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.

Background The Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial (PADIT) investigated whether intensification of perioperative prophylaxis could prevent cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections. Compared with a single dose of cefazolin, the perioperative administration of cefazolin, vancomycin, bacitracin, and cephalexin did not significantly decrease the risk of infection. Our objective was to compare the microbiology of infections between study arms in PADIT. Methods This was a post hoc analysis. Differences between study arms in the microbiology of infections were assessed at the level of individual patients and at the level of microorganisms using the Fisher exact test. Results Overall, 209 microorganisms were reported from 177 patients. The most common microorganisms were coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS; 82/209 [39.2%]) and S. aureus (75/209 [35.9%]). There was a significantly lower proportion of CoNS in the incremental arm compared with the standard arm (30.1% vs 46.6%; P = .04). However, there was no significant difference between study arms in the frequency of recovery of other microorganisms. In terms of antimicrobial susceptibility, 26.5% of microorganisms were resistant to cefazolin. CoNS were more likely to be cefazolin-resistant in the incremental arm (52.2% vs 26.8%, respectively; P = .05). However, there was no difference between study arms in terms of infections in which the main pathogen was sensitive to cefazolin (77.8% vs 64.3%; P = .10) or vancomycin (90.8% vs 90.2%; P = .90). Conclusions Intensification of the prophylaxis led to significant changes in the microbiology of infections, despite the absence of a decrease in the overall risk of infections. These findings provide important insight on the physiopathology of CIED infections. Trial registration NCT01002911.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device infection is a major complication that usually requires device removal. PADIT (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial) was a large cluster crossover trial of conventional versus incremental antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to investigate independent predictors of device infection in PADIT and develop a novel infection risk score. METHODS: In brief, over 4 6-month periods, 28 centers used either conventional or incremental prophylactic antibiotic treatment in all patients. The primary outcome was hospitalization for device infection within 1 year (blinded endpoint adjudication). Multivariable logistic prediction modeling was used to identify the independent predictors and develop a risk score for device infection. The prediction models were internally validated with bootstrap methods. RESULTS: Device procedures were performed in 19,603 patients, and hospitalization for infection occurred in 177 (0.90%) within 1 year of follow-up. The final prediction model identified 5 independent predictors of device infection (prior procedures [P], age [A], depressed renal function [D], immunocompromised [I], and procedure type [T]) with an optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0.704 (95% confidence interval: 0.660 to 0.744). A PADIT risk score ranging from 0 to 15 points classified patients into low (0 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (>/=7) risk groups with rates of hospitalization for infection of 0.51%, 1.42%, and 3.41%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 5 independent predictors of device infection and developed a novel infection risk score in the largest cardiac implantable electronic device trial to date, warranting validation in an independent cohort. The 5 independent predictors in the PADIT score are readily adopted into clinical practice. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot]; NCT01002911).

Background Infection of implanted medical devices has catastrophic consequences. For cardiac rhythm devices, pre-procedural cefazolin is standard prophylaxis but does not protect against methicillin-resistant gram-positive organisms, which are common pathogens in device infections. Objective This study tested the clinical effectiveness of incremental perioperative antibiotics to reduce device infection. Methods The authors performed a cluster randomized crossover trial with 4 randomly assigned 6-month periods, during which centers used either conventional or incremental periprocedural antibiotics for all cardiac implantable electronic device procedures as standard procedure. Conventional treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin infusion. Incremental treatment was pre-procedural cefazolin plus vancomycin, intraprocedural bacitracin pocket wash, and 2-day post-procedural oral cephalexin. The primary outcome was 1-year hospitalization for device infection in the high-risk group, analyzed by hierarchical logistic regression modeling, adjusting for random cluster and cluster-period effects. Results Device procedures were performed in 28 centers in 19,603 patients, of whom 12,842 were high risk. Infection occurred in 99 patients (1.03%) receiving conventional treatment, and in 78 (0.78%) receiving incremental treatment (odds ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 1.05; p = 0.10). In high-risk patients, hospitalization for infection occurred in 77 patients (1.23%) receiving conventional antibiotics and in 66 (1.01%) receiving incremental antibiotics (odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval: 0.59 to 1.15; p = 0.26). Subgroup analysis did not identify relevant patient or site characteristics with significant benefit from incremental therapy. Conclusions The cluster crossover design efficiently tested clinical effectiveness of incremental antibiotics to reduce device infection. Device infection rates were low. The observed difference in infection rates was not statistically significant. (Prevention of Arrhythmia Device Infection Trial [PADIT Pilot] [PADIT]; NCT01002911)

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.

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) has potent negative dromotropic effects on the atrioventricular (AV) node, but variable effects on accessory pathway conduction have been described. The effects of an intravenous bolus injection of 8 mg ATP on accessory pathway and AV nodal conduction were determined during electrophysiologic testing with controlled atrial and ventricular rates. AV conduction was monitored during atrial or ventricular pacing at a constant cycle length, 30 msec longer than the cycle length at which block occurred. During atrial pacing antegrade block after administration of ATP occurred in 1 of 30 (3.2%) patients with accessory pathway conduction and 12 of 13 (92%) patients with AV nodal conduction (p less than 0.001). During ventricular pacing only 5 of 26 (16%) patients had accessory pathways blocked, whereas 25 of 35 (71%) patients with AV nodal conduction had block (p less than 0.001). Thus, failure of ATP to produce ventriculoatrial block identified the presence of an accessory pathway with a sensitivity of 84%, specificity of 71%, and predictive value of 72%. There was no correlation between accessory pathway properties and the effects of ATP. The effects of ATP on the AV node were concordant with the effects of a combination of verapamil and propranolol in 21 of 23 patients, suggesting that this dose ATP is an equipotent AV nodal blocker with a short duration of action. Thus, although the effects of ATP on accessory pathways and the AV node differ, block in ventriculoatrial conduction after administration of ATP cannot be used as the sole criterion to distinguish the mechanism of conduction.

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.