Cardiac Device Implantation Complications: A Gap in the Quality of Care?

Reduction of CT artifacts from cardiac implantable electronic devices using a combination of virtual monoenergetic images and post-processing algorithms

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reduction of artifacts from cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) by virtual monoenergetic images (VMI), metal artifact reduction (MAR) algorithms, and their combination (VMI_MAR) derived from spectral detector CT (SDCT) of the chest compared to conventional CT images (CI).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we included 34 patients (mean age 74.6 ± 8.6 years), who underwent a SDCT of the chest and had a CIED in place. CI, MAR, VMI, and VMI_MAR (10 keV increment, range: 100-200 keV) were reconstructed. Mean and standard deviation of attenuation (HU) among hypo- and hyperdense artifacts adjacent to CIED generator and leads were determined using ROIs. Two radiologists qualitatively evaluated artifact reduction and diagnostic assessment of adjacent tissue.

RESULTS

Compared to CI, MAR and VMI_MAR ≥ 100 keV significantly increased attenuation in hypodense and significantly decreased attenuation in hyperdense artifacts at CIED generator and leads (p < 0.05). VMI ≥ 100 keV alone only significantly decreased hyperdense artifacts at the generator (p < 0.05). Qualitatively, VMI ≥ 100 keV, MAR, and VMI_MAR ≥ 100 keV provided significant reduction of hyper- and hypodense artifacts resulting from the generator and improved diagnostic assessment of surrounding structures (p < 0.05). Diagnostic assessment of structures adjoining to the leads was only improved by MAR and VMI_MAR 100 keV (p < 0.05), whereas keV values ≥ 140 with and without MAR significantly worsened diagnostic assessment (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of VMI and MAR as well as MAR as a standalone approach provides effective reduction of artifacts from CIEDs. Still, higher keV values should be applied with caution due to a loss of soft tissue and vessel contrast along the leads.

KEY POINTS

• The combination of VMI and MAR as well as MAR as a standalone approach enables effective reduction of artifacts from CIEDs. • Higher keV values of both VMI and VMI_MAR at CIED leads should be applied with caution since diagnostic assessment can be hampered by a loss of soft tissue and vessel contrast. • Recommended keV values for CIED generators are between 140 and 200 keV and for leads around 100 keV.

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: A Townsville District Perspective

Background: Despite major advances in treating patients with severe heart failure, deciding who should receive an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) remains challenging.

Objective: To study the risk factors and mortality in patients after receiving an ICD (January 2008–December 2015) in a regional hospital in Australia.

Methods: Eighty-two primary prevention patients received an ICD for ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, n = 41) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM, n = 40) with 4.8-yrs follow-up. One patient had mixed ICM/NICM indications. Ventricular arrhythmias were assessed using intracardiac electrograms. Statistical analysis compared the total population and ICM and NICM groups using Kaplan-Meier for survival, Cox regression for mortality predictors, and binary logistic regression for predictors of ventricular arrhythmias (p < 0.05).

Results: Major risk factors were hypercholesterolemia (70.7%), hypertension (47.6%), and obesity (41.5%). Severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was found exclusively in NICM patients (23.7%, p = 0.001). Mortality was 30.5% after 4.8-yrs. The majority of patients (n=67) had no sustained ventricular arrhythmias yet 28% received therapy (n = 23), 18.51% were appropriate (n = 15), and 13.9% inappropriate (n = 11). Patients receiving ≥2 incidences of inappropriate shocks were 18-times more likely to die (p = 0.013). Three sudden cardiac deaths (SCD) (3.7%) were prevented by the ICD.

Conclusion: Patients implanted with an ICD in Townsville had 30.5% all-cause mortality after 4.8-yrs. Only 28% of patients received ICD therapy and 13.9% were inappropriate. OSA may have contributed to the fourfold increase in inappropriate therapy in NICM patients. Our study raises important efficacy, ethical and healthcare cost questions about who should receive an ICD, and possible regional and urban center disparities.