Clinical implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy-regional disparities across selected ESC member countries

High-power chargers for electric vehicles: are they safe for patients with pacemakers and defibrillators?

AIMS

Battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales and use are rapidly expanding. Battery electric vehicles, along with their charging stations, are a potential source of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The new 'high-power' charging stations have the potential to create strong electromagnetic fields and induce EMI in CIEDs, and their safety has not been evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 130 CIED patients performed 561 charges of four BEVs and a test vehicle (350 kW charge capacity) using high-power charging stations under continuous 6-lead electrocardiogram monitoring. The charging cable was placed directly over the CIED, and devices were programmed to maximize the chance of EMI detection. Cardiac implantable electronic devices were re-interrogated after patients charged all BEVs and the test vehicle for evidence of EMI. There were no incidences of EMI, specifically no over-sensing, pacing inhibition, inappropriate tachycardia detection, mode switching, or spontaneous reprogramming. The risk of EMI on a patient-based analysis is 0/130 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0%-2%], and the risk of EMI on a charge-based analysis is 0/561 (95% CI 0%-0.6%). The effective magnetic field along the charging cable was 38.65 µT and at the charging station was 77.9 µT.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of electric cars with high-power chargers by patients with cardiac devices appears to be safe with no evidence of clinically relevant EMI. Reasonable caution, by minimizing the time spent in close proximity with the charging cables, is still advised as the occurrence of very rare events cannot be excluded from our results.

In-hospital ventricular arrhythmia in heart failure patients: 7 year follow-up of the multi-centric HEARTS registry

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors, and short‐term and long‐term outcomes associated with in‐hospital sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) collectively termed ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in the heart failure (HF) patients.

Methods and results

The HEart function Assessment Registry Trial in Saudi Arabia (HEARTS registry) is a prospective national registry of patients with chronic HF from18 tertiary care hospitals across Saudi Arabia. Diagnosis of HF was in accordance with American Heart Association/European Society of Cardiology definition criteria. The registry had enrolled 2610 HF patients during the 14 month recruitment period between October 2009 and December 2010. Occurrence of in‐hospital cardiac events, prognosis, and outcome were monitored during the 7 year follow‐up period. The incidence of in‐hospital VA in HF was 4.2%. VA was more common among men, and mean age was lesser than non‐VA patients (58.5 ± 16: 61.5 ± 15 years; P = 0.042). Smoking and family history of cardiomyopathy were significant risk factors of VA. Previous history of arrhythmia, ST elevated myocardial infarction, infections, and hypotension remained significant predictors of in‐hospital VA associated with three to seven times more risk. Patients with VA had higher rates of in‐hospital events like recurrent HF, haemodialysis, shock, sepsis, major bleeding, intra‐aortic balloon pump, and stroke compared with those without VA, all being highly significant (P < 0.001). After adjustment for age, gender, and co‐morbidities, in‐hospital VA increased the risk of cardiogenic shock by 24 times, dialysis and major bleeding by 10 times, and recurrent congestive HF and pacing by five times. Survival analysis showed that all‐cause mortality was significantly higher in the VA patients (P < 0.001). Presence of VA increased in‐hospital and 1 month mortality to 23 and 17 times, respectively.

Conclusions

Lower mean age of VA complicated HF patients is a matter of concern in the Saudi population. HF associated with VA increased in‐hospital events and all‐cause mortality indicating poor prognosis and survival. These findings enable risk stratification and reflect on the importance of early recognition of the clinical markers and predictors of VA prompting immediate management.

Patients with pacemakers or defibrillators do not need to worry about e-Cars: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Electric cars are increasingly used for public and private transportation and represent possible sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI). Potential implications for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) range from unnecessary driving restrictions to life-threatening device malfunction. This prospective, cross-sectional study was designed to assess the EMI risk of electric cars on CIED function.

METHODS

One hundred and eight consecutive patients with CIEDs presenting for routine follow-up between May 2014 and January 2015 were enrolled in the study. The participants were exposed to electromagnetic fields generated by the four most common electric cars (Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, BMW i3, VW eUp) while roller-bench test-driving at Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University, Munich. The primary endpoint was any abnormalities in CIED function (e.g. oversensing with pacing-inhibition, inappropriate therapy or mode-switching) while driving or charging electric cars as assessed by electrocardiographic recordings and device interrogation.

RESULTS

No change in device function or programming was seen in this cohort which is representative of contemporary CIED devices. The largest electromagnetic field detected was along the charging cable during high current charging (116.5 μT). The field strength in the cabin was lower (2.1-3.6 μT).

CONCLUSIONS

Electric cars produce electromagnetic fields; however, they did not affect CIED function or programming in our cohort. Driving and charging of electric cars is likely safe for patients with CIEDs.

Five year trends (2008-2012) in cardiac implantable electrical device utilization in five European nations: a case study in cross-country comparisons using administrative databases

Aims

Common methodologies for analysis of analogous data sets are needed for international comparisons of treatment and outcomes. This study tests using administrative hospital discharge (HD) databases in five European countries to investigate variation/trends in pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant rates in terms of patient characteristics/management, device subtype, and initial implantation vs. replacement, and compares findings with existing literature and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) reports.

Methods and results

HD databases from 2008 to 2012 in Austria, England, Germany, Italy and Slovenia were interrogated to extract admissions (without patient identification) associated with PM and ICD implants and replacements, using direct cross-referencing of procedure codes and common methodology to compare aggregate data. 1 338 199 records revealed 212 952 PM and 62 567 ICD procedures/year on average for a 204.4 million combined population, a crude implant rate of about 104/100 000 inhabitants for PMs and 30.6 for ICDs. The first implant/replacement rate ratios were 81/24 (PMs) and 25/7 (ICDs). Rates have increased, with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) subtypes for both devices rising dramatically. Significant between- and within-country variation persists in lengths of stay and rates (Germany highest, Slovenia lowest). Adjusting for age lessened differences for PM rates, scarcely affected ICDs. Male/female ratios remained stable at 56/44% (PMs) and 79/21% (ICDs). About 90% of patients were discharged to home; 85-100% were inpatient admissions.

Conclusion

To aid in policymaking and track outcomes, HD administrative data provides a reliable, relatively cheap, methodology for tracking implant rates for PMs and ICDs across countries, as comparisons to EHRA data and the literature indicated.

Investigating Regional Variation of Cardiac Implantable Electrical Device Implant Rates in European Healthcare Systems: What Drives Differences?

Despite established efficacy for cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs), large differences in CIED implant rates have been documented across and within countries. The aim of this paper is to investigate the influence of socio-economic, epidemiological and supply side factors on CIED implant rates across 57 Regions in 5 EU countries and to assess the feasibility of using administrative data for this purpose. A total of 1 330 098 hospitalizations for CIED procedures extracted from hospital discharge databases in Austria, England, Germany, Italy and Slovenia from 2008 to 2012 was used in the analysis. Higher levels of tertiary education among the labour force and percent of aged population are positively associated with implant rates of CIED. Regional per capita GDP and number of implanting centres appear to have no significant effect. Institutional factors are shown to be important for the diffusion of CIED. Wide variation in CIED implant rates across and within five EU countries is undeniable. However, regional factors play a limited part in explaining these differences with few exceptions. Administrative databases are a valuable source of data for investigating the diffusion of medical technologies, while the choice of appropriate modelling strategy is crucial in identifying the drivers for variation across countries. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Technologies for Prolonging Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Longevity

Prolonged longevity of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is needed not only as a passive response to match the prolonging life expectancy of patient recipients, but will also actively prolong their life expectancy by avoiding/deferring the risks (and costs) associated with device replacement. CIEDs are still exclusively powered by nonrechargeable primary batteries, and energy exhaustion is the dominant and an inevitable cause of device replacement. The longevity of a CIED is thus determined by the attrition rate of its finite energy reserve. The energy available from a battery depends on its capacity (total amount of electric charge), chemistry (anode, cathode, and electrolyte), and internal architecture (stacked plate, folded plate, and spiral wound). The energy uses of a CIED vary and include a background current for running electronic circuitry, periodic radiofrequency telemetry, high-voltage capacitor reformation, constant ventricular pacing, and sporadic shocks for the cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. The energy use by a CIED is primarily determined by the patient recipient's clinical needs, but the energy stored in the device battery is entirely under the manufacturer's control. A larger battery capacity generally results in a longer-lasting device, but improved battery chemistry and architecture may allow more space-efficient designs. Armed with the necessary technical knowledge, healthcare professionals and purchasers will be empowered to make judicious selection on device models and maximize the utilization of all their energy-saving features, to prolong device longevity for the benefits of their patients and healthcare systems.