Search

Physicians engaged in cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED)–related practice come from diverse training backgrounds with variable degrees of CIED implant training. The objective of the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on CIED Implant Training was to establish a common structure and content for training programs in CIED implantation, related activities and maintenance of competency. This executive summary presents the essence of the report with key recommendations included, with the complete version made available in a linked supplement. The goals are to ensure that future generations of CIED implanters are better prepared for continuously evolving CIED practice and quality care for all Canadians.

This companion article is intended to address common clinical scenarios in patients with implantable defibrillators that were not addressed in the 2016 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society implantable cardioverter defibrillator guidelines including recommendations for device programming to improve detection, to minimize shocks (appropriate and inappropriate), and to minimize ventricular pacing. Important issues at the time of replacement such as device prescription, technical aspects (vascular access, extraction), and management of components on advisories are also discussed. Finally, common clinical scenarios such as management of patients with terminal illnesses, recurrent ventricular tachycardia, electrical storms, catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia, and system infection management are considered. The management of these patients requires a team approach and comprehensive knowledge surrounding these common clinical scenarios.

Sudden cardiac death is a major public health issue in Canada. However, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the prevention of cardiac death there remains significant variability in implantation rates across Canada. Since the most recent Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement on ICD use in Canada in 2005, there has been a plethora of new scientific information to assist physicians in their discussions with patients considered for ICD implantation to prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. We have reviewed, critically appraised, and synthesized the pertinent evidence to develop recommendations regarding: (1) ICD implantation in the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with and without ischemic heart disease; (2) when it is reasonable to withhold ICD implantation on the basis of comorbidities; (3) ICD implantation in patients listed for heart transplantation; (4) implantation of a single- vs dual-chamber ICD; (5) implantation of single- vs dual-coil ICD leads; (6) the role of subcutaneous ICDs; and (7) ICD implantation infection prevention strategies. We expect that this document, in combination with the companion article that addresses the implementation of these guidelines, will assist all medical professionals with the care of patients who have had or at risk of sudden cardiac death.

Background The BRUISE CONTROL trial (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial) demonstrated that a strategy of continued warfarin during cardiac implantable electronic device surgery was safe and reduced the incidence of clinically significant pocket hematoma (CSH). CSH was defined as a post-procedure hematoma requiring further surgery and/or resulting in prolongation of hospitalization of at least 24 h, and/or requiring interruption of anticoagulation. Previous studies have inconsistently associated hematoma with the subsequent development of device infection; reasons include the retrospective nature of many studies, lack of endpoint adjudication, and differing subjective definitions of hematoma. Objectives The BRUISE CONTROL INFECTION (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial Extended Follow-Up for Infection) prospectively examined the association between CSH and subsequent device infection. Methods The study included 659 patients with a primary outcome of device-related infection requiring hospitalization, defined as 1 or more of the following: pocket infection; endocarditis; and bloodstream infection. Outcomes were verified by a blinded adjudication committee. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify predictors of infection. Results The overall 1-year device-related infection rate was 2.4% (16 of 659). Infection occurred in 11% of patients (7 of 66) with previous CSH and in 1.5% (9 of 593) without CSH. CSH was the only independent predictor and was associated with a >7-fold increased risk of infection (hazard ratio: 7.7; 95% confidence interval: 2.9 to 20.5; p Conclusions CSH is associated with a significantly increased risk of infection requiring hospitalization within 1 year following cardiac implantable electronic device surgery. Strategies aimed at reducing hematomas may decrease the long-term risk of infection. (Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial [BRUISE CONTROL]; NCT00800137 )

Background Anti-platelet therapy is commonly used in patients receiving oral anticoagulation and may increase bleeding risk among patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. We sought to determine the proportion of anticoagulated patients who are concomitantly receiving anti-platelet therapy, the associated risk of clinically significant hematoma (CSH), and the proportion of patients in whom anti-platelet usage is guideline-indicated. Methods A secondary analysis of the Bridge or Continue Coumadin for Device Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial (BRUISE CONTROL). Patients who were receiving warfarin, had an annual predicted risk of thromboembolism of ≥5% and were scheduled to undergo non-emergent CIED surgery were randomized to continued warfarin versus heparin bridging. In the current analysis, patients were divided into those receiving anti-platelet therapy and those not receiving anti-platelet therapy. The incidence of CSH was compared in both groups. The proportion of patients on potentially inappropriate and potentially interruptible antiplatelet therapy was estimated. Results All 681 patients enrolled in BRUISE CONTROL were included, of whom 280 received and 401 did not receive anti-platelet therapy. Anti-platelet therapy increased the risk of CSH (relative risk, 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09 to 2.72; P = 0.02). Of the 280 patients receiving anti-platelet therapy, 97 (34.6%) had no guideline indication for concomitant anti-platelet therapy and an additional 146 (52.1%) were on anti-platelet therapy that could potentially have been interrupted around CIED surgery. Conclusions Concomitant anti-platelet therapy in patients receiving anticoagulation is associated with a significant risk of CSH. The majority of concomitant anti-platelet therapy is potentially inappropriate or interruptible. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: (NCT00800137)

Background— The resynchronization-defibrillation for ambulatory heart failure trial (RAFT) study demonstrated that adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients requiring de novo implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) reduced mortality as compared with ICD therapy alone, despite an increase in procedure-related adverse events. Data are lacking regarding the management of patients with ICD therapy who develop an indication for CRT upgrade. Methods and Results— Participating RAFT centers provided data regarding de novo CRT-D (CRT with ICD) implant, upgrade to CRT-D during RAFT (study upgrade), and upgrade within 6 months after presentation of study results (substudy). Substudy centers enrolled 1346 (74.9%) patients in RAFT, including 644 de novo, 80 study upgrade, and 60 substudy CRT attempts. The success rate (initial plus repeat attempts) was 95.2% for de novo versus 96.3% for study upgrade and 90.0% for substudy CRT attempts ( P =0.402). Acute complications occurred among 26.2% of de novo versus 18.8% of study upgrade and 3.4% of substudy CRT implantation attempts ( P Conclusions— Among a broad group of implant physicians, CRT upgrades were performed in patients with an ICD in situ with no difference in implant success rate and a reduced acute complication rate as compared with a de novo CRT implant. Decisions to upgrade were influenced by predictors of benefit in subgroup analyses of the RAFT study and other trials.

When used with insight, the 12-lead electrocardiogram can provide a considerable amount of useful data in patients with the WolffParkinson-White syndrome. The 12-lead electrocardiogram during tachycardia usually provides excellent clues as to the mechanism of tachycardia, with the most valuable feature being the relationship of the P wave to the QRS complex. The observation of intermittent loss of preexcitation or loss of preexcitation with late atrial extrasystoles is an indicator of a long anterograde refractory period of the accessory pathway, a clue to a benign prognosis in the event of atrial fibrillation. The preexcited morphology as assessed by the electrocardiogram can provide an accurate first approximation to accessorypathway location using a few simple guidelines.

Electrophysiologic testing is warranted in patients with the Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome presenting with rapid atrial fibrillation (AF) or ventricular fibrillation. Indications are less clear in patients presenting only with atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (ART). A knowledge of propensity of this latter group to show a rapid ventricular response in the event of AF and the ability of electrophysiologic testing to reproduce the type and rate of clinical arrhythmias are relevant to this decision. The records of 126 symptomatic patients with manifest WPW syndrome were reviewed and separated into 4 groups according to presentation: group 1--AF; group 2--ART; group 3--palpitations suggesting ART; and group 4--AF and ART. All patients except those in group 3 had electrocardiographically documented clinical arrhythmias, and these arrhythmias were compared with those induced during electrophysiologic testing. The shortest RR interval during induced AF and the cycle length of induced ART correlated well with those occurring clinically (r = 0.72, p less than 0.00001), as did the cycle length of induced ART (r = 0.79, p less than 0.00001). Patients presenting with AF (65%) had a higher incidence of atrial vulnerability (48%) and sustained AF at electrophysiologic testing than those presenting with ART (16% and 5%) or undocumented palpitations (27% and 21%). Forty-one percent of patients with ART and 51% with undocumented palpitations had potentially lethal rates (shortest RR interval less than 250 ms) during induced AF. The ability to reproduce clinical arrhythmias and the frequency of rapid rates during AF induced in patients presenting with only ART or undocumented palpitations supports the recommendation for electrophysiologic testing in symptomatic patients with WPW.