Upgrade of Single Chamber Pacemakers with Transvenous Leads to Dual Chamber Pacemakers in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially life-saving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions, but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased healthcare costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, anti-bacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. Guidance on whether to use novel device alternatives expected to be less prone to infections and novel oral anticoagulants is also limited, as are definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. Moreover, an international consensus document on management of CIED infections is lacking. The recognition of these issues, the dissemination of results from important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)

Pacemakers, implantable cardiac defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices are potentially lifesaving treatments for a number of cardiac conditions but are not without risk. Most concerning is the risk of a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection, which is associated with significant morbidity, increased hospitalizations, reduced survival, and increased health care costs. Recommended preventive strategies such as administration of intravenous antibiotics before implantation are well-recognized. Uncertainties have remained about the role of various preventive, diagnostic, and treatment measures such as skin antiseptics, pocket antibiotic solutions, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, and others. When compared with previous guidelines or consensus statements, the present consensus document gives guidance on the use of novel device alternatives, novel oral anticoagulants, antibacterial envelopes, prolonged antibiotics post-implantation, as well as definitions on minimum quality requirements for centres and operators and volumes. The recognition that an international consensus document focused on management of CIED infections is lacking, the dissemination of results from new important randomized trials focusing on prevention of CIED infections, and observed divergences in managing device-related infections as found in an European Heart Rhythm Association worldwide survey, provided a strong incentive for a Novel 2019 International State-of-the-art Consensus document on risk assessment, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of CIED infections.

Ventricular pacing threshold variations in the young

Ventricular Capture Management (VCM) is a Medtronic Kappa pacemakers (PM) feature that automatically measures pacing threshold through detection of the evoked response after a pacing stimulus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the range of variation of ventricular pacing threshold in pediatric patients with endocardial and epicardial pacing leads. Thirty-one patients (median age 6.5 years) were implanted with a Kappa 901 PM for atrioventricular block or sinus node dysfunction. Congenital heart defects (CHD) were present in 58% of patients. Ventricular leads were epicardial in 52% of patients. VCM was programmed to automatically measure threshold every 2 hours. In a median follow-up of 12 months, 27,110 threshold measurements, 72% of which were successful, have been taken in 94% of patients. Measurement success was 99% in the endocardial leads group (age at implantation 12 +/- 6 years) and 31% in epicardial leads (age 4 +/- 5 years) (P < 0.05). Main reasons for unsuccessful measurements were high heart rate and, in a patient with an endocardial lead, competition with intrinsic rhythm. Undersensing or oversensing of the evoked responses was not detected. In all successful VCM measurements, epicardial pacing and CHD contributed to stability of thresholds (multivariate analysis). Pacing threshold showed specific circadian patterns: higher thresholds were found between 00.00 and 06.00 a.m., but the variation was low, 0.03 +/- 0.01 V. In conclusion, children and young patients show stable ventricular thresholds, especially in presence of CHD, and epicardial leads are at least as stable as endocardial leads. Ventricular pacing threshold showed a circadian variability similar to that described in adults, that does not seem to influence VCM functioning and PM programming.

Single-centre experience on endocardial and epicardial pacemaker system function in neonates and infants

AIMS

Endocardial (ENDO) or epicardial (EPI) pacing systems are implanted in infants but it remains unclear which system should be preferred.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We evaluated the results of children <or=1 year who underwent pacemaker (PM) implantation at our centre with a retrospective analysis. Between 1992 and 2004, 56 patients, 37 of whom had other congenital heart defects (CHDs), received a PM at 4.4 +/- 3.8 months of age for atrioventricular block (n = 52) and sinus node dysfunction. Rate-responsive ventricular demand pacing (VVIR) PMs were implanted in 25 patients (19 ENDO), dual-chamber demand pacing (DDD) in 29, and rate-responsive atrial demand pacing (AAIR) in 2 (all EPI). Follow-up (FU) was 4.5 +/- 3.5 (range 0.3-13) years: 15 pacing system failures occurred among the 56 patients (26%) after 4.5 +/- 3.2 years, with a significantly reduced success rate for EPI (21-fold increase of the risk of failure) and complex CHD. Also in patients without surgery for CHD, EPI showed a worse outcome. Among the 91 leads implanted, failures occurred more significantly in EPI (18% of atrial, 24% of ventricular leads) than in ENDO (5% of ventricular leads). No venous occlusion was found at FU.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-lead, VVIR ENDO pacing had higher efficiency and safety than EPI, and it might be the best choice for PM implantation in infants. However, because of small patient numbers and lack of longer FU, these findings should be treated with caution.

Upgrading of VVIR pacemakers with nonfunctional endocardial ventricular leads to VDD pacemakers in adolescents

BACKGROUND

In some children with ventricular rate responsive demand (VVIR) pacemakers (PM), transvenous leads fail for technical reasons or patient's growth.

AIM

The aim of this study is to describe our experience in adolescents with a nonfunctional ventricular lead in whom the lead was abandoned and an additional VDD lead was implanted. Of the 136 children who received a VVIR PM with an endocardial lead in our center, seven patients aged 7 (0.3-12) years [median (range)] at initial implantation, after 10 (5-15) years showed lead malfunction and underwent atrial synchronous ventricular inhibited pacing (VDD) PM upgrading at 16 (10-20) years.

RESULTS

The VDD lead was inserted through the ipsilateral subclavian vein in five patients, the contralateral in two (venous occlusion in one and for operator choice in the first patient). The tip was positioned into the right ventricular apex, the atrial dipole along the lateral atrial wall. Fluoroscopy times were not significantly different from those measured in SSI PM implantation and in VVIR dual-chamber demand pacing (VVIR-DDD) upgrading. There were no intraprocedural complications. Follow-up duration is 12 (6-62) months. The VDD PM showed good function, no undersensing or oversensing. Tricuspid damage, new venous occlusion, and "twisting" of the two leads at x-ray were not documented. The first patient showed an infection of the old PM pocket after 1 year, local pain after 3 years, and endocarditis of the leads after 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The upgrading of VVIR PM to VDD PM with the abandonment of the nonfunctional lead is feasible, with no intraprocedural complications and good PM function. Lead endocarditis occurred in one patient.

Long term management of atrial arrhythmias in young patients with sick sinus syndrome undergoing early operation to correct congenital heart disease

AIMS

The objective of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients with operated congenital heart disease (CHD), post-operative sinus node dysfunction and atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) who had a new generation of DDDRP pacemakers (Model AT501, Medtronic Inc., MN, USA) able to deliver preventive atrial pacing and antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifteen CHD patients (mean age 17+/-9 years, eight after Mustard operation, five after extracardiac Fontan operation and two after atrial septum repair) received a dual-chamber pacemaker with transvenous (eight patients) or epicardial leads (seven patients). In the year before implantation, all patients had symptomatic AT (palpitations), eight patients required hospitalization and five required electrical cardioversion. Pacing prevention algorithms were enabled in all patients, and ATP therapies in six patients. During a mean follow-up of 30 months (range 24-44), three patients (two Fontan, one Mustard) died of CHF, whereas AT required hospitalization in three patients (two Fontan, one atrial septum repair). Only seven patients had symptomatic AT. One hundred and twenty-five AT episodes were treated by ATP in three patients, with an overall termination efficacy of 43.2%. In one patient, atrial lead noise induced inappropriate AT detection that resulted in ATP delivery. Several AT episodes were not treated owing to their very short duration, atrial undersensing, or 1:1 atrioventricular conduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience with antitachycardia pacemakers in CHD patients with post-operative sick sinus syndrome after biventricular correction or palliation shows that these devices are safe and that atrial pacing may play a role in AT prevention and treatment.