EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Electromagnetic interference on cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators during endoscopy as reported to the US Federal Drug Administration

INTRODUCTION

More than 3 million patients have a cardiac implanted electronic device (CIED) such as a pacemaker or implanted cardioverter-defibrillator in the USA. These devices are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) leading to malfunction and injury. Radiofrequency energy, the most common modality for obtaining hemostasis during endoscopy, is the most common source of EMI. Few studies have evaluated the effect of endoscopic radiofrequency energy on CIEDs. We aim to characterize CIED dysfunction related to endoscopic procedures. We hypothesize that EMI from endoscopic energy can result in patient injury.

METHODS

We queried the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for CIED dysfunction related to electrosurgical devices over a 10-year period (2009-2019). CIED dysfunction events were identified using seven problem codes (malfunction, electromagnetic interference, ambient noise, pacing problem, over-sensing, inappropriate shock, defibrillation). These were cross-referenced for the terms "cautery, electrocautery, endoscopy, esophagus, colonoscopy, colon, esophagoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy." Reports were individually reviewed to confirm and characterize CIED malfunction due to an endoscopic procedure.

RESULTS

A search for CIED dysfunction resulted in 43,759 reports. Three hundred and eleven reports (0.7%) were associated with electrocautery, and of these, 45 reports (14.5%) included endoscopy. Ten reports involving endoscopy (22%) specified upper (3, 7%) or lower (7, 16%) endoscopy while the remainder were non-specific. Twenty-six of reports involving endoscopy (58%) suffered injury because of CIED dysfunction: Of these, 17 (65%) received inappropriate shocks, 5 (19%) had pacing inhibition with bradycardia or asystole, 3 (12%) had CIED damage requiring explant and replacement, and 1 (4%) patient suffered ventricular tachycardia requiring hospital admission.

CONCLUSION

The use of energy during endoscopy can cause dysfunction of CIEDs. This most commonly results in inappropriate defibrillation, symptomatic bradycardia, and asystole. Patients with CIEDs undergoing endoscopy should undergo pre- and post-procedure device interrogation and re-programming to avoid patient injury.

Frequency of pacemaker malfunction associated with monopolar electrosurgery during pulse generator replacement or upgrade surgery

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate the frequency of electrosurgery-related pacemaker malfunction.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted to investigate electrosurgery-related pacemaker malfunction in consecutive patients undergoing pulse generator (PG) replacement or upgrade from two large hospitals in Minneapolis, MN between January 2011 and January 2014. The occurrence of this pacemaker malfunction was then studied by using MAUDE database for all four major device vendors.

RESULTS

A total of 1398 consecutive patients from 2 large tertiary referral centers in Minneapolis, MN undergoing PG replacement or upgrade surgery were retrospectively studied. Four patients (0.3% of all patients), all with pacemakers from St Jude Medical (2.8%, 4 of 142) had output failure or inappropriately low pacing rate below 30 bpm during electrosurgery, despite being programmed in an asynchronous mode. During the same period, 1174 cases of pacemaker malfunctions were reported on the same models in MAUDE database, 37 of which (3.2%) were electrosurgery-related. Twenty-four cases (65%) had output failure or inappropriate low pacing rate. The distribution of adverse events was loss of pacing (59.5%), reversion to backup pacing (32.4%), inappropriate low pacing rate (5.4%), and ventricular fibrillation (2.7%). The majority of these (78.5%) occurred during PG replacement at ERI or upgrade surgery. No electrosurgery-related malfunction was found in MAUDE database on 862 pacemaker malfunction cases during the same period from other vendors.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrosurgery during PG replacement or upgrade surgery can trigger output failure or inappropriate low pacing rate in certain models of modern pacemakers. Cautions should be taken for pacemaker-dependent patients.