Management of patients with transvalvular right ventricular leads undergoing transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions: a scientific statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the ESC endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asian Pacific Heart Rhythm Society and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society

Up to one-third of patients referred for transcatheter tricuspid valve intervention (TTVI) have a transvalvular pacemaker (PPM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead in place. Both the electrophysiology and interventional cardiology communities have been alerted to the complexity of decision-making in this situation due to potential interactions between the leads and the TTVI material, including the risk of jailing or damage to the leads. This document, commissioned by the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions of the ESC, reviews the scientific evidence to inform Heart Team discussions on the management of patients with a PPM or ICD who are scheduled for or have undergone TTVI.

Temporary Pacing for Electric Cardiac Stimulation and Neuromodulatory Cardiovascular Therapy

The widespread prevalence and significant consequences of cardiac arrhythmias have been addressed by adopting cardiac stimulation and neuromodulation implantable devices. The oldest, most commonly employed, and most well-known technology is the permanent transvenous cardiac pacemaker. However, in select emergent clinical scenarios and transient pathologies, temporary pacing is preferred. More recently, neuromodulatory vagal nerve stimulation has emerged to address neurologic, psychiatric, and nociceptive pathologies, generating significant clinical and scientific interest in the invention of temporary corollary devices for a subset of indications of nociceptive origin. The dominance of particular implant approaches and anatomic targets in both temporary pacing and neuromodulation in the clinic is owed to capabilities and limitations present in the current technological landscape. However, recent innovations in industry and academia may lead to a fundamental shift in how temporary pacing and neuromodulation are delivered in terms of procedural approach and patient outcomes. In this review, we present an overview of contemporary temporary pacemakers, neuromodulatory therapies, and devices, highlighting novel temporary pacing technologies from the clinic, industry, and academia, such as temporary permanent pacemakers, innovations in non-blood-contacting devices, bioresorbable pacemakers, and advances in neuromodulatory approaches.

Diagnostic Blind Spot: Physicians Overlook Atrial Fibrillation in Pacemaker-Dependent Patients

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker recipients demonstrate a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), yet the regular ventricular activation in pacemaker-dependent patients with AF presents a substantial diagnostic challenge.

METHODS

A total of 310 medical practitioners completed a brief, validated survey consisting of three electrocardiograms displaying AF with ventricular pacing. Participants were instructed to identify the underlying rhythm.

RESULTS

Cardiologists outperformed all other groups with 69% correct responses, followed by emergency physicians (33%) and internists (24%). The poorest performance was observed among primary care physicians (14%) and medical interns (12%) (p < 0.0001). The comparison between groups revealed a statistically significant difference between cardiologists and non-cardiologists (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The detection of AF in patients with ventricular-paced rhythm remains a significant diagnostic challenge, with notable gaps even among cardiologists. It is imperative to educate physicians that AF in this context may not present with the typical irregular rhythm. Routine interrogation of cardiac devices in cases where the rhythm is unclear can facilitate a timely and accurate diagnosis of this concealed arrhythmia.

Perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

The use of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has increased significantly in recent years. Consequently, more patients with CIEDs will undergo surgery during their lifetime, and thus the involvement of anesthesiologists in the perioperative management of CIEDs is increasing. With ongoing advancements in technology, many types of CIEDs have been developed, including permanent pacemakers, leadless pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemakers/defibrillators, and implantable loop recorders. The functioning of CIEDs exposed to an electromagnetic field can be affected by electromagnetic interference, potential sources of which can be found in the operating room. Thus, to prevent potential adverse events caused by electromagnetic interference in the operating room, anesthesiologists must have knowledge of CIEDs and be able to identify each type. This review focuses on the perioperative management of patients with CIEDs, including indications for CIED implantation to determine the baseline cardiovascular status of patients; concerns associated with CIEDs before and during surgery; perioperative management of CIEDs, including magnet application and device reprogramming; and additional perioperative provisions for patients with CIEDs. As issues such as variations in programming capabilities and responses to magnet application according to device can be challenging, this review provides essential information for the safe perioperative management of patients with CIEDs.

Prognosis of pacing-dependent patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Data on the prognostic significance of pacing dependency in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are sparse.

METHODS

The prognostic significance of pacing dependency defined as absence of an intrinsic rhythm ≥ 30 bpm was determined in 786 patients with CIEDs at the authors' institution using univariate and multivariate regression analysis to identify predictors of all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

During 49 months median follow-up, death occurred in 63 of 130 patients with pacing dependency compared to 241 of 656 patients without pacing dependency (48% versus 37%, hazard ratio [HR] 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.78, P = 0.04). Using multivariate regression analysis, predictors of all-cause mortality included age (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.08, P < 0.01), history of atrial fibrillation (HR 1.32, 95% CI: 1.03-1.69, P < 0.01), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.28; 95% CI: 1.00-1.63, P = 0.048) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥ III (HR 2.00; 95% CI: 1.52-2.62, P < 0.01), but not pacing dependency (HR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.86-1.54, P = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to age, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease and heart failure severity as indexed by NYHA functional class III or IV, pacing dependency does not appear to be an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in patients with CIEDs.

Predictors of cardiovascular implantable electronic device dependence at long-term follow-up after alcohol septal ablation in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients

BACKGROUND

The most common complication of alcohol septal ablation (ASA) is transient periprocedural high-grade AV block (HGAVB). To date, no long-term follow-up of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) utilization after ASA has been reported. We hypothesized that CIED dependence on long-term follow-up can be predicted by ECG or procedural characteristics.

METHODS

We analyzed all patients with HCM who underwent ASA from December 1998 to December 2019 and received their first CIED within 30 days after ASA for HGAVB. All follow-up interrogations were reviewed. CIED dependence was defined as ventricular pacing of ≥ 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 138 patients with HCM underwent ASA. Of these, 35 had a prior device and were excluded. Of the remaining 103 patients, 25 patients received a CIED for HGAVB within 30 days after ASA. Average follow-up duration was 10.1 years. On long-term follow-up, 16 patients (64%) were found to be CIED-dependent. Baseline characteristics, including pre- and post-ASA ECG, were not significantly different between dependent and non-dependent patients. The only predictor for CIED dependence was > 1 ml of alcohol injected (OR 6.0, p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

CIED implantation after ASA is common. Almost two thirds of patients who received a CIED for post-procedural HGAVB were CIED-dependent on long-term follow-up. CIED dependence can be predicted by the amount of injected alcohol > 1 ml.

Increased Risk of Heart Failure in Elderly Patients Treated with Beta-Blockers After AV Node Ablation

INTRODUCTION

Controversy exists regarding the indication of beta-blockers (BB) in different scenarios in patients with cardiovascular disease. We sought to evaluate the effect of BB on survival and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in a sample of pacemaker-dependent patients after AV node ablation to control ventricular rate for atrial tachyarrhythmias.

METHODS

A retrospective study including consecutive patients that underwent AV node ablation was conducted in a single center between 2011 and 2019. The study's primary endpoints were the incidence of all-cause mortality, first HF hospitalization and the cumulative incidence of subsequent hospitalizations for HF. Competing risk analyses were employed.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients with a mean age of 73.9 years were included in the study. After a median follow-up of 45.5 months, 43 patients had died (38.7%) and 31 had been hospitalized for HF (27.9%). The recurrent HF hospitalization rate was 74/1000 patients/year. Patients treated with BB had a non-significant trend to higher mortality rates and a higher risk of recurrent HF hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio 2.23, 95% confidence interval 1.12-4.44; p = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

After an AV node ablation, the use of BB is associated with an increased risk of HF hospitalizations in a cohort of elderly patients.

Joint Position Paper of the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology (SFC) and the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV) on magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the reference imaging for the management of a large number of diseases. The number of MR examinations increases every year, simultaneously with the number of patients receiving a cardiac electronic implantable device (CEID). A CEID was considered an absolute contraindication for MRI for years. The progressive replacement of conventional pacemakers and defibrillators by MR-conditional CEIDs and recent data on the safety of MRI in patients with "MR-nonconditional" CEIDs have progressively increased the demand for MRI in patients with a CEID. However, some risks are associated with MRI in CEID carriers, even with "MR-conditional" devices because these devices are not "MR-safe". A specific programing of the device in "MR-mode" and monitoring patients during MRI remain mandatory for all patients with a CEID. A standardized patient workflow based on an institutional protocol should be established in each institution performing such examinations. This joint position paper of the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology and the Société française d'imagerie cardiaque et vasculaire diagnostique et interventionnelle (SFICV) describes the effect and risks associated with MRI in CEID carriers. We propose recommendations for patient workflow and monitoring and CEID programming in MR-conditional, "MR-conditional nonguaranteed" and MR-nonconditional devices.

Radiotherapy in Patients With a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device

Recently, the Heart Rhythm Society published recommendations on management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who require radiotherapy (RT). We aimed to report the experience of a teaching hospital, and discuss our practice in the context of recently published guidelines. We identified all consecutive CIED recipients (12,736 patients) who underwent RT between March 2006 and June 2017. Among them, 90 (1%) patients (78.2 ± 10 years, 73% male) had a CIED: 82 pacemakers and 8 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Two patients required CIED extraction prior to RT for ipsilateral breast cancer (no device replacement in 1 patient). Four patients (5%) were considered at high-risk, 35 (39%) at intermediate-risk, and the remaining 50 (56%) at low-risk for CIED dysfunction. Overall, only a minority of patients followed recommended local protocol during RT delivery (31%) and during follow-up (56%). CIED malfunction was detected in 5 patients (6%), mainly back-up mode resetting (80%), with 4 (including 3 pelvic cancer location) patients initially classified as being at intermediate-risk and 1 at low-risk. Four out of the 5 patients with CEID malfunction had received neutron producing beams. In conclusion, our findings underline the lack of rigorous monitoring of patients undergoing RT (though CIED malfunction appears to be rare and relatively benign in nature), and emphasize the interest of considering neutron producing beam for risk stratification as recommended in recent guidelines. Optimization of patient's management requires a close collaboration between both CIED clinicians and radiation oncologists, and more systematic remote CIED monitoring may be helpful.

Permanent pacemaker implantation after cardiac surgery: Optimization of the decision making process

BACKGROUND

Conduction disturbances necessitating permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after cardiac surgery occur in 1% to 5% of patients. Previous studies have reported a low rate of late PPM dependency, but there is lack of evidence that it might be related to implantation timing. In this study, we sought to determine whether PPM implantation timing and specific conduction disturbances as indications for PPM implantation are associated with late pacemaker dependency and recovery of atrioventricular (AV) conduction.

METHODS

Patients with a PPM implanted after cardiac surgery were followed in an outpatient clinic. Two outcomes were assessed: AV conduction recovery and PPM dependency, defined as the absence of intrinsic rhythm on sensing test in VVI mode at 40 bpm.

RESULTS

Of 15,092 patients operated between September 2008 and March 2019, 185 (1.2%) underwent PPM implantation. One hundred seventy-seven of these patients met the criteria for inclusion into this study. Follow-up data were available in 145 patients (82%). Implantation was performed at ≤6 days after surgery in 58 patients (40%) and at >6 days after surgery in 87 patients (60%). The median time from implantation to last follow-up was 890 days (range, 416-1998 days). At follow-up, 81 (56%) patients were not PPM dependent. Multivariable analysis showed that PPM implantation at ≤6 days after surgery is a predictor of being not PPM dependent (odds ratio [OR], 5.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-12.04; P < .001) and of AV conduction recovery (OR, 4.96; 95% CI, 2.26-10.91; P < .001). Sinus node dysfunction as indication for PPM implantation was predictive of being not PPM dependent (OR, 6.59; 95% CI, 1.67-26.06; P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend implanting a PPM on postoperative day 7 to prevent unnecessary implantations and avoid prolonged hospitalization.

Management of radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators: A Report of the AAPM TG-203†

Managing radiotherapy patients with implanted cardiac devices (implantable cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators) has been a great practical and procedural challenge in radiation oncology practice. Since the publication of the AAPM TG-34 in 1994, large bodies of literature and case reports have been published about different kinds of radiation effects on modern technology implantable cardiac devices and patient management before, during, and after radiotherapy. This task group report provides the framework that analyzes the potential failure modes of these devices and lays out the methodology for patient management in a comprehensive and concise way, in every step of the entire radiotherapy process.

Predictors of pacing-dependency in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices

BACKGROUND

Data on the prevalence and predictors for the development of pacing-dependency in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are sparse.

METHODS

Pacing-dependency defined as an absence of intrinsic rhythm of ≥ 30 bpm was determined in 802 consecutive patients with CIEDs who visited the documented pacemaker or implantable cardioverter- defibrillator outpatient clinic for routine follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 131 (16%) patients were found to be pacing-dependent 67 ± 70 months after CIED implant. Multivariate analysis revealed a significant association between pacing-dependency and the following clinical variables: second or third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block at implant (OR = 19.9; 95% CI: 10.9-38.5, p < 0.01), atrial fibrillation at implant (OR = 2.15; 95% CI: 1.16-4.05, p = 0.02), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30% (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.03-4.15, p = 0.04), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) > 150 pg/mL (OR = 2.12; 95% CI: 1.16-3.97, p = 0.02), chronic kidney disease (OR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.08-3.26, p = 0.03), and follow-up duration after implantation > 5 years (OR = 3.29; 95% CI: 1.96-5.64, p < 0.01). None of the remaining clinical variables including age, gender, diabetes mellitus, underlying heart disease, prior cardiac surgery or medication during follow-up including betablockers and amiodarone predicted pacing-dependency.

CONCLUSIONS

Pacing-dependency is associated with second or third-degree AV-block at implant, atrial fibrillation before implant, low LVEF, elevated BNP, chronic kidney disease and follow-up duration after implant.

Evaluation and Monitoring of Patients With Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

In this article, the reader will get some insights into managing patient with implantable cardiac devices while undergoing noncardiac surgery. We will review basic concepts regarding normal function of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, understanding how their function will be influenced during noncardiac surgeries. You will be guided through management steps from preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative aspects. In an ever-changing world of medicine, it is important to keep up with progress as more and more patients get implantable cardiac devices.

Features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiac device deactivation

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about patients who undergo cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

OBJECTIVE

To describe features and outcomes of patients who underwent cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective review of medical records of 150 patients at a tertiary academic medical center (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). EXPOSURE Cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Demographic and clinical data and information regarding advance directives, ethics consultations, palliative medicine consultations, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivations.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients (median age, 79 years; 67% were male), 149 (99%) had poor or terminal prognoses. Overall, 118 patients (79%) underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only, and 32 (21%) underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (6 patients [4%] were pacemaker-dependent). Half of the deactivation requests (51%) were made by surrogates. A majority of deactivations (55%) were carried out by nurses. Although 85 patients (57%) had advance directives, only 1 mentioned the device in the directive. Ethics consultations occurred in 3 patients (2%) and palliative medicine consultations in 64 (43%). The proportions of patients who died within 1 month of device deactivation were similar for those who underwent deactivation of tachycardia therapies only and those who underwent deactivation of bradycardia therapies with or without tachycardia therapies (85% vs 94%; P = .37).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most requests for cardiovascular implantable electronic device deactivation were for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-delivered tachycardia therapies only. Many of these requests were made by surrogates. Advance directives executed by patients with these devices rarely addressed device management. Regardless of device therapy, most patients died shortly after device deactivation. Hence, a device deactivation decision may reflect the seriousness of a given patient's underlying illness. Patients with devices should engage in advance care planning to ensure that future care is consistent with their preferences.

Patients with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

The preparation of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) for the perioperative period necessitates familiarity with recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists and Heart Rhythm Society. Even clinicians who are not CIED experts should understand the indications for implantation, as well as the basic functions, operations, and limitations of these devices. Before any scheduled procedure, proper CIED function should be verified and a specific CIED prescription obtained. Acquiring the requisite knowledge base and developing the systems to competently manage the CIED patient ensures safe and efficient perioperative care.

Predictors of pacemaker dependence and pacemaker dependence as a predictor of mortality in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The prevalence, predictors, and survival for the development of pacemaker dependence (PD) in patients implanted with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are unknown.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 1,550 consecutive patients with ICD implantation at a single center from 1996 to 2008 with a mean of 4.2 ± 3.4 years. Patients with implant intrinsic heart rates less than 40 beats/min (n = 48) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (n = 444) were excluded leaving 1,058 patients in this study. PD was defined as an intrinsic rhythm <40 beats/min after inhibiting the pacemaker, <50 beats/min with transient symptoms of dizziness relieved by resumption of pacing and right ventricle pacing despite algorithms to promote intrinsic conduction at the 3 monthly follow-up ICD clinic visits. Multivariate regression and Cox proportional hazard models were used for analysis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 64 ± 13 years; 79% were male with a primary indication for the ICD in 57%. PD occurred in 142 (13.4%) of patients, with a mean time to PD of 2.6 ± 1.9 years. PD was associated with a 48% increased odds for mortality versus non-PD ICD patients during the mean follow-up time of 4.2 ± 3.4 years (adjusted odds ratio = 1.48 [95% confidence interval 1.080-2.042]; P = 0.015). Older age, a history of atrial fibrillation, amiodarone use, and secondary prevention were the strongest predictors for the development of PD.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center ICD cohort, the development of PD was not uncommon and was associated with decreased survival.

Management of radiation oncology patients with a pacemaker or ICD: a new comprehensive practical guideline in The Netherlands. Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO)

Current clinical guidelines for the management of radiotherapy patients having either a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (both CIEDs: Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices) do not cover modern radiotherapy techniques and do not take the patient’s perspective into account. Available data on the frequency and cause of CIED failure during radiation therapy are limited and do not converge. The Dutch Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (NVRO) initiated a multidisciplinary task group consisting of clinical physicists, cardiologists, radiation oncologists, pacemaker and ICD technologists to develop evidence based consensus guidelines for the management of CIED patients. CIED patients receiving radiotherapy should be categorised based on the chance of device failure and the clinical consequences in case of failure. Although there is no clear cut-off point nor a clear linear relationship, in general, chances of device failure increase with increasing doses. Clinical consequences of device failures like loss of pacing, carry the most risks in pacing dependent patients. Cumulative dose and pacing dependency have been combined to categorise patients into low, medium and high risk groups. Patients receiving a dose of less than 2 Gy to their CIED are categorised as low risk, unless pacing dependent since then they are medium risk. Between 2 and 10 Gy, all patients are categorised as medium risk, while above 10 Gy every patient is categorised as high risk. Measures to secure patient safety are described for each category. This guideline for the management of CIED patients receiving radiotherapy takes into account modern radiotherapy techniques, CIED technology, the patients’ perspective and the practical aspects necessary for the safe management of these patients. The guideline is implemented in The Netherlands in 2012 and is expected to find clinical acceptance outside The Netherlands as well.

Is pacemaker deactivation at the end of life unique? A case study and ethical analysis

Although there has been considerable controversy regarding the deactivation of pacemakers near the end of life, clinicians can expect to face more requests for pacemaker withdrawal as the number of implants grows. Despite a clear ethical and legal precedent, these requests may elicit significant psychological and moral distress on the part of the clinical team. We illustrate some of the difficulties clinicians may face by describing the case of a patient with end-stage heart failure who asked to have her pacemaker turned off near the end of life. We discuss the challenges in determining pacemaker dependency, differing attitudes toward deactivating pacemakers versus other cardiac devices, and how the issues of perceived burden and timing of death may contribute to a clinician's sense of moral distress.