Central venous access resulting in selective failure of ICD defibrillation capacity

Periprocedural Management and Multidisciplinary Care Pathways for Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

The rapid technological advancements in cardiac implantable electronic devices such as pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and loop recorders, coupled with a rise in the number of patients with these devices, necessitate an updated clinical framework for periprocedural management. The introduction of leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous and extravascular defibrillators, and novel device communication protocols underscores the imperative for clinical updates. This scientific statement provides an inclusive framework for the periprocedural management of patients with these devices, encompassing the planning phase, procedure, and subsequent care coordinated with the primary device managing clinic. Expert contributions from anesthesiologists, cardiac electrophysiologists, and cardiac nurses are consolidated to appraise current evidence, offer patient and health system management strategies, and highlight key areas for future research. The statement, pertinent to a wide range of health care professionals, underscores the importance of quality care pathways for patient safety, optimal device function, and minimization of hemodynamic disturbances or arrhythmias during procedures. Our primary objective is to deliver quality care to the expanding patient cohort with cardiac implanted electronic devices, offering direction in the era of evolving technologies and laying a foundation for sustained education and practice enhancement.

Perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

The use of implantable cardiac devices in people of all ages is increasing, especially in the elderly population: patients with pacemakers, cardioverter-defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy devices regularly present for surgery for non-cardiac causes. This review was made in order to collect and analyze the latest evidence for the proper management of implantable cardiac devices in the perioperative period. Through a detailed exploration of PubMed, Academic Search Complete (EBSCO), ClinicalKey, Cochrane (Ovid), the search software UpToDate, textbooks and patents freely available to the public on Google, we selected 33 monographs, which matched the objectives of this publication.

Patients with pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

The preparation of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) for the perioperative period necessitates familiarity with recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists and Heart Rhythm Society. Even clinicians who are not CIED experts should understand the indications for implantation, as well as the basic functions, operations, and limitations of these devices. Before any scheduled procedure, proper CIED function should be verified and a specific CIED prescription obtained. Acquiring the requisite knowledge base and developing the systems to competently manage the CIED patient ensures safe and efficient perioperative care.

Automatic remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead and generator performance: the Lumos-T Safely RedUceS RouTine Office Device Follow-Up (TRUST) trial

BACKGROUND

Monitoring performance of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) generators and leads is important. Methods available are with in-person evaluations or by automatic remote home monitoring (HM). These were prospectively evaluated and compared in the TRUST trial. The HM technology tested performed daily self-checks and databasing with rapid event notifications for out-of-range (including asymptomatic) conditions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients (n=1339) were randomly assigned after ICD implant 2:1 to HM or to conventional groups. Both groups underwent scheduled checks every 3 months and were followed for 15 months. In HM, in-person office visits were scheduled at 3 and 15 months. At 6, 9, and 12 months, HM only was used with subsequent office visits if necessary. Between these time points, ICDs triggered event notifications for system integrity problems. Patients randomly assigned to conventional follow-up were evaluated with office visits only. HM and conventional patients were similar (age, 63.3±12.8 versus 64.0±12.1 years; 72.0% versus 73.1% male; New York Heart Association II class, 55.9% versus 60.4%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 29.0±10.7% versus 28.5±9.8%; coronary artery disease, 64.8% versus 71.7%; primary prevention, 72.2% versus 73.8%; DDD devices, 57.8% versus 56.6%). Four patients crossed over from conventional to HM because of advisories. Scheduled checks were more successfully accomplished in HM (92.7% versus 89.2% in conventional, P<0.001). Sixty-two device-related events (53 in HM versus 9 in conventional) were observed in 46 patients (40 [4.4%] in HM versus 6 [1.39%] in conventional, P=0.004). Forty-seven percent were asymptomatic. HM detected generator and lead problems earlier (HM versus conventional: median, 1 versus 5 days; P=0.05). A total of 20 device problems (eg, lead fracture, elective replacement indicators) requiring surgical revision (0.012 per patient-year) were found, 15 in HM and 5 in the conventional groups. Other events were managed nonsurgically (eg, reprogramming, initiation of antiarrhythmics).

CONCLUSIONS

ICD lead and generator malfunction was infrequent and often asymptomatic. Only a minority of detected events required surgical intervention. Automatic HM enhanced discovery, permitted prompt detection, and facilitated management decisions. Longitudinal parameter trending, with component function evaluated daily by remote monitoring, may enable long-term performance assessment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00336284.

The patient with a cardiac pacemaker or implanted defibrillator and management during anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Worldwide, nearly 3 million patients have cardiac pacemakers and more than 300,000 have implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Many factors cause confusion regarding perioperative care of these patients, since conventional wisdom, case reports, textbooks, and literature reviews have either not kept pace with technologic developments or contain incorrect statements. Additionally, recalls or alert notices have prompted programming changes that might not be understood or recognized.

RECENT FINDINGS

The complexity of the devices, as well as features designed to improve both the quality of life and the survival of the patient, can masquerade as pacing malfunction. Additionally, algorithms designed to detect heart rate, ST segment behavior, and arrhythmias in electrocardiographic monitors may lead to inappropriate behavior on the part of the perioperative team.

SUMMARY

Appropriate education of perioperative practitioners, as well as preoperative interrogation of a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, may prevent perioperative delays, cancellations, and deaths. Additionally, evidence suggests that postoperative re-interrogation of any cardiac generator is warranted if an operative event includes the use of monopolar electrosurgery ('Bovie') or significant fluid or blood component administration.

Covering sleeves can shield the high-voltage coils from lead chatter in an integrated bipolar ICD lead

AIMS

Integrated bipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads use the distal high-voltage coil as both the ventricular sensing anode and the distal shocking electrode. Mechanical interactions between the distal ICD coil and other intracardiac leads have been reported to result in electrical oversensing and inappropriate ICD therapies. We sought to determine whether covering sleeves over the high-voltage coils of an integrated bipolar ICD lead could prevent sensed artefact from mechanical lead interactions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Endotak Reliance 0157 and Endotak Reliance-G 0185 leads, the latter with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) sleeves covering the high-voltage coils, were connected to ICD generators and the leads were submerged in saline. Device programmers were used to communicate with the ICD generators, providing real-time electrogram recording throughout testing. A series of mechanical interactions were performed with the ICD leads, including sliding and striking each distal coil against metal and non-metal components of other ICD and pacemaker leads. All direct metal-metal interactions resulted in sensed electrical artefact, including interactions between the bare ICD coil and another bare ICD coil or metal pacemaker ring. Identical mechanical interactions where metal-metal contact was prevented due to an interposed ePTFE covering sleeve were electrically silent with no sensed artefact.

CONCLUSIONS

A covering sleeve over the distal high-voltage coil of an integrated bipolar ICD lead can mechanically shield the lead from metal-metal interactions, which might otherwise result in sensed artefact and inappropriate ICD therapies or withholding of pacing output. This finding has implications for lead selection when a new ICD lead is to be implanted adjacent to abandoned intracardiac leads or lead fragments.