A case of unexpected early battery depletion caused by lithium cluster formation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Remote Monitoring of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: What is the Evidence?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review offers an overview of the evidence in diagnostic and therapeutic applications of remote monitoring implantable devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable devices has become more and more popular in recent years as healthcare is moving towards a more patient centralized system. For heart failure patients with an ICD or pacemaker, there is controversial evidence regarding improvements in the clinical outcome, e.g., reduction of hospitalization rates or overall mortality. New developments as hemodynamic remote monitoring via measurement of the pulmonary artery pressure are promising technical achievements showing encouraging results. In cardiac remote monitoring of syncope and arrhythmias, implantable loop recorder plays an important role in diagnostic algorithms. Although there is controversial evidence according to remote monitoring of implantable devices, its use is rapidly expanding, giving healthcare providers the opportunity to react promptly to worsening of their patients. Adequate evaluation of the data created by remote monitoring systems remains an unsolved challenge of contemporary healthcare services.

Longevity decoded: Insights from power consumption analyses into device construction and their clinical implications

Introduction

The longevity of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) depends on how quickly the powers consumed by the device's functions exhaust its usable battery energy. A mathematical model for CIED power consumptions was developed and validated against longevity data from manufacturers.

Methods

The programmable parameters for the Resonate X4 cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT‐Ds) on the Boston Scientific (St. Paul, MN, USA) online longevity calculator were designated as independent terms in the sum for the total power consumption. The reciprocal of longevity was plotted against variations in these terms. Linear and nonlinear regression analyses were used to fit the plots. The power consumed by pacing was theoretically derived and used as the calibrating tool for estimating the powers consumed by other functions and the usable battery energy. The same methodology was applied to the longevity data of other manufacturers’ CRT‐Ds.

Results

Single chamber 100% pacing at 60 beats/min, 2.5 V, 0.4 ms, 500 Ω consumes ≈ 144 J/year. Shock therapy is 45–85% energy efficient. Multichamber pacing modes and maintaining readiness to pace a chamber consume power even if no pacing is delivered. Switching voltage regulation is theoretically more energy efficient than linear voltage regulation for powering pacing.

Conclusions

The powers consumed by therapy functions are dictated by the patient's clinical needs, but healthcare professionals can extend device longevity by switching off dormant functions and simplifying the pacing mode. Choosing a device model with large usable battery energy, low background power, and energy efficient pacing and shock therapy for implantation will increase the probability of a long service lifespan.