Holter ECG for pacemaker/defibrillator carriers: what is its role in the era of remote monitoring?

Use of handheld electrocardiograph (SnapECG) for the remote monitoring of arrhythmias

Objective

To investigate the value of a SnapECG monitoring in diagnosing arrhythmias compared with the conventional management.

Methods

In the first phase, the SnapECG and 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) were simultaneously adopted to detect arrhythmias in 439 hospitalized patients. The accuracies of the SnapECG in detecting different arrhythmias were assessed. In the second phase, 62 patients with palpitations were randomized to receive the SnapECG monitoring or conventional management for 3 months. The diagnosis rate, time of diagnosis, episodes before diagnosis, associated expenses, and scores of the modified European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), and the 36-item short-form health survey questionnaire (SF-36) were compared between groups.

Results

In the first phase, the SnapECG monitoring showed a sensitivity of 83.55% and specificity of 96.79% in identifying tachyarrhythmias, and a sensitivity of 95.29% and specificity of 97.54% in identifying bradyarrhythmias. In the second phase, 1642 ECGs were recorded by the SnapECG, among which 290 abnormal ECGs were identified. Compared with the conventional management, the SnapECG monitoring increased the diagnosis rate of symptomatic arrhythmias (70.97% vs. 19.35%, P < 0.05), shortened the time of diagnosis (48.26 ± 36.78 days vs. 71.45 ± 30.01 days, P < 0.05) and consequently reduced the episodes of symptomatic arrhythmias prior to establishing diagnosis. The scores of modified EHRA, SAS, SF-36 significantly improved at 3-month compared with their baseline levels in the SnapECG group.

Conclusions

Remote monitoring with the SnapECG can achieve early diagnosis of symptomatic arrhythmias. However, its sensitivity in identifying P-wave-related arrhythmias warrants further improvement.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Comprehensive multicomponent cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients: a consensus document from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC; Secondary prevention and rehabilitation section) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a multidisciplinary intervention including patient assessment and medical actions to promote stabilization, management of cardiovascular risk factors, vocational support, psychosocial management, physical activity counselling, and prescription of exercise training. Millions of people with cardiac implantable electronic devices live in Europe and their numbers are progressively increasing, therefore, large subsets of patients admitted in CR facilities have a cardiac implantable electronic device. Patients who are cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients are considered eligible for a CR programme. This is not only related to the underlying heart disease but also to specific issues, such as psychological adaptation to living with an implanted device and, in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients, the risk of arrhythmia, syncope, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, these patients should receive special attention, as their needs may differ from other patients participating in CR. As evidence from studies of CR in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices is sparse, detailed clinical practice guidelines are lacking. Here, we aim to provide practical recommendations for CR in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients in order to increase CR implementation, efficacy, and safety in this subset of patients.

Comprehensive multicomponent cardiac rehabilitation in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients: a consensus document from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC; Secondary prevention and rehabilitation section) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a multidisciplinary intervention including patient assessment and medical actions to promote stabilization, management of cardiovascular risk factors, vocational support, psychosocial management, physical activity counselling, and prescription of exercise training. Millions of people with cardiac implantable electronic devices live in Europe and their numbers are progressively increasing, therefore, large subsets of patients admitted in CR facilities have a cardiac implantable electronic device. Patients who are cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients are considered eligible for a CR programme. This is not only related to the underlying heart disease but also to specific issues, such as psychological adaptation to living with an implanted device and, in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients, the risk of arrhythmia, syncope, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, these patients should receive special attention, as their needs may differ from other patients participating in CR. As evidence from studies of CR in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices is sparse, detailed clinical practice guidelines are lacking. Here, we aim to provide practical recommendations for CR in cardiac implantable electronic devices recipients in order to increase CR implementation, efficacy, and safety in this subset of patients.

A low-pass filter of 300 Hz improved the detection of pacemaker spike on remote and bedside electrocardiogram

Background:

The current upper-frequency cutoff of 150 Hz sometimes causes loss of pacemaker spike and misdiagnosis. We hypothesized that low-pass filter (LPF) other than 150 Hz could improve the detection of pacemaker spike. This study aimed to examine the effect of different LPF on pacemaker spike detection in remote and bedside electrocardiogram (ECG).

Methods:

Patients with permanent pacemaker implantation were included during routine follow-up. Standard 12-lead ECGs at 6 different upper-frequency cutoff (40, 100, 150, 200, 300, and 400 Hz) were collected. All ECGs were then transmitted to the remote clinic center. Ventricular and atrial pacing were analyzed by 2 independent medical practitioners.

Results:

A total of 88 patients’ ECGs were analyzed (mean age 73.8 ± 10.2 years and 85 with dual-chamber pacemakers). About 75.3% (64/85) of patients were diagnosed as atrial pacing by pacemaker programming. Among 6 different upper-frequency cutoff, the 300 Hz turned out to perform best in detecting atrial-paced spike (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–0.84 vs. 0.56, 95% CI: 0.61–0.84 at 150 Hz; P = 0.002) on bedside ECGs. Using programming as the golden standard, the 300 Hz LPF has a sensitivity of 59.4%, specificity of 85.7%, positive predictive value of 92.7% and negative predictive value of 40.9% on bedside ECGs. As for the ventricular pacing, the 300 Hz LPF also had a higher accuracy (AUC = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.84–1.00) than that at 150 Hz (AUC = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77–0.94; P < 0.001) in detecting ventricular-paced spike on bedside ECGs. The results of remote ECGs were similar with bedside ECGs.

Conclusions:

A filter of 300 Hz cutoff may be recommended for ECG spike detection. With the recommended parameter, remote ECG can perform as well as bedside ECG.