Search

More than 500,000 cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are implanted in the European Society of Cardiology countries each year. The role of cardiovascular imaging in patients being considered for CIED is distinctly different from imaging in CIED recipients. In the former group, imaging can help identify specific or potentially reversible causes of heart block, the underlying tissue characteristics associated with malignant arrhythmias, the mechanical consequences of conduction delays and can also aid challenging lead placements. On the other hand, cardiovascular imaging is required in CIED recipients both for standard indications, and to assess the response to device implantation, to diagnose immediate and delayed complications after implantation, and to guide device optimization. The present clinical consensus statement (Part 1) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients undergoing implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators and resynchronization therapy devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the use of imaging in patient selection and during the implantation procedure and also underlines gaps in evidence in the field. The role of imaging after CIED implantation is discussed in the second document (Part 2).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improve quality of life and prolong survival, but there are additional considerations for cardiovascular imaging after implantation—both for standard indications and for diagnosing and guiding management of device-related complications. This clinical consensus statement (part 2) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients after implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the role and optimal use of various cardiac imaging modalities in patients with suspected CIED-related complications and also discusses CRT optimization, the safety of magnetic resonance imaging in CIED carriers, and describes the role of chest radiography in assessing CIED type, position, and complications. The role of imaging before and during CIED implantation is discussed in a companion document (part 1).

Objective: A subset of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presents without established AF risk factors and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function, called idiopathic AF (IAF). Traditionally, echocardiography derived LV dimensions and ejection fraction (EF) are used to exclude LV dysfunction in IAF, but their sensitivity is limited. Our objective is to evaluate the presence of subtle alterations in LV function despite normal LVEF in patients with IAF compared to healthy controls, using speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) based global longitudinal strain (GLS). Methods: Standard transthoracic echocardiography was performed in 80 patients with IAF and 129 healthy controls. Patients with overt cardiac disease as well as known established AF risk factors were excluded. STE analysis was performed to assess GLS of the LV, and left atrial strain (LAS). Results: LVEF was normal and comparable between patients with IAF and healthy controls (63 ± 4% for both groups; p = 0.801). Mean GLS was within normal limits for both groups but statistically significantly more negative in patients with IAF (−20.6 ± 2.5% vs. -19.7 ± 2.5%; p = 0.016), however not when indexed for ventricular cycle length (p = 0.784). No differences in LA volume or non-indexed LAS were seen in patients with IAF compared to healthy controls. Conclusions: In this selected group of IAF patients, STE did not detect any overt LV or LA dysfunction compared to healthy controls. Thus, IAF occurred in these patients not only in the absence of established AF risk factors but also without evidence of ventricular or atrial dysfunction.

AIMS: Although mobile health tools using photoplethysmography (PPG) technology have been validated for the detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), their utility for heart rate assessment during AF remains unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of continuous PPG-based 1 min mean heart rate assessment during AF.METHODS AND RESULTS: Persistent AF patients were provided with Holter electrocardiography (ECG) (for ≥24 h) simultaneously with a PPG-equipped smartwatch. Both the PPG-based smartwatch and Holter ECG automatically and continuously monitored patients' heart rate/rhythm. ECG and PPG recordings were synchronized and divided into 1 min segments, from which a PPG-based and an ECG-based average heart rate estimation were extracted. In total, 47 661 simultaneous ECG and PPG 1 min heart rate segments were analysed in 50 patients (34% women, age 73 ± 8 years). The agreement between ECG-determined and PPG-determined 1 min mean heart rate was high [root mean squared error (RMSE): 4.7 bpm]. The 1 min mean heart rate estimated using PPG was accurate within ±10% in 93.7% of the corresponding ECG-derived 1 min mean heart rate segments. PPG-based 1 min mean heart rate estimation was more often accurate during night-time (97%) than day-time (91%, P < 0.001) and during low levels (96%) compared to high levels of motion (92%, P < 0.001). A neural network with a 10 min history of the recording did not further improve the PPG-based 1 min mean heart rate assessment [RMSE: 4.4 (95% confidence interval: 3.5-5.2 bpm)]. Only chronic heart failure was associated with a lower agreement between ECG-derived and PPG-derived 1 min mean heart rates (P = 0.040).CONCLUSION: During persistent AF, continuous PPG-based 1 min mean heart rate assessment is feasible in 60% of the analysed period and shows high accuracy compared with Holter ECG for heart rates <110 bpm.