Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing add-on pacing/sensing lead vs. ICD lead implantation for failed IS-1/DF-1 ICD leads: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Intracardiac defibrillator/cardioverter (ICD) is a cornerstone device for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Lead failure (LF) is one of the most important long-term complications. In this study, we sought to investigate mid-to-long term clinical, device and lead characteristics of patients who have undergone pacing sensing lead (PSL) implantation for an ICD LF and compare them to the patients who have undergone a new ICD lead implantation.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single centre, case-control study, we have screened all ICD patients presenting with LF. Patients with IS-1/DF-1 ICD leads with intact high-voltage conductor were included in the study group, while other patients were included in the control arm. Study group patients underwent PSL implantation, control group patients underwent ICD lead implantation.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were included in each arm of the study. The mean duration of follow-up after intervention was similar in both groups (47.6 months ± 20.4 vs. 46.1 months ± 25.7, p = .808). The total failure rate was not different between two groups (p = .640). Rate of high-voltage conductor disfunction was also similar between two arms: 1 (3.3%) in PSL arm and 0 in control arm (p = .303).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of a PSL for IS-1/DF-1 ICD LF with normal high-voltage conductor measurements is a viable treatment option with similar long-term results to addition of a new ICD lead. This approach is potentially less costly, technically less demanding, and, in case of concomitant extraction procedure, associated with less acute complication risk.

Interference by Modern Smartphones and Accessories with Cardiac Pacemakers and Defibrillators

Purpose of Review

The risk of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interference from cell phones was previously thought to be low based on older studies. Current generation of smartphones have incorporated more magnets for optimization of wireless charging, attachment of accessories, and convenience functionalities. These magnets have the potential to cause CIEDs to inadvertently revert into magnet mode. The purpose of this review is to summarize recent findings on smartphones and their accessories causing interference on CIEDs.

Recent Findings

Recent reports have demonstrated that the iPhone 12 series and accessories have the capability to cause CIED magnetic interference.

Summary

Current generation of smartphones, smartwatches, wireless headphones, and accessories have the potential to cause CIEDs to revert into magnet mode in both in vivo and ex vivo experiments. The risk of a clinically significant event is unlikely as long as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommendations are followed; keeping smartphones and accessories at least six inches away from CIEDs.

[Device therapy in cardiological palliative care situations]

There is considerable uncertainty about the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) threatened by immediate or medium-term death due to heart failure or other disease, for patients and their relatives as well as for physicians and medical staff. Patients can be afraid that they cannot die as long as pacing persists; medical staff may forget to deactivate shock therapies in an agonal phase or may not know how to do this without a programmer. For optimal handling of CIEDs in a palliative care situation, patients have to be informed that pacemakers or cardiac resynchronization therapy have no life-prolonging effect in this situation but only limit suffering, particularly due to dyspnea. Palliative care physicians must be informed that ICDs can be temporarily deactivated by magnet application, requiring neither a device specialist nor a programmer. Medical staff has to be trained in empathic discussions about CIED deactivation. An optimal setting for this talk may occur if the patient asks about the course and prognosis of his disease or an advance directive, which includes statements about resuscitation. Palliative care physicians have to understand the different functions of a CIED (antibradycardia pacing, resynchronization, antitachycardia pacing, shock therapy) and the deactivation of each of these components to ensure an appropriate decision; otherwise, CIED management at the end of a patient's life may cause suffering and a sense of guilt in relatives and medical staff.

Effects of propofol sedation on pacing thresholds : Results from an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Propofol is one of the most commonly used intravenous anaesthetic drugs for surgical procedures. The use of propofol for sedation is also common practice during endoscopic procedures, electrophysiology studies, and ablation procedures, as well as pacemaker and defibrillator implantation. It was found that propofol alters the electrophysiologic properties of the heart and its conduction system. The effects of propofol on pacing thresholds are unknown and could have implications for pacemaker (PM) and defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedures, as well as sedation and anaesthesia in PM and ICD patients in general.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to investigate the effects of propofol sedation on atrial and right ventricular pacing thresholds in PM and ICD patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients with PM, ICD, or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) undergoing propofol sedation for electrophysiology (EP) investigation, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), electrocardioversion (ECV), or bronchoscopy were included prospectively. Pacing thresholds, impedance, and sensing were assessed by device interrogation immediately prior to sedation and after the desired sedation depth was achieved by the administration of propofol.

RESULTS

Mean atrial (0.68 V vs 0.77 V, p = 0.136) and mean right ventricular thresholds (0.90 V vs 0.93 V, p = 0.274) remained unchanged. Impedances and sensing remained unaffected in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol sedation did not affect pacing thresholds of atrial and right ventricular leads in this cohort of PM and ICD patients.