Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices and remote monitoring activations

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is considered more reliable, efficient, and safer than conventional in-person follow-up. However, the implementation of RM is still suboptimal. This study aimed to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rates of CIED implants and RM activations in Spain.

METHODS

The COVID-19 RM Spain Registry was used to analyze the monthly number of all CIED implantations and RM activations from January 2018 to December 2021. A descriptive analysis was performed using aggregated data from the five major CIED manufacturers.

RESULTS

A total of 205 345 CIEDs were recorded. The number of implants decreased sharply (48.2%) during the pandemic lockdown (March-June 2020) but gradually increased thereafter, compensating for the previous reduction. However, pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) showed an aggregate loss of 7% and 3%, respectively, from the annual average during 2020-2021. In contrast, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D) increased by 17%, and pacemakers (CRT-P) by 4.5% over the 2-year period. The percentage of RM activations increased from 24.5% in 2018 to 49.0% in 2021, with a sharp increase during the lockdown. The RM activation rates consistently increased during the lockdown for all devices: pacemakers (14.4% vs 37.2%; P <.001); ICD (75.6% vs 94.2%; P <.001); CRT-D/CRT-P (68.6-44.2% vs 81.6-61%; P <.001), and implantable loop recorders (50.2% vs 68.7%; P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The significant decline in implants during the lockdown gradually recovered, except for pacemakers and ICD. However, the COVID-19 pandemic boosted RM for all CIEDs in Spain.

Adherence to the ESC Heart Failure Treatment Guidelines in Spain: ESC Heart Failure Long-term Registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To estimate the percentage of heart failure patients in Spain that received the European Society of Cardiology recommended treatments, and in those that did not, to determine the reasons why.

METHODS

The study included 2834 consecutive ambulatory patients with heart failure from 27 Spanish hospitals. We recorded general information, the treatment indicated, and the reasons why it was not prescribed in some cases. In patients who met the criteria to receive a certain drug, true undertreatment was defined as the percentage of patients who, without justification, did not receive the drug.

RESULTS

In total, 92.6% of ambulatory patients with low ejection fraction received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, 93.3% beta-blockers, and 74.5% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The true undertreatment rates were 3.4%, 1.8%, and 19.0%, respectively. Target doses were reached in 16.2% of patients receiving angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 23.3% of those with angiotensin receptor blockers, 13.2% of those prescribed beta-blockers, and 23.5% of those with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Among patients who could benefit from ivabradine, 29.1% received this drug. In total, 36% of patients met the criteria for defibrillator implantation and 90% of them had received the device or were scheduled for implantation, whereas 19.6% fulfilled the criteria for resynchronization therapy and 88.0% already had or would soon have the device. In patients who met the criteria, but did not undergo device implantation, the reasons were not cost-related.

CONCLUSIONS

When justified reasons for not administering heart failure drugs were taken into account, adherence to the guideline recommendations was excellent. Exclusive use of the percentage of treated patients is a poor indicator of the quality of healthcare in heart failure. Measures should be taken to improve the attainment of optimal dosing in each patient.