 28, 2011 because of high rates of CE. Methods: A nationwide cohort established in 2012 of 1,029 patients with recalled Riata leads with 147 CE were followed until death, lead discontinuation, or 3 annual screenings with fluoroscopy and device interrogation. Results: Follow-up of 882 patients with normal baseline fluoroscopy revealed incident overt CE in 95 leads (11%) after median risk time of 2.9 years, yielding an incidence rate of 4.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9 to 5.9) per 100 patient-years. The incidence rate was significantly higher in 8-F Riata leads than in 7-F Riata ST leads (7.0 vs. 3.2 per 100 patient-years; p

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, predictors, and outcome of inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients.BackgroundDespite the benefits of ICD therapy, inappropriate defibrillator shocks continue to be a significant drawback. The prognostic importance of inappropriate shocks outside the setting of a clinical trial remains unclear.MethodsFrom 1996 to 2006, all recipients of defibrillator devices equipped with intracardiac electrogram storage were included in the current analysis and clinically assessed at implantation. During follow-up, the occurrence of inappropriate ICD shocks and all-cause mortality was noted.ResultsA total of 1,544 ICD patients (79% male, age 61 ± 13 years) were included in the analysis. During the follow-up period of 41 ± 18 months, 13% experienced ≥1 inappropriate shocks. The cumulative incidence steadily increased to 18% at 5-year follow-up. Independent predictors of the occurrence of inappropriate shocks included a history of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0, p < 0.01) and age younger than 70 years (HR: 1.8, p = 0.01). Experiencing a single inappropriate shock resulted in an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.6, p = 0.01). Mortality risk increased with every subsequent shock, up to an HR of 3.7 after 5 inappropriate shocks.ConclusionsIn a large cohort of ICD patients, inappropriate shocks were common. The most important finding is the association between inappropriate shocks and mortality, independent of interim appropriate shocks.

The number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantations is increasing drastically worldwide, and hence, the number of implanting centers is also increasing. Despite abundant data on the beneficial effect of these devices, little is known regarding safety and complication rates. Eleven ICD and 7 CRT trials were systematically reviewed to provide data on the frequency of in-hospital mortality and complications related to the implantation. Average in-hospital mortality was 2.7% in trials using both thoracotomy and nonthoracotomy ICDs, 0.2% in trials using nonthoracotomy ICDs, and 0.3% in CRT trials. The pneumothorax rate was similar between the nonthoracotomy ICD and CRT trials (0.9%) Coronary sinus complications occurred in 2.0% of patients undergoing CRT. Lead dislodgement rates were higher in CRT trials (5.7%) than in nonthoracotomy ICD trials (1.8%).