Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey

Impact of COVID-19 infection among patients hospitalized for conventional pacemaker implantation: Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) 2020

Introduction

The cardiac pacemaker is indicated for treating various types of bradyarrhythmia, providing lifelong cardiovascular benefits. Recent data showed that COVID-19 has impacted procedure numbers and led to adverse long-term outcomes in patients with cardiac pacemakers. However, the impact of COVID-19 infection on the in-hospital outcome of patients undergoing conventional pacemaker implantation remains unclear.

Method

Patients aged above 18 years who were hospitalized for conventional pacemaker implantation in the Nationwide In-patient Sample (NIS) 2020 were identified using relevant ICD-10 CM and PCS codes. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to analyze pre-specified outcomes, with the primary outcome being in-patient mortality and secondary outcomes including system-based and procedure-related complications.

Results

Of 108 020 patients hospitalized for conventional pacemaker implantation, 0.71% (765 out of 108 020) had a concurrent diagnosis of COVID-19 infection. Individuals with COVID-19 infection exhibited a lower mean age (73.7 years vs. 75.9 years, p = .027) and a lower female proportion (39.87% vs. 47.60%, p = .062) than those without COVID-19. In the multivariable logistic and linear regression models, adjusted for patient and hospital factors, COVID-19 infection was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (aOR 4.67; 95% CI 2.02 to 10.27, p < .001), extended length of stay (5.23 days vs. 1.04 days, p < .001), and linked with various in-hospital complications, including sepsis, acute respiratory failure, post-procedural pneumothorax, and venous thromboembolism.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that COVID-19 infection is attributed to higher in-hospital mortality, extended hospital stays, and increased adverse in-hospital outcomes in patients undergoing conventional pacemaker implantation.

The clinical use of remote parameter testing during cardiac implantable electronic devices implantation procedures: a single center, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background

A novel non-contact system for remote parameter testing and reprogramming offers an alternative method for assessing device parameters during cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implantation without the need for physical contact with the manufacturer's clinical service technician. The safety and feasibility of using this system in CIEDs implantation procedures remains to be determined.

Objective

Evaluate the safety and feasibility of remote parameter testing in CIEDs implantation procedures.

Methods

A single center, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial (ChiCTR2200057587) was conducted to compare the two approaches for interrogating CIEDs during implantation procedures: routine interrogation performed by on-site technicians or remote interrogation performed by technicians using the 5G-Cloud Technology Platform. Patients aged ≥18 years and elected to receive CIEDs were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was the completion rate of the parameter test. Safety and efficiency were evaluated in all randomly assigned participants.

Results

A total of 480 patients were finally enrolled and were randomly assigned to routine group (n = 240) or remote group (n = 240). The primary endpoint was achieved by 100% in both groups (P = 0.0060 for noninferiority). The parameters of sensing, threshold, and impedance regarding the right atrium, right ventricle, and left ventricle had no statistical significance between the two groups (P > 0.05). Procedure time, parameter testing time, and both duration and dose of x-ray irradiation were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). Shut-open door frequency was significantly higher in the routine group than the remote group [6.00 (4.00, 8.00) vs. 0, P < 0.0001]. Notably, no clinical or technical complications were observed in the remote group.

Conclusions

Remote parameter testing is safe and feasible across various devices implantation procedures. The utilization of remote parameter testing and reprogramming could represent an innovative approach to improve healthcare accessibility and unlock the full potential of secondary centers in managing CIEDs.

The Registration Identification

ChiCTR2200057587.

Short-Term Outcomes of Cardiac Arrhythmias Among COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Matched National Study

The risk of arrhythmia is high in patients with COVID-19. The current literature is limited in understanding the clinical impact of arrhythmias and the extent of healthcare utilization in COVID-19 patients. The Nationwide In-patient Sample Database (NIS) from 2019 to 2020 was queried to identify COVID-19 patients who developed arrhythmias vs those without. Multivariate regression for adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and propensity score matching (PSM) were done to compare outcomes among both cohorts. A total of 1,664,240 patients (weighted) were hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, 380,915 (22.89%) of whom were diagnosed with an arrhythmia. After propensity matching COVID-19 with arrhythmias had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (22.4% vs 13.5%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (PSM 39.4% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001), acute heart failure (AHF) (18.2% vs 12.6%, P < 0.001), acute stroke (0.76% vs 0.57%, P < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (1.38% vs 0.5%, P < 0.001), cardiac arrest (5.26% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (12.8% vs 7.8%, P < 0.001), intracerebral hemorrhage (0.63% vs 0.45%, P < 0.001), major bleeding (2.6% vs 1.8%, P < 0.001) and endotracheal intubation (17.04% vs 10.17% < 0.001) compared to arrhythmias without COVID-19. This cohort also had lower odds of receiving interventions such as cardiac pacing (aOR 0.15 95% Cl 0.13-0.189 P < 0.001), cardioversion (aOR 0.43 95% CI 0.40-0.46, P < 0.001), and defibrillator (aOR 0.087 95% Cl 0.061-0.124, P < 0.001) compared to arrhythmia patients without COVID-19. Cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 resulted in longer length of hospital stay and higher total costs of hospitalizations. Arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 had worse clinical outcomes with an increased rate of in-hospital mortality, longer length of hospital stay, and higher total cost. These patients also had lower odds of receiving interventions during the index hospitalization.

Five waves of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: results of a national survey evaluating the impact on activities related to arrhythmias, pacing, and electrophysiology promoted by AIAC (Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing)

BACKGROUND

The subsequent waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy had a major impact on cardiac care.

METHODS

A survey to evaluate the dynamic changes in arrhythmia care during the first five waves of COVID-19 in Italy (first: March-May 2020; second: October 2020-January 2021; third: February-May 2021; fourth: June-October 2021; fifth: November 2021-February 2022) was launched.

RESULTS

A total of 127 physicians from arrhythmia centers (34% of Italian centers) took part in the survey. As compared to 2019, a reduction in 40% of elective pacemaker (PM), defibrillators (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT) implantations, with a 70% reduction for ablations, was reported during the first wave, with a progressive and gradual return to pre-pandemic volumes, generally during the third-fourth waves, slower for ablations. For emergency procedures (PM, ICD, CRT, and ablations), recovery from the initial 10% decline occurred in most cases during the second wave, with some variability. However, acute care for atrial fibrillation, electrical cardioversions, and evaluations for syncope showed a prolonged reduction of activity. The number of patients with devices which started remote monitoring increased by 40% during the first wave, but then the adoption of remote monitoring declined.

CONCLUSIONS

The dramatic and profound derangement in arrhythmia management that characterized the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was followed by a progressive return to the volume of activities of the pre-pandemic periods, even if with different temporal dynamics and some heterogeneity. Remote monitoring was largely implemented during the first wave, but full implementation is needed.

Pacemaker implantation for persistent sinus node dysfunction in a patient with COVID-19

A 46-year-old woman was admitted with coronavirus disease-2019 infection. Symptomatic sinus bradycardia occurred, followed by congestive heart failure. Therapeutics such as isoproterenol, theophylline, and cilostazol could not safely improve her symptoms. She underwent pacemaker implantation 53 days after admission. Atrial pacing remained was at 60% after 6 months.

Spanish pacemaker registry. 19th official report of the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2021)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This document includes cardiac pacing activity performed in Spain in 2021: figures for implanted devices, demographic and clinical factors, characteristics of the implanted material, and remote monitoring data.

METHODS

The European Pacemaker Patient Card, the CardioDispositivos.es online platform, the centers' own databases and the data provided by the supplier companies are used as sources of information.

RESULTS

17.360 procedures were registered from 95 hospitals, which represents 43% of the activity. The implantation rates of conventional and resynchronization pacemakers were 822 and 31 units per million population, respectively. 652 leadless pacemakers were implanted. The mean age of implantation is high (78.8 years), and atrioventricular block is the most frequent electrocardiographic abnormality. Dual-chamber pacing mode predominated, nonetheless single-chamber pacing was performed in 19% of patients in sinus rhythm, mainly in the elderly. 28.5% of implanted conventional pacemakers and 56,2% of low-energy resynchronization pacemakers were included in the remote monitoring program.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2021 the number of conventional pacemakers increased by 8.3% and resynchronizers by 18.9%, despite the decrease in low-energy resynchronization, probably attributable to the development of physiological pacing. Leadless pacemakers increased by 25%. The expansion of remote monitoring continued, consolidating as a fundamental follow-up method.

Long-term cardiac surveillance and outcomes of COVID-19 patients

Acute cardiac manifestions of COVID-19 have been well described, while chronic cardiac sequelae remain less clear. Various studies have shown conflicting data on the prevalence of new or worsening cardiovascular disease, myocarditis or cardiac dysrhythmias among patients recovered from COVID-19. Data are emerging that show that patients recovering from COVID-19 have an increased incidence of myocarditis and arrhythmias after recovery from COVID-19 compared with the control groups without COVID-19. The incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 infection is low but is still significantly greater than the incidence of myocarditis from a COVID-19 vaccine. There have been several studies of athletes who underwent a variety of screening protocols prior to being cleared to return to exercise and competition. The data show possible, probable or definite myocarditis or cardiac injury among 0.4–3.0% of the athletes studied. Recent consensus statements suggest that athletes with full recovery and absence of cardiopulmonary symptoms may return to exercise and competition without cardiovascular testing. In conclusion, patients with COVID-19 may be expected to have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, myocarditis or arrhythmias during the convalescent phase. Fortunately, the majority of patients, including athletes may return to their normal activity after recovery from COVID 19, in the absence of persisting cardiovascular symptoms.

Recurrence of atrial fibrillation post-ablation: which is the most effective approach for detection?

Over the last 20 years, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved from a research tool into a fundamental therapeutic measure, with the potential to improve symptoms, quality of life, and even risk of major adverse cardiac events (among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction). Notwithstanding the tremendous evolution in techniques and tools, risk of AF recurrences post-ablation is not negligible, and a comprehensive structured follow-up is highly needed to deliver optimal patient care. In this follow-up process, monitoring of heart rhythm is quintessential to detect recurrences, and may be accomplished by means of symptoms-triggered, intermittent, or continuous monitors. In recent years, the development and widespread adoption of implantable cardiac monitors, by allowing continuous long-term rhythm assessment, has surged to become the gold-standard strategy, both in research settings and in clinical practice. In this review, we both summarize the present state-of-the art on the detection of post-ablation AF recurrences, and provide future perspectives on this emerging yet often neglected topic, aiming to give practical hints for evidence-based, personalized patient care.