Use of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator in a patient with two implanted neurostimulators for severe Parkinson's disease

Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation in a Hereditary Dystonia Patient With Bilateral Deep Brain Stimulation

The effect of noise from the deep brain stimulator (DBS) or neurologic symptoms of hereditary dystonia on the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) remains unknown. Therefore, herein, we present the first case of S-ICD implantation in a patient with hereditary dystonia who underwent DBS.

Ethical Considerations in the Implantation of Neuromodulatory Devices

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulatory devices are increasingly used by neurosurgeons to manage a variety of chronic conditions. Given their potential benefits, it is imperative to create clear ethical guidelines for the use of these devices. We present a tiered ethical framework for neurosurgeon recommendations for the use of neuromodulatory devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature review to identify factors neurosurgeons should consider when choosing to offer a neuromodulatory device to a patient.

RESULTS

Neurosurgeons must weigh reductions in debilitating symptoms, improved functionality, and preserved quality of life against risks for intraoperative complications and adverse events due to stimulation or the device itself. Neurosurgeons must also evaluate whether patients and families will maintain responsibility for the management of neuromodulatory devices. Consideration of these factors should occur on an axis of resource allocation, ranging from provision of neuromodulatory devices to those with greatest potential benefit in resource-limited settings to provision of neuromodulatory devices to all patients with indications in contexts without resource limitations. Neurosurgeons must also take action to promote device effectiveness throughout the duration of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Weighing risks and benefits of providing neuromodulatory devices and assessing ability to remain responsible for the devices on the level of the individual patient indicate which patients are most likely to achieve benefit from these devices. Consideration of these factors on an axis of resource allocation will allow for optimal provision of neuromodulatory devices to patients in settings of varied resources. Neurosurgeons play a primary role in promoting the effectiveness of these devices.

Coexistence of deep brain stimulators and cardiac implantable electronic devices: A systematic review of safety

As the number of patients implanted with deep brain stimulation systems increases, coexistence with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) poses questions about safety. We systematically reviewed the literature on coexisting DBS and CIED. Eighteen reports of 34 patients were included. Device-device interactions were reported in 6 patients. Sources of complications were extensively reviewed and cautious measures which could be considered as part of a standard checklist for careful consideration are suggested.

Deep Brain Stimulation in Patients With Concomitant Cardiac Pacemakers: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a treatment modality increasingly utilized in the management of neurological and psychiatric conditions. Neurosurgical technical considerations and contraindications have yet to be thoroughly characterized in the literature. The patient population for DBS includes many elderly patients with multiple comorbidities who require treatments and investigations that expose them to electromagnetic fields of varying strengths and durations, including other implanted electromodulatory devices.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if clinically significant interference arises between DBS and cardiac pacemaker systems.

METHODS

Here we audited 8 patients, mean age 72, with cardiac pacemakers and DBS implanted from 2007 to 2015. We investigated details of their neurological and electrocardiological treatment and progress and sought evidence for interference between the two systems.

RESULTS

We found no evidence of DBS dysfunction, and only one case of abnormal pacemaker interrogation 2 yr post-DBS implantation was found, which was thought to be secondary to a medication issue rather than neuromodulation interference.

CONCLUSION

Our research reassures the clinician that pacemakers and DBS systems do not appear to affect one another and provides guidance on minimizing possibility of this.

Pacemaker and Defibrillator Implantation and Programming in Patients with Deep Brain Stimulation

The need for cardiac device implantation in patients receiving deep brain stimulation (DBS) is increasing. Despite the theoretical risk of the two systems interacting, there are no clear guidelines for cardiologists carrying out cardiac device implantation in this population. We performed a review of the literature and describe 13 case reports in which patients have both DBS and a cardiac pacemaker or ICD implanted. Except for one early study, in which an ICD shock reset the deep brain stimulator, no significant interactions have been reported. We discuss the potential interactions between DBS and cardiac devices, and provide practical advice for implanting cardiologists. We conclude that, provided that specific precautions are taken, cardiac device implantation is likely to be safe in patients with DBS.

Effects of external electrical and magnetic fields on pacemakers and defibrillators: from engineering principles to clinical practice

The overall risk of clinically significant adverse events related to EMI in recipients of CIEDs is very low. Therefore, no special precautions are needed when household appliances are used. Environmental and industrial sources of EMI are relatively safe when the exposure time is limited and distance from the CIEDs is maximized. The risk of EMI-induced events is highest within the hospital environment. Physician awareness of the possible interactions and methods to minimize them is warranted.

Implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator in a patient with bilateral deep brain stimulator: feasibility and technique

Uncommonly, a patient with a NeuroStimulator Device (NSD) for a neurologic indication requires a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) for a cardiac indication. Typically in those with a unilateral pectoral NSD, the contralateral pectoral space is used for CIED implantation; however, in very rare occasions the patient has bilateral pectoral NSDs which makes subsequent implantation of a CIED challenging both because of placement and device interaction. Herein, we introduce the case of a 68-year-old gentleman with bilateral pectoral deep brain stimulators for Parkinsonism who received cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) for advanced heart failure. The CRT-D generator was implanted in the abdomen and the CRT-D leads were placed through a minimally invasive epicardial approach. Both devices were tested without any evidence of device interaction.

A most unusual pacemaker

We present a case of pacemaker artifact on 12-lead electrocardiogram that was initially interpreted as malfunction of the patient's dual-chamber cardiac pacemaker. It was ultimately determined to arise from an extracardiac gastric pacemaker, which had been inserted for refractory, severe diabetic gastroparesis. Proper functioning of both devices was confirmed, and settings were adjusted to test for interdevice interference. This is a report of a patient with both cardiac pacemaker and a gastric pacemaker. We review the literature on patients with multiple pacemaker devices, and conclude with several practical considerations for their care.

Risk of interference from transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on the sensing function of implantable defibrillators

BACKGROUND

The use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relief is increasing. At the same time the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is a routine treatment for malignant tachyarrhythmias. Today patients often need devices for more than one condition, and consideration must be given to the interaction between them. We studied the risk of interference between TENS and the ICD function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty patients who had received an ICD underwent a test protocol including TENS at the mammilla and hip levels, at two energy levels, and at the highest comfortable stimulation level. The effects of TENS on the electrocardiogram lead II, intracardiac electrograms, and the ICD marker channels were analyzed. Disturbance from TENS on the sensing function was seen at all stimulation attempts. Interference between the systems was observed in 16 patients. In eight patients (27%) the interpretation was VT/VF and in 14 patients (47%) as ventricular premature extra beats. Other kinds of interactions were seen in five patients (16%). Each patient could have more than one kind of interference.

CONCLUSIONS

Noise reversion and undersensing might prevent the ICD from delivering shock when it should and the interpretation as VT/VF could result in inappropriate shocks. Because of the potentially serious consequences of interference we do not recommend the use of TENS in patients with ICD.

Implantation of a permanent pacemaker in a patient with severe Parkinson's disease and a preexisting bilateral deep brain stimulator

Cardiac pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are commonly used therapeutic modalities in cardiac arrhythmias. Thalamic deep brain stimulation has also become an important modality in the treatment of drug-refractory tremors and other complications in advanced Parkinson's disease. Concerns exist about the potential electrical interaction and interference between these 2 devices in the same patient. There are only a limited number of reports that have investigated this issue. We describe a patient with advanced Parkinson's disease and a previously implanted deep brain stimulator, who subsequently needed a permanent cardiac pacemaker due to severe bradyarrhythmia. Despite the probability of interference between the devices, there were no problems during implantation of the cardiac pacemaker; both the deep brain stimulator and cardiac pacemaker functioned appropriately afterwards.

Long-term deep brain stimulation in elderly patients with cardiac pacemakers

Object. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become an accepted therapy for movement disorders such as Parkinson disease (PD) and essential tremor (ET), when these conditions are refractory to medical treatment. The presence of a cardiac pacemaker is still considered a contraindication for DBS in functional neurosurgery. The goal of this study was to evaluate the technical and clinical management of DBS for the treatment of movement disorders in elderly patients with cardiac pacemakers.

Methods. Six patients with cardiac pacemakers underwent clinical and cardiac examinations to analyze the safety of DBS in the treatment of movement disorders. Four patients suffered from advanced PD and two patients had ET. The mean age of these patients at surgery was 69.5 years (range 63–79 years). The settings of the pacemakers were programmed in a manner considered to minimize the chance of interference between the two systems.

There were no adverse events during surgery. Four patients underwent stimulation of the thalamic ventralis intermedius nucleus (VIM), and two patients stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. In general, bipolar sensing was chosen for the cardiac pacemakers. In all but one patient the quadripolar DBS electrodes were programmed for bipolar stimulation. Several control electrocardiography studies, including 24-hour monitoring, did not show any interference between the two systems. At the time this paper was written the patients had been followed up for a mean of 25.3 months (range 4–48 months).

Conclusions. In certain conditions it is safe for patients with cardiac pacemakers to receive DBS for treatment of concomitant movement disorders. Cardiac pacemakers should not be viewed as a general contraindication for DBS in patients with movement disorders.

Implantation of bilateral deep brain stimulators in patients with Parkinson disease and preexisting cardiac pacemakers

✓ Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become an important modality in the treatment of refractory Parkinson disease (PD). In patients with comorbid arrhythmias requiring cardiac pacemakers, DBS therapy is complicated by concerns over a possible electrical interaction between the devices (or with device programming) and the inability to use magnetic resonance imaging guidance for implantation. The authors report two cases of PD in which patients with preexisting cardiac pacemakers underwent successful implantation of bilateral DBS electrodes in the subthalamic nucleus (STN).

Each patient underwent computerized tomography—guided stereotactic frame—based placement of DBS electrodes with microelectrode recording. Both extension wires were passed from the right side of the head and neck (contralateral to the pacemaker) to place the cranial pulse generators subcutaneously in the left and right abdomen. The cranial pulse generators were placed farther than 6 in from the cardiac pacemaker and from each other to decrease the chance of interference between the devices during telemetry reprogramming.

Postoperative management involved brain stimulator programming sessions with simultaneous cardiological monitoring of pacemaker function and cardiac rhythm. No interference was noted at any time, and proper pacemaker function was maintained throughout the follow-up period. With bilateral STN stimulation, both patients experienced a dramatic improvement in their PD symptoms, including elimination of dyskinesias, reduction of “off” severity, and increase of “on” duration.

With some modifications of implantation strategy, two patients with cardiac pacemakers were successfully treated with bilateral DBS STN therapy for refractory PD. To our knowledge, this is the first report on patients with cardiac pacemakers undergoing brain stimulator implantation.

Simultaneous use of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulators and an implantable cardiac defibrillator. Case report

Bilateral electrical stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus is being used with increasing frequency as a treatment for severe Parkinson disease (PD). Implantable cardiac defibrillators improve survival in certain high-risk patients with coronary artery disease and ventricular arrhythmias. Because of concern about possible interaction between these devices, deep brain stimulation (DBS) systems are routinely disconnected before defibrillators are implanted in patients with PD and arrhythmia. The authors report on a patient with bilateral subthalamic stimulators who underwent successful placement of an implantable defibrillator. Testing of the devices over a wide range of settings revealed no interaction. The patient subsequently underwent multiple episodes of cardioversion when the ventricular lead became dislodged. There was no evidence of adverse neurological effects, and interrogation of the DBS devices after cardioversion revealed no changes in stimulus parameters. The outcome in this case indicates that DBS systems may be safely retained in selected patients who require implantable cardiac defibrillators.