Search

Contains fulltext : 235276.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), AIMS: This study was performed to develop and externally validate prediction models for appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shock and mortality to identify subgroups with insufficient benefit from ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients scheduled for primary prevention ICD implantation and reduced left ventricular function. Bootstrapping-based Cox proportional hazards and Fine and Gray competing risk models with likely candidate predictors were developed for all-cause mortality and appropriate ICD shock, respectively. Between 2014 and 2018, we included 1441 consecutive patients in the development and 1450 patients in the validation cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.4 (IQR 2.1-2.8) years, 109 (7.6%) patients received appropriate ICD shock and 193 (13.4%) died in the development cohort. During a median follow-up of 2.7 (IQR 2.0-3.4) years, 105 (7.2%) received appropriate ICD shock and 223 (15.4%) died in the validation cohort. Selected predictors of appropriate ICD shock were gender, NSVT, ACE/ARB use, atrial fibrillation history, Aldosterone-antagonist use, Digoxin use, eGFR, (N)OAC use, and peripheral vascular disease. Selected predictors of all-cause mortality were age, diuretic use, sodium, NT-pro-BNP, and ACE/ARB use. C-statistic was 0.61 and 0.60 at respectively internal and external validation for appropriate ICD shock and 0.74 at both internal and external validation for mortality. CONCLUSION: Although this cohort study was specifically designed to develop prediction models, risk stratification still remains challenging and no large group with insufficient benefit of ICD implantation was found. However, the prediction models have some clinical utility as we present several scenarios where ICD implantation might be postponed.

Item does not contain fulltext, AIMS: To investigate the behaviour of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) function during actual radiotherapy sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen patients with an ICD underwent 17 radiation treatments for cancer [cumulative dose to the tumour was between 16 Gray (Gy) and 70 Gy; photon beams with maximum energies between 6 megaelectronvolt (MeV) and 18 MeV were employed]. During every session, the ICD was programmed to a monitoring mode to prevent inappropriate therapy delivery. Afterwards, the ICDs were interrogated to ensure proper function. Calculated radiation dose at the ICD site was <1 Gy in all patients. In 5 out of 17 radiation treatments (29%) the ICDs showed 6 malfunctions (35%). We noticed four disturbances in the memory data or device resets during radiation treatment and one case of inappropriate ventricular fibrillation detection due to external noise. In one case a late device data error was observed. All malfunctions occurred at 10 and 18 MeV beam energies. CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that all recommended precautions were taken to minimize the damage to the ICDs during radiotherapy and the calculated dose to the ICDs was <1 Gy, in 29% of the treatments a malfunction occurred. We observed a possible correlation between the beam energy and the malfunctions. This correlation may be due to an interaction between neutrons produced in the head of the linear accelerator at beam energies >/=10 MeV, and boron-10 which is present in the integrated circuit.

Remote monitoring of cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIED: pacemaker, cardiac resynchronisation therapy device and implantable cardioverter defibrillator) has been developed for technical control and follow-up using transtele-phonic data transmission. In addition, automatic or patient-triggered alerts are sent to the cardiologist or allied professional who can respond if necessary with various interventions. The advantage of remote monitoring appears obvious in impending CIED failures and suspected symptoms but is less likely in routine follow-up of CIED. For this follow-up the indications, quality of care, cost-effectiveneness and patient satisfaction have to be determined before remote CIED monitoring can be applied in daily practice. Nevertheless remote CIED monitoring is expanding rapidly in the Netherlands without professional agreements about methodology, responsibilities of all the parties involved and that of the device patient, and reimbursement. The purpose of this consensus document on remote CIED monitoring and follow-up is to lay the base for a nationwide, uniform implementation in the Netherlands. This report describes the technical communication, current indications, benefits and limitations of remote CIED monitoring and follow-up, the role of the patient and device manufacturer, and costs and reimbursement. The view of cardiology experts and of other disciplines in conjunction with literature was incorporated in a preliminary series of recommendations. In addition, an overview of the questions related to remote CIED monitoring that need to be answered is given. This consensus document can be used for future guidelines for the Dutch profession.

Remote monitoring of cardiac implanted electronic devices (CIED: pacemaker, cardiac resynchronisation therapy device and implantable cardioverter defibrillator) has been developed for technical control and follow-up using transtelephonic data transmission. In addition, automatic or patient-triggered alerts are sent to the cardiologist or allied professional who can respond if necessary with various interventions. The advantage of remote monitoring appears obvious in impending CIED failures and suspected symptoms but is less likely in routine follow-up of CIED. For this follow-up the indications, quality of care, cost-effectiveneness and patient satisfaction have to be determined before remote CIED monitoring can be applied in daily practice. Nevertheless remote CIED monitoring is expanding rapidly in the Netherlands without professional agreements about methodology, responsibilities of all the parties involved and that of the device patient, and reimbursement. The purpose of this consensus document on remote CIED monitoring and follow-up is to lay the base for a nationwide, uniform implementation in the Netherlands. This report describes the technical communication, current indications, benefits and limitations of remote CIED monitoring and follow-up, the role of the patient and device manufacturer, and costs and reimbursement. The view of cardiology experts and of other disciplines in conjunction with literature was incorporated in a preliminary series of recommendations. In addition, an overview of the questions related to remote CIED monitoring that need to be answered is given. This consensus document can be used for future guidelines for the Dutch profession.

Background: Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with deleterious effects on cardiac function. Objective In an observational multicentre study in children with isolated atrioventricular (AV) block receiving chronic ventricular pacing, the importance of the ventricular pacing site on left ventricular (LV) function was investigated. Methods: Demographics, maternal autoantibody status and echocardiographic measurements on LV end-diastolic and end-systolic dimensions and volumes at age <18 years were retrospectively collected from patients undergoing chronic ventricular pacing (>1 year) for isolated AV block. LV fractional shortening (LVFS) and, if possible LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated. Linear regression analyses were adjusted for patient characteristics. Results: From 27 centres, 297 children were included, in whom pacing was applied at the RV epicardium (RVepi, n=147), RV endocardium (RVendo, n=113) or LV epicardium (LVepi, n=37). LVFS was significantly affected by pacing site (p=0.001), and not by maternal autoantibody status (p=0.266). LVFS in LVepi (39±5%) was significantly higher than in RVendo (33±7%, p<0.001) and RVepi (35±8%, p=0.001; no significant difference between RV-paced groups, p=0.275). Subnormal LVFS (LVFS<28%) was seen in 16/113 (14%) RVendo-paced and 21/147 (14%) RVepi-paced children, while LVFS was normal (LVFS≥28%) in all LVepi-paced children (p=0.049). These results are supported by the findings for LVEF (n=122): LVEF was <50% in 17/69 (25%) RVendo- and in 10/35 (29%) RVepi-paced patients, while LVEF was ≥50% in 17/18 (94%) LVepi-paced patients. Conclusion: In children with isolated AV block, permanent ventricular pacing site is an important determinant of LV function, with LVFS being significantly higher with LV pacing than with RV pacing.