Clinical and organizational management of cardiac implantable electronic device replacements

Length of hospital stay for elective electrophysiological procedures: a survey from the European Heart Rhythm Association

AIMS

Electrophysiological (EP) operations that have traditionally involved long hospital lengths of stay (LOS) are now being undertaken as day case procedures. The coronavirus disease-19 pandemic served as an impetus for many centres to shorten LOS for EP procedures. This survey explores LOS for elective EP procedures in the modern era.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An online survey consisting of 27 multiple-choice questions was completed by 245 respondents from 35 countries. With respect to de novo cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantations, day case procedures were reported for 79.5% of implantable loop recorders, 13.3% of pacemakers (PMs), 10.4% of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and 10.2% of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. With respect to CIED generator replacements, day case procedures were reported for 61.7% of PMs, 49.2% of ICDs, and 48.2% of CRT devices. With regard to ablations, day case procedures were reported for 5.7% of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablations, 10.7% of left-sided ablations, and 17.5% of right-sided ablations. A LOS ≥ 2 days for CIED implantation was reported for 47.7% of PM, 54.5% of ICDs, and 56.9% of CRT devices and for 54.5% of AF ablations, 42.2% of right-sided ablations, and 46.1% of left-sided ablations. Reimbursement (43-56%) and bed availability (20-47%) were reported to have no consistent impact on the organization of elective procedures.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variation in the LOS for elective EP procedures. The LOS for some procedures appears disproportionate to their complexity. Neither reimbursement nor bed availability consistently influenced LOS.

Ablate and pace: Comparison of outcomes between conduction system pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A&P) strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, including the rate and nature of device-related complications, between BVP and CSP in a cohort of patients undergoing A&P.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing A&P. The risk of device-related complications and of heart failure (HF) hospitalization was prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients (75.3 ± 8.7 years, 53.9% male, 68.9% with NYHA class ≥III) were enrolled: 263 with BVP, 68 with HBP, and 42 with LBBAP. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. Compared to BVP and HBP, LBBAP was associated with the shortest mean procedural and fluoroscopy times and with the lowest acute capture thresholds (all p < .05). At 12-month follow-up LBBAP maintained the lowest capture thresholds and showed the longest estimated residual battery longevity (all p < .05). At 12-months follow-up the three study groups showed a similar risk of device-related complications (5.7%, 4.4%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity.

Rate and nature of complications with leadless transcatheter pacemakers compared with transvenous pacemakers: results from an Italian multicentre large population analysis

AIMS

The safety and efficacy of leadless intracardiac-permanent pacemaker (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but data on comparisons with conventional transvenous-permanent pacemaker (T-PM) collected in a consecutive, prospective fashion are limited. The aim of this analysis was to compare the rate and the nature of device-related complications between patients undergoing L-PM vs. T-PM implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Prospective, multicentre, observational project enrolling consecutive patients who underwent L-PM or T-PM implantation. The rate and nature of device-related complications were analysed and compared between the two groups. Individual 1:1 propensity matching of baseline characteristics was performed. A total of 2669 (n = 665 L-PM) patients were included and followed for a median of 39 months, L-PM patients were on average older and had more co-morbidities. The risk of device-related complications at 12 months was significantly lower in the L-PM group (0.5% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.009). Propensity matching yielded 442 matched pairs. In the matched cohort, L-PM patients trended toward having a lower risk of overall device-related complications (P = 0.129), had a similar risk of early complications (≤30 days) (P = 1.000), and had a significantly lower risk of late complications (>30 days) (P = 0.031). All complications observed in L-PM group were early. Most (75.0%) of complications observed in T-PM group were lead- or pocket-related.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, the risk of device-related complications associated with L-PM implantation tended to be lower than that of T-PM. Specifically, the risk of early complications was similar in two types of PMs, while the risk of late complications was significantly lower for L-PM than T-PM.

Leadless transcatheter pacemaker: Indications, implantation technique and peri-procedural patient management in the Italian clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but real-world data on patient selection, implantation technique, and peri-procedural patient management in a clinical practice setting are lacking.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation in 14 Italian centers were followed in a prospective, multicentre, observational project. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical indications, implantation procedure, and peri-procedural patient management were collected. The rate and nature of device-related complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 782 L-PM patients (68.4% male, 75.6 ± 12.4 years) were included in the analysis. The main patients-related reason leading to the choice of implanting a L-PM rather than a conventional PM was the high-risk of device infection (29.5% of cases). The implantation success rate was 99.2%. The median duration of the procedure was 46 min. In 90% of patients the device was implanted in the septum. Of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) (n = 498) the implantation procedure was performed without interrupting (17.5%) or transiently interrupting OAT without heparin bridging (60.6%). During a median follow-up of 20 months major device-related complications occurred in 7 patients (0.9%): vascular access-site complications in 3 patients, device malfunction in 2 patients, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade in one patient, device migration in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world setting of Italian clinical practice L-PM is often reserved for patients at high-risk of infection. The implantation success rate was very high and the risk of major complications was low. Peri-procedural management of OAT was consistent with available scientific evidence.

Incidence and Predictors of Infections and All-Cause Death in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: The Italian Nationwide RI-AIAC Registry

BACKGROUND

The incidence of infections associated with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patient outcomes are not fully known.

AIM

To provide a contemporary assessment of the risk of CIEDs infection and associated clinical outcomes.

METHODS

In Italy, 18 centres enrolled all consecutive patients undergoing a CIED procedure and entered a 12-months follow-up. CIED infections, as well as a composite clinical event of infection or all-cause death were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 2675 patients (64.3% male, age 78 (70-84)) were enrolled. During follow up 28 (1.1%) CIED infections and 132 (5%) deaths, with 152 (5.7%) composite clinical events were observed. At a multivariate analysis, the type of procedure (revision/upgrading/reimplantation) (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.38-12.08) and diabetes (OR: 2.22, 95% CI: 1.02-4.84) were found as main clinical factors associated to CIED infection. Both the PADIT score and the RI-AIAC Infection score were significantly associated with CIED infections, with the RI-AIAC infection score showing the strongest association (OR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.60-3.55 for each point), with a c-index = 0.64 (0.52-0.75), p = 0.015. Regarding the occurrence of composite clinical events, the Kolek score, the Shariff score and the RI-AIAC Event score all predicted the outcome, with an AUC for the RI-AIAC Event score equal to 0.67 (0.63-0.71) p < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Italian nationwide cohort of patients, while the incidence of CIED infections was substantially low, the rate of the composite clinical outcome of infection or all-cause death was quite high and associated with several clinical factors depicting a more impaired clinical status.

Estimate and reporting of longevity for cardiac implantable electronic devices: a proposal for standardized criteria

BACKGROUND

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are widely used according to consensus guidelines in various patient categories. The longevity of CIED is a major determinant of the frequency with which patients require device replacement. Given the mismatch between the useful life of the devices and patient survival, device replacement is often needed. There is a great variability in the criteria used by manufacturers to determine the longevity of pacemakers (PM), implantable defibrillators (ICDs), and devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thus, a fair comparison and an effective device evaluation is often difficult.

METHODS

The objective of this paper is to provide standardized criteria based on typical clinical settings for estimating the longevity of single and dual chamber ICDs, cardiac resynchronization defibrillators (CRT-D), single and dual chamber PMs, and cardiac resynchronization PMs (CRT- P) to be used in health technology assessment for an appropriate comparison among different devices.

RESULTS

The proposed parameters, if applied to the current marketed devices, provide longevity values in the range 5-17.2 years.

CONCLUSION

The values of longevity with the non-standardized criteria used by the manufacturers result in higher maximum values respect to the proposed standardized criteria for CRT-D, CRTD-MPP, CRT-P, and Dual-chamber PM.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in hemodialysis patients: an updated review

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading life-threatening complications in hemodialysis patients. In this scenario, both tachy-arrhythmias and brady-arrhythmias are involved with related hemodialysis and nonhemodialysis-dependent mechanisms; moreover, those arrhythmias usually occur in different time intervals before sudden cardiac death (SCD). Furthermore, current evidence shows that the presence of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) reduces the benefits of implantable cardioverter--defibrillators (ICDs), which increases the risk of both arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic death, especially in patients with advanced stages of heart failure. Notably, patients with advanced CKD show a more severe degree of heart failure compared with mild CKD patients. However, the benefits of the ICD implantation in the primary prevention of hemodialysis patients is still controversial, and by now, no significant benefits have emerged compared with nonhemodialysis-dependent CKD patients. In secondary prevention, hemodialysis patients with ICD implantation have higher mortality rates compared with nonhemodialysis-dependent CKD patients with ICD. On the other hand, most articles include hemodialysis patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, neglecting those with preserved systolic function. This review focuses on the epidemiology of SCD in the setting of hemodialysis and the current evidence on ICD implantation in patients on hemodialysis therapy analyzing novel strategies, which might reduce the risk of ICD placing.

The Practice of Deep Sedation in Electrophysiology and Cardiac Pacing Laboratories: Results of an Italian Survey Promoted by the AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

The aim of this survey, which was open to all Italian cardiologists involved in arrhythmia, was to assess common practice regarding sedation and analgesia in interventional electrophysiology procedures in Italy. The survey consisted of 28 questions regarding the approach to sedation used for elective direct-current cardioversion (DCC), subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation, atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation, and transvenous lead extraction procedures. A total of 105 cardiologists from 92 Italian centres took part in the survey. The rate of centres where DCC, S-ICD implantation, AF ablation, VT ablation and lead extraction procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance was 60.9%, 23.6%, 51.2%, 37.3%, and 66.7%, respectively. When these procedures were performed without anaesthesiologic assistance, the drugs (in addition to local anaesthetics) commonly administered were benzodiazepines (from 64.3% to 79.6%), opioids (from 74.4% to 88.1%), and general anaesthetics (from 7.1% to 30.4%). Twenty-three (21.9%) of the 105 cardiologists declared that they routinely administered propofol, without the supervision of an anaesthesiologist, in at least one of the above-mentioned procedures. In current Italian clinical practice, there is a lack of uniformity in the sedation/analgesia approach used in interventional electrophysiology procedures.

Remote monitoring and telemedicine in heart failure: implementation and benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is recommended as part of the individualized multidisciplinary follow-up of heart failure (HF) patients. Aim of this article is to critically review recent findings on RM, highlighting potential benefits and barriers to its implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Device-based RM is useful in the early detection of CIEDs technical issues and cardiac arrhythmias. Moreover, RM allows the continuous monitoring of several patients' clinical parameters associated with impending HF decompensation, but there is still uncertainty regarding its effectiveness in reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Implementation of RM strategies, together with a proactive physicians' attitude towards clinical actions in response to RM data reception, will make RM a more valuable tool, potentially leading to better outcomes.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical activities related to arrhythmias and electrophysiology in Italy: results of a survey promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on the organization of care in Italy, and a survey to evaluate provision of for arrhythmia during COVID-19 outbreak (March-April 2020) was launched. A total of 104 physicians from 84 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. The vast majority of participating centres (95.2%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective pacemaker implantations during the outbreak period compared to the corresponding two months of year 2019 (50.0% of centres reported a reduction of > 50%). Similarly, 92.9% of participating centres reported a significant reduction in the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations for primary prevention, and 72.6% a significant reduction of ICD implantations for secondary prevention (> 50% in 65.5 and 44.0% of the centres, respectively). The majority of participating centres (77.4%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective ablations (> 50% in 65.5% of the centres). Also the interventional procedures performed in an emergency setting, as well as acute management of atrial fibrillation had a marked reduction, thus leading to the conclusion that the impact of COVID-19 was disrupting the entire organization of health care, with a massive impact on the activities and procedures related to arrhythmia management in Italy.