Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Task Force Report on Physician Training and Maintenance of Competency for Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Therapies: Executive Summary

Navigating the Landscape of Medical Device Advisories: A Special Report From the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are often important for regulating cardiac rate and rhythm. Pacemakers and defibrillators are among the top 10 most implanted medical devices, with > 1.5 million devices implanted annually. Although millions of patients have benefited with improved quality of life and survival, CIED systems are becoming increasingly complex and do not always perform according to expectations. Advisory notices communicate important information about the safety and performance of a medical device to health care providers and patients. Medical device recalls are common, with > 35 unique device recalls in the past 5 years. From an ethical standpoint, CIED recalls highlight a range of considerations including the consent process, duty to report, how best to promote autonomous decision-making, trust in the health care system, as well as disproportionate effects of these considerations on equity-deserving groups. The purpose of the current article is to review and advise regarding the process around medical device advisory and recall, with a specific focus on clinicians caring for patients affected by these devices. We have sought the input of a lawyer, a patient advocacy group, and an ethicist to guide the clinical management of, and communications regarding, device recalls and advisories. Diligent surveillance and a clear, transparent patient consent process regarding these small but potentially serious device anomalies is paramount in ensuring patients believe they are safe and informed. Meaningful patient engagement helps to ensure optimal communication and disclosure mechanisms before implantation and throughout follow-up, accessibility of information in the initial implant and recall action process, and trust in health care systems and providers.

Improving implant training for physicians and their teams in under-represented regions

The burden of cardiovascular disease is increasing globally, with low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) absorbing most of the burden while lacking the necessary healthcare infrastructure to combat the increase. In particular, the disparity in pacemaker implants between high-income countries and LMICs is glaring, partially spurned by reduced numbers of physicians and supporting staff who are trained in pacemaker implant technique. Herein, we will discuss current pacemaker implant training models, outline training frameworks that can be applied to underserved regions, and review adjunctive training techniques that can help supplement traditional training models in LMICs.

Effect of Metrics-Based Simulation Training to Proficiency on Procedure Quality and Errors Among Novice Cardiac Device Implanters: The IMPROF Randomized Trial

Importance

In cardiac device implant training, there is no common system to objectively assess trainees' ability to perform tasks at predetermined performance levels before in vivo practice; therefore, patients are potentially exposed to risks related to operators' early learning curve.

Objective

To assess the effect on implant performance quality of novel metrics-based simulation training to proficiency (proficiency-based progression [PBP]) vs traditional simulation-based training (SBT).

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this prospective randomized trial, conducted between March 8, 2022 and November 24, 2022, novice implanters were randomized (blinded) 1:1 to participate in an SBT curriculum (procedural knowledge e-learning and in-person simulation training) at an international skills training center, with proficiency demonstration requirements at each training stage for advancing (PBP approach) or without the requirements. Ultimately, trainees performed a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implant using virtual reality simulation. The procedure was video-recorded and subsequently scored using previously validated metrics by 2 independent assessors blinded to group. Physicians who had already implanted more than 20 pacemakers or defibrillators and fewer than 200 CRT systems as the first operator were eligible. Thirty-two implanters from 10 countries voluntarily enrolled in the training program and were randomized; 30 (15 per group) started and completed training. Data analysis was performed from November 27 to December 22, 2022.

Intervention

Training with PBP vs SBT.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome comprised 4 objectively assessed performance metrics derived from the video-recordings: number of procedural steps completed, errors, critical errors, and all errors combined.

Results

Baseline experience of the 30 participants (19 [63%] male; mean [SD] number of years in implant practice, 2.0 [1.8]; median [IQR] number of implanted pacemakers or defibrillators, 47.5 [30.0-115.0]; median [IQR] number of implanted CRT systems, 3.0 [1.25-10.0]) was similar between study groups. Compared with the SBT group, the PBP group completed 27% more procedural steps (median [IQR], 31 [30-32] vs 24 [22-27]; P < .001) and made 73% fewer errors (median [IQR], 2 [1-3] vs 7 [5-8]; P < .001), 84% fewer critical errors (median [IQR], 1 [0-1] vs 3 [3-5]; P < .001), and 77% fewer all errors combined (errors plus critical errors) (median [IQR], 3 [1-3] vs 11 [8-12]; P < .001); 14 of the 15 PBP trainees (93%) demonstrated the predefined target performance level vs 0 of the 15 SBT trainees.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized trial, the PBP approach to novice implanter training generated superior objectively assessed performance vs SBT. If implemented broadly and systematically, PBP training may ensure safe and effective performance standards before trainees proceed to (supervised) in vivo practice. Future studies are needed to verify implications on procedure-related patient complications.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05952908.