Proton dose perturbations caused by high-voltage leads from implanted cardioverter defibrillators

Risk of cardiac implantable device malfunction in cancer patients receiving proton therapy: an overview

Age is a risk factor for both cardiovascular disease and cancer, and as such radiation oncologists frequently see a number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) receiving proton therapy (PT). CIED malfunctions induced by PT are nonnegligible and can occur in both passive scattering and pencil beam scanning modes. In the absence of an evidence-based protocol, the authors emphasise that this patient cohort should be managed differently to electron- and photon- external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) patients due to distinct properties of proton beams. Given the lack of a PT-specific guideline for managing this cohort and limited studies on this important topic; the process was initiated by evaluating all PT-related CIED malfunctions to provide a baseline for future reporting and research. In this review, different modes of PT and their interactions with a variety of CIEDs and pacing leads are discussed. Effects of PT on CIEDs were classified into a variety of hardware and software malfunctions. Apart from secondary neutrons, cumulative radiation dose, dose rate, CIED model/manufacturer, distance from CIED to proton field, and materials used in CIEDs/pacing leads were all evaluated to determine the probability of malfunctions. The importance of proton beam arrangements is highlighted in this study. Manufacturers should specify recommended dose limits for patients undergoing PT. The establishment of an international multidisciplinary team dedicated to CIED-bearing patients receiving PT may be beneficial.

The impact of particle radiotherapy on the functioning of cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review of in vitro and in vivo studies according to PICO criteria

The number of oncological patients who may benefit from proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) or carbon ion radiotherapy (CIRT), overall referred to as particle radiotherapy (RT), is expected to strongly increase in the next future, as well as the number of cardiological patients requiring cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The management of patients with a CIED requiring particle RT deserves peculiar attention compared to those undergoing conventional photon beam RT, mostly due to the potential generation of secondary neutrons by particle beams interactions. Current consensus documents recommend managing these patients as being at intermediate/high risk of RT-induced device malfunctioning regardless of the dose on the CIED and the beam delivery method used, despite the last one significantly affects secondary neutrons generation (very limited neutrons production with active scanning as opposed to the passive scattering technique). The key issues for the current review were expressed in four questions according to the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome criteria. Three in vitro and five in vivo studies were included. Based on the available data, PBT and CIRT with active scanning have a limited potential to interfere with CIED that has only emerged from in vitro study so far, while a significant potential for neutron-related, not severe, CIED malfunctions (resets) was consistently reported in both clinical and in vitro studies with passive scattering.

Counterclockwise heart rotation affects variation in successful ablation line position in common atrial flutter

BACKGROUND

 Linear ablation of atrial flutter usually targets a 6 o'clock position on the cavotricuspid isthmus on left anterior oblique view, but the difficulty of the ablation often requires a variation in successful ablation line position from 5 to 7 o'clock.

METHODS AND RESULTS

 This study included 94 patients without structural heart disease. A linear lesion was created in turn at the 6, 7, and 5 o'clock positions until bidirectional block of the isthmus was completed; the final lesion was defined as the successful ablation line. The degree of counterclockwise heart rotation (CCW-HR) was evaluated in a blinded fashion according to the angle between the vertical line crossing the His bundle catheter and the line connecting the His bundle catheter and coronary sinus ostium. Successful ablation lines were obtained at the 6 o'clock position in 59 patients (63%); the 7 o'clock position in 19 patients (20%; the oldest group with a moderate radiofrequency burden); and the 5 o'clock position in the remaining 16 (17%; the youngest group with the largest radiofrequency burden). Age-related increase in CCW-HR was the only independent predictor of a more septal successful ablation line (OR, 7.1; 95% CI: 3.3-14.3; P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

 Variation in successful ablation line position was affected by age-related CCW-HR; its evaluation might reduce radiofrequency burden, especially in the young and elderly.  

Malfunctions of implantable cardiac devices in patients receiving proton beam therapy: incidence and predictors

PURPOSE

Photon therapy has been reported to induce resets of implanted cardiac devices, but the clinical sequelae of treating patients with such devices with proton beam therapy (PBT) are not well known. We reviewed the incidence of device malfunctions among patients undergoing PBT.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

From March 2009 through July 2012, 42 patients with implanted cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED; 28 pacemakers and 14 cardioverter-defibrillators) underwent 42 courses of PBT for thoracic (23, 55%), prostate (15, 36%), liver (3, 7%), or base of skull (1, 2%) tumors at a single institution. The median prescribed dose was 74 Gy (relative biological effectiveness; range 46.8-87.5 Gy), and the median distance from the treatment field to the CIED was 10 cm (range 0.8-40 cm). Maximum proton and neutron doses were estimated for each treatment course. All CIEDs were checked before radiation delivery and monitored throughout treatment.

RESULTS

Median estimated peak proton and neutron doses to the CIED in all patients were 0.8 Gy (range 0.13-21 Gy) and 346 Sv (range 11-1100 mSv). Six CIED malfunctions occurred in 5 patients (2 pacemakers and 3 defibrillators). Five of these malfunctions were CIED resets, and 1 patient with a defibrillator (in a patient with a liver tumor) had an elective replacement indicator after therapy that was not influenced by radiation. The mean distance from the proton beam to the CIED among devices that reset was 7.0 cm (range 0.9-8 cm), and the mean maximum neutron dose was 655 mSv (range 330-1100 mSv). All resets occurred in patients receiving thoracic PBT and were corrected without clinical incident. The generator for the defibrillator with the elective replacement indicator message was replaced uneventfully after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of CIED resets was about 20% among patients receiving PBT to the thorax. We recommend that PBT be avoided in pacing-dependent patients and that patients with any type of CIED receiving thoracic PBT be followed closely.