Report of the NASPE Policy Conference training requirements for permanent pacemaker selection, implantation, and follow-up. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology

Spinal cord stimulator education during pain fellowship: unmet training needs and factors that impact future practice

Background and objectives

With a growing need for non-opioid chronic pain treatments, pain physicians should understand the proper utilization of neuromodulation therapies to provide the most comprehensive care. We aimed to identify the unmet training needs that deter physicians from using spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices.

Methods

Internet-based surveys were fielded to fellows enrolled in pain fellowships during the 2016–2017 academic year accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and past pain fellows identified through pain medicine societies and SCS manufacturers.

Results

Current fellows were more likely to have received SCS training during fellowship compared with past fellows (100.0% vs 84.0%), yet there was variability in fellows’ SCS experiences with a wide range of trials and implants performed. Forty-six percent of current fellows felt there was an unmet training need regarding SCS. Deficiency in SCS case volume was the most common barrier that was noted (38.5%), followed by lack of SCS curriculum (30.8%) and lack of faculty with SCS expertise (23.1%). Lack of training was a predominant reason for past fellows choosing not to use SCS devices postfellowship. The majority of current and past fellows (79.5% and 55.4%, respectively) strongly supported direct training of fellows by SCS manufacturers.

Conclusions

While SCS training during pain fellowship has become more universal, the experiences that fellows receive are highly variable, and most rely on industry-sponsored programs to supplement training deficiencies. Standardization of SCS procedures may also enable less experienced providers to navigate the SCS treatment algorithm.

Fast-track training of nonelectrophysiologists to implant defibrillators: is it needed?

Standard training pathways in cardiac electrophysiology are being short-circuited for a "fast-track" approach to train nonelectrophysiologists (not necessarily cardiologists) to implant defibrillators in patients. This approach has been undertaken by a professional society (The Heart Rhythm Society), a society that cannot police, or properly credential. They have support from the American College of Cardiology and, perhaps, even the Combined Medicare and Medicaid Services. This issue is particularly disturbing as there are no data to support the approach taken with regard to the safety and benefit for patients. This process disrupts the standard training pathways and will have long-term implications for the field of clinical cardiac electrophysiology and for the availability of highly trained individuals qualified to implant defibrillators. This issue has broad implications with regard to medical training pathways. We discuss these issues in detail and provide the results of two surveys, including a survey from members of the Heart Rhythm Society, most of whom disagree with the "fast-track" approach. A survey of cardiologist faculty members of the American College of Cardiology yielded similar results. We are particularly concerned about the disruption of training pathways in medicine and how this can affect patient care and can influence established training pathways in medicine.

Leakage of energy to the body surface during defibrillation shock by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system--experimental evaluation during defibrillation shocks through the right ventricular lead and the subcutaneous active-can in canines

The leakage of electrical current to the body surface during defibrillation shock delivery by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) device (the Medtronic Jewel Plus PCD system) was evaluated in 5 dogs. The defibrillation shocks were delivered between the active-can implanted in the left subclavicular region and the endocardial lead placed in the right ventricle at the energy levels of 1, 2, 8, 12, 24 and 34 J. During each delivery, the electrical current leakage from the body surface was measured by electrodes connected to a circuit at 4 recording positions: (A) parallel-subcutaneous (the electrodes were fixed in the subcutaneous tissue of the left shoulder and the right lower chest, and the direction of the electrode vector was parallel to the direction of the defibrillation energy flow); (B) cross-subcutaneous (the electrodes were fixed in the subcutaneous tissue of the right shoulder and the left lower chest, and the vector of the electrodes was roughly perpendicular to the direction of the energy flow); (C) parallel-surface (the electrodes were fixed with ECG paste on the shaved skin surface at the left shoulder and the right lower chest); and (D) surface grounded (the electrodes were fixed on the shaved skin surface at the left shoulder and the left foot, which was grounded). The circuit resistance was set at a variable level (100-5,000 ohms) in accordance with the resistance measured through each canine body. Leakage energies were measured in 750 defibrillation shocks with each circuit resistance in 5 dogs. The leakage energy increased in accordance with the increase of the delivered energy and the decrease of the circuit resistance in all 4 recording positions. When the circuit resistance was set at 1,000 ohms, the leakage energy during shock delivery at 34 J was 32+/-17 mJ at position A, 5+/-9 mJ at B, 10+/-9 mJ at C, and 4+/-3 mJ at D (p=0.042). The peak current was highest at position A and was 87+/-22 mA with a circuit resistance of 1,000 ohms. The power of the leakage energy depended on the delivered energy and the impedance between the electrodes. The angle between the alignment of the recording electrodes and the direction of the energy flow was another important factor in determining the leakage energy. Although the peak current of the leakage energy reached the level of macro shock, the highest leakage energy from the body surface was considerably less because of the short duration of the shock delivery.

[Prospective and comparative study of pacemaker implants carried out at the electrophysiology laboratory and the operating room]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Permanent pacemaker implantation is done by different physicians with either a surgical or clinical training. Our objective was to evaluate if there were significant differences in the implantation parameters and in the complication rate among implantations performed by cardiologists in the electrophysiologic laboratory and cardiological surgeons in the operating room.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We prospectively collected those patients' data who received a first pacemaker implantation by cardiovascular surgeons and electrophysiologists during the year 1998. Data collected included demographic information, indication for pacing, surgical time, complications during procedure, stimulation and sensing thresholds as well as type of pacing.

RESULTS

We first-implanted 216 pacemakers in a one year period, 101 by cardiovascular surgeons and 115 by electrophysiologists. 56% were male patients. Average age in the surgery group was 74.2 +/- 9 years and 72.09 +/- 12 in the electrophysiology group (p = NS). Main diagnoses were as follows: complete heart block in 32.9% patients, complete heart block 2. degrees 16.4%, sinus node dysfunction 12.2%, AV node ablation 12.2% and others. The complications rate for surgery group was 4% and 1.7% for electrophysiologists (p = NS). Electrophysiologists placed more bicameral devices. No clinically significant differences were found among other implant parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Pacemaker implant by cardiologists in an electrophysiologists laboratory is a safe procedure that does not have more complications when compared to the same procedure done in the operating room by surgeons. This allows hospital resource optimization and reduction of hospital stay length.

Insulation lead failure: is it a matter of insulation coating, venous approach, or both?

Lead insulation material and implant route have a major impact on lead reliability and durability. We compare the incidence of lead insulation failure resulting from both the venous approach and insulation type. Two hundred ninety consecutive leads were followed for a mean period of 57 +/- 30 months; leads with < 1 year follow-up were excluded. There were 116 Silicone Rubber insulated leads and 174 with polyurethane (151 Pellethane 80A and 23 Pellethane 55D) insulation; 279 leads were bipolar and 11 unipolar; 274 leads were implanted in the ventricle and 66 in the atrium. The venous route was the subclavian vein for 170 leads (58%) and the cephalic vein for 120 leads (42%). Insulation failure was diagnosed when a single sign of oversensing, undersensing, failure to capture, early pulse battery depletion, and lead impedance < 250 omega was present. Measurement of lead impedance was performed intraoperatively at implantation and during lead revision or pulse generator replacement. Lead failure caused by conductor coil fracture was not considered. There were 13 lead insulation failures, all among leads with polyurethane insulation (12 Pellethane 80A and 1 Pellethane 55D). Eleven failures (10%) occurred when the subclavian vein and 2 (3%) when the cephalic vein approach was used. The cumulative survival rate of polyurethane and silicone rubber insulated leads was 88.7% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.02); the cumulative survival rate of polyurethane insulated leads was 83.2% when the subclavian vein and 95.1% when the cephalic vein were used (P = 0.03). The mean time to polyurethane lead failure when the subclavian vein approach was used was 54 +/- 17 months and when the cephalic route was 73 +/- 4 months (P < 0.02). By multivariate analysis, the route of entry was found to be a significant variable related to polyurethane insulated lead failure (P < 0.05). At lead revision failure to capture was present in 7, oversensing in 4, and undersensing in 2 instances; impedance was < 250 omega in all cases. Pellethane 80A insulated leads are prone to insulation failure, but more when the subclavian vein is used, rather than the cephalic vein.

Pacemaker follow-up with prolonged intervals in the stable period 1 to 5 years postimplant

This pilot study focuses on pacemaker follow-up in the technically stable period 1-5 years after a pacemaker implantation. Two hundred and thirty selected patients with single chamber pacemakers (215 VVI, 15 AAI) had their follow-up intervals prolonged to 2-4 years in this period. Sixty-six patients fulfilled the study period uneventfully and 21 are still pending. Sixty-nine patients had unscheduled visits to the pacemaker clinic. Of these, 7 were reoperated (1 for exit block, 4 had pocket erosions, and 2 were upgraded to DDD). Nine were reprogrammed (1 for sensing failure, 1 had the pulse duration increased, and in 7 the pacing rate was changed). Seventy-four patients died. In 63, the cause of death is known not to be pacemaker related. Six died suddenly, and in five cases, the cause of death is unknown. This study indicates that frequent follow-up visits may be omitted in this period in selected patients with single chamber pacemakers. A prerequisite is that the patients are registered at a pacemaker clinic and have easy access to the physician whenever they suspect pacemaker related problems.

Extraction of permanent pacing leads: there are still controversies

Images

Report of the NASPE Policy Conference on antibradycardia pacemaker follow-up: effectiveness, needs, and resources. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology

On May 4-5, 1993, a policy conference was held in San Diego, California, under the sponsorship of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE) to identify the fundamental goals of antibradycardia pacemaker follow-up, evaluate the effectiveness with which it achieves those goals, and formulate specific recommendations as to how it can be made more effective. The conference addressed clinical, administrative, and educational objectives, focusing on existing and potential resources for follow-up testing and the appropriate frequency of their application. The training of physicians and associated professionals engaged in follow-up also was addressed, as were regulatory and reimbursement issues. This report summarizes the conclusions and recommendations arrived at during the conference and subsequently approved by the NASPE Board of Trustees.