Approach to cardio-oncologic patients with special focus on patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices planned for radiotherapy: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

What do national radiotherapy guidelines for patients with cardiac devices teach us?

The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) malfunctions caused by radiotherapy (RT) is approximately 5%. Although individual national guidelines and expert consensus documents exist, the increased use of RT to treat various cancers points out the need for a standardized document to guide risk assessment and management of CIEDs during RT. We describe potential adverse RT-related events on CIEDs as well as the proposed mechanism of dysfunction. We review the main current guidelines and recommendations, emphasizing similarities and differences.

Cardiac pacing and lead devices management: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

AIMS

Cardiac pacing represents a key element in the field of electrophysiology and the treatment of conduction diseases. Since the first issue published in 1999, EP Europace has significantly contributed to the development and dissemination of the research in this area.

METHODS

In the last 25 years, there has been a continuous improvement of technologies and a great expansion of clinical indications making the field of cardiac pacing a fertile ground for research still today. Pacemaker technology has rapidly evolved, from the first external devices with limited longevity, passing through conventional transvenous pacemakers to leadless devices. Constant innovations in pacemaker size, longevity, pacing mode, algorithms, and remote monitoring highlight that the fascinating and exciting journey of cardiac pacing is not over yet.

CONCLUSION

The aim of the present review is to provide the current 'state of the art' on cardiac pacing highlighting the most important contributions from the Journal in the field.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on oncological radiotherapy in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device: Prevalence and predictors of device malfunction in 3121 patients

BACKGROUND

The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer treatment is growing. At present, prevalence and predictors of RT-induced CIEDs malfunctions are not defined.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis conducted following the PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 31/01/2022 for studies reporting RT-induced malfunctions in CIEDs patients. Aim was to assess the prevalence of RT-induced CIEDs malfunctions and identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two out of 3962 records matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 135 CIEDs malfunctions were detected among 3121 patients (6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1%-8.4%). The pooled prevalence increased moving from pacemaker (PM) to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator (CRT-D) groups (4.1%, 95% CI: 2.9-5.8; 8.2% 95% CI: 5.9-11.3; and 19.8%, 95% CI: 11.4-32.2 respectively). A higher risk ratio (RR) of malfunctions was found when neutron-producing energies were used as compared to non-neutron-producing energies (RR 9.98, 95% CI: 5.09-19.60) and in patients with ICD/CRT-D as compared to patients with PM/CRT-P (RR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.40-3.06). On the contrary, no association was found between maximal radiation dose at CIED >2 Gy and CIEDs malfunctions (RR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.31-2.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiotherapy related CIEDs malfunction had a prevalence ranging from 4% to 20%. The use of neutron-producing energies and more complex devices (ICD/CRT-D) were associated with higher risk of device malfunction, while the radiation dose at CIED did not significantly impact on the risk unless higher doses (>10 Gy) were used.

In-vitro investigation of cardiac implantable electronic device malfunction during and after direct photon exposure: A three-centres experience

PURPOSE

Radiotherapy may cause malfunction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers (PMs). We carried-out a multicentre randomized in-vitro study on 65 ICDs and 145 PMs to evaluate malfunctions during and after direct irradiation to doses up to 10 Gy.

METHODS

Three centres equipped with different linear accelerator and treatment-planning systems participated in the study. Computed Tomography (CT) acquisitions were performed to build the treatment plans. All devices were exposed to dose of 2, 5, or 10 Gy (6 MV). All devices underwent a baseline examination and 64 wireless real-time telemetry-transmissions (47 ICDs and 17 PMs) were monitored during photon exposures. All devices were interrogated after exposure and once monthly for six subsequent months.

RESULTS

Fifty-four of the 64 wireless-enabled CIEDs (84.4%) recorded noise-related interferences during exposure. In detail, 40/47 ICDs (85.1%) reported interference, of which 16 ICDs (34%) reported potentially clinically relevant pacing inhibition and inappropriate detections. Following exposure, a soft reset occurred in 1/145 PM (0.7%) while 7/145 PMs (4.8%) reported battery issues. During the six-month follow-up, 1/145 PM (0.7%) reported a soft reset, while 12/145 more PMs (8.3%) and 1/64 ICD (1.5%) showed abnormal battery depletion. All reported issues occurred independently of exposure dose. Finally, irreversible effects on software and battery life occurred in only non-MRI-compatible devices.

CONCLUSION

ICDs mostly featured real-time transient sensing issues, while PMs mostly experienced long-term battery or software issues that were observed immediately following radiation exposure and during follow-up. Irreversible effects on battery life and software occurred in only non-MRI-compatible devices.

Radiotherapy-induced malfunctions of cardiac implantable electronic devices in cancer patients

The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) requiring radiation therapy (RT) for cancer treatment is increasing. The purpose of this study is to estimate the prevalence, possible predictors, and clinical impact of RT-related CIEDs malfunctions. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all pacemaker (PM)/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients who underwent RT in the last 14 years. One hundred and twenty-seven patients who underwent 150 separate RT courses were analysed (99 with a PM and 27 with an ICD). Of note, 21/127 (16.6%) patients were PM-dependent. Neutron-producing RT was used in 37/139 (26.6%) courses, whereas non-neutron-producing RT was used in 102/139 (73.4%) courses. The cumulative dose (Dmax) delivered to the CIED exceeded 5 Gy only in 2/132 (1.5%) cases. Device malfunctions were observed in 3/150 (2%) RT courses, but none was life-threatening or led to a major clinical event and all were resolved by CIED reprogramming. In all cases, the Dmax delivered to the CIED was < 2 Gy. Two malfunctions occurred in the 37 patients treated with neutron-producing RT (5.4%), and 1 malfunction occurred in the 102 patients treated with non-neutron-producing RT (1%) (p = 0.17). Device relocation from the RT field was performed in 2/127 (1.6%) patients. RT in patients with CIED is substantially safe if performed in an appropriately organized environment, with uncommon CIEDs malfunctions and no major clinical events. Neutron-producing energies, rather than Dmax, seem to increase the risk of malfunctions. Device interrogation on a regular basis is advised to promptly manage CIED malfunctions.

Radiotherapy in Patients With a Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device

Recently, the Heart Rhythm Society published recommendations on management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who require radiotherapy (RT). We aimed to report the experience of a teaching hospital, and discuss our practice in the context of recently published guidelines. We identified all consecutive CIED recipients (12,736 patients) who underwent RT between March 2006 and June 2017. Among them, 90 (1%) patients (78.2 ± 10 years, 73% male) had a CIED: 82 pacemakers and 8 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Two patients required CIED extraction prior to RT for ipsilateral breast cancer (no device replacement in 1 patient). Four patients (5%) were considered at high-risk, 35 (39%) at intermediate-risk, and the remaining 50 (56%) at low-risk for CIED dysfunction. Overall, only a minority of patients followed recommended local protocol during RT delivery (31%) and during follow-up (56%). CIED malfunction was detected in 5 patients (6%), mainly back-up mode resetting (80%), with 4 (including 3 pelvic cancer location) patients initially classified as being at intermediate-risk and 1 at low-risk. Four out of the 5 patients with CEID malfunction had received neutron producing beams. In conclusion, our findings underline the lack of rigorous monitoring of patients undergoing RT (though CIED malfunction appears to be rare and relatively benign in nature), and emphasize the interest of considering neutron producing beam for risk stratification as recommended in recent guidelines. Optimization of patient's management requires a close collaboration between both CIED clinicians and radiation oncologists, and more systematic remote CIED monitoring may be helpful.

Prevalence and in-hospital outcomes of patients with malignancies undergoing de novo cardiac electronic device implantation in the USA

AIMS

To study the outcomes of cancer patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

De novo CIED implantations (2004-15; n = 2 670 590) from the National Inpatient Sample were analysed for characteristics and in-hospital outcomes, stratified by presence of cancer (no cancer, historical and current cancers) and further by current cancer type (haematological, lung, breast, colon, and prostate). Current and historical cancer prevalence has increased from 3.3% to 7.8%, and 5.8% to 7.8%, respectively, between 2004 and 2015. Current cancer was associated with increased adjusted odds ratio (OR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [composite of all-cause mortality, thoracic and cardiac complications, and device-related infection; OR 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.30], all-cause mortality (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.35-1.50), major bleeding (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.32-1.44), and thoracic complications (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.35-1.43). Differences in outcomes were observed according to cancer type, with significantly worse MACE, mortality and thoracic complications with lung and haematological malignancies, and increased major bleeding in colon and prostate malignancies. The risk of complications was also different according to CIED subtype.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of cancer patients amongst those undergoing CIED implantation has significantly increased over 12 years. Overall, current cancers are associated with increased mortality and worse outcomes, especially in patients with lung, haematological, and colon malignancies whereas there was no evidence that historical cancer had a negative impact on outcomes.

A randomized in vitro evaluation of transient and permanent cardiac implantable electronic device malfunctions following direct exposure up to 10 Gy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

High-dose 6‑MV radiotherapy may cause cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) to malfunction. To assess CIED malfunctions resulting from direct exposure up to 10 Gy, 100 pacemakers (PMs) and 40 implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) were evaluated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CIEDs underwent baseline interrogation. In ICDs, antitachycardia therapies were disabled via the programmer while the detection windows were left enabled. A computed tomography (CT) scan was performed to build the corresponding treatment plan. CIEDs were "blinded" and randomized to receive single doses of either 2, 5, or, 10 Gy via a 6-MV linear accelerator (linac) in a water phantom. Twenty-two wireless telemetry-enabled CIEDs underwent a real-time session, and their function was recorded by the video camera in the bunker. The CIEDs were interrogated after exposure and once monthly for 6 months.

RESULTS

During exposure, regardless of dose, 90.9% of the CIEDs recorded electromagnetic interference, with 6 ICDs (27.3%) reporting pacing inhibition and inappropriate arrhythmia detections. After exposure, a backup reset was observed in 1 PM (0.7% overall, 1% among PMs), while 7 PMs (5% overall, 7% among PMs) reported battery issues (overall immediate malfunction rate was 5.7%). During follow-up, 4 PMs (2.9% overall; 4% among PMs) and 1 ICD (0.7% overall; 2.5% among ICDs) reported abnormal battery depletion, and 1 PM (0.7% overall; 1% among PMs) reported a backup reset (overall late malfunction rate was 4.3%).

CONCLUSION

Apart from transient electromagnetic interference, last-generation CIEDs withstood direct 6‑MV exposure up to 10 Gy. Permanent battery or software errors occurred immediately or later only in less recent CIEDs.

PAIDEIA: pacemaker and implanted cardioverter defibrillator management in radiation therapy-a survey by the Young Group of the Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO)

INTRODUCTION

The management of patients bearing a cardiac implantable electronic device and needing a radiotherapy treatment is an important clinical scenario. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the level of awareness within the Italian Radiation Oncologist community on this topic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was promoted by the Young Group of Italian Association of Radiotherapy and Clinical Oncology (AIRO) with a questionnaire made up of 22 questions allowing for multiple answers, which was administered, both online and on paper version. It was addressed to Radiation Oncologists, AIRO members, participating in the National Congress held in 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 113 questionnaires were collected back and analyzed (survey online: 50 respondents; paper version: 63). The answers showed a good level of awareness on the issue, but with a nonhomogeneous adherence to the different published guidelines (GL). There is a general low rate of referral for a preliminary cardiological evaluation in patients bearing PM/ICDs, in line with some published surveys; nevertheless, a focused attention to certain specific treatment factors and patient-centered point of view emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

A generally good awareness of this topic was shown but homogeneous application of GL was not observed, possibly due to the multiplicity of available GL. A prospective data collection could help to better clarify the shadows on this topics.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with active malignancy and use of anticoagulants: Under-prescription but no adverse impact on all-cause mortality

Prescription of anticoagulants (ACs) in patients with cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) is challenging and the impact on survival is not defined. In this study data prospectively collected in Oncology Units were retrospectively evaluated. Among 4664 patients admitted for malignancy, 394 patients (8.4%) had documented AF (mean age of 74 ± 9) and AC was prescribed to 155 patients (40%). Neither the type of cancer, the stage of the disease (metastatic or not) nor the ongoing treatments were significantly associated with prescription of AC, which was independently associated with BMI (OR 1.10; CI 95% 1.03-1.17; p = .003), valvular heart disease (OR 3.76; CI95% 1.59-8.87; p = .002), and previous venous thromboembolism (OR 6.67; 95%CI 2.67-16.70; p < .001). During a median follow-up of 212 days, survival from all-cause death was 37%, 28% and 18% at 6 months, 1 and 2 years, respectively. Only variables related to neoplastic disease or to patient clinical complexity were independently associated with mortality. A CHA₂DS₂VASc ≥ 4 was significantly associated with mortality (HR 1.33; 95%CI 1.06-1.67; p = .013). Treatment with ACs was not significantly related to mortality, neither in the whole cohort of patients, nor in patients with metastatic malignancies. In conclusion the prescription of ACs in patients with AF and active cancer was suboptimal, with one fourth of the patients not treated with ACs and one third using LMWH at prophylactic, non-therapeutic doses. Only few variables (BMI, valvular heart disease and previous venous thromboembolism) predicted prescription of ACs. Prescription of ACs was not associated with all-cause mortality, even in the subgroup with metastasis.