Emergency pacemaker implantation in nonagenarians with complete heart block: is single chamber pacing sufficient?

Background

In ambulatory patients with complete heart block and preserved sinus node activity (CHBs), dual chamber pacing confers well-established physiological benefits versus single chamber pacing. There is limited evidence as to whether these benefits extend to very frail patients, especially those over 90 years of age.

Purpose

In nonagenarians presenting with emergent CHBs from 2016–2019, we compared the clinical characteristics of patients selected for single versus dual chamber pacemakers (PPM), and evaluated the symptomatic and prognostic implications of these devices.

Methods

Baseline characteristics were discerned from electronic records, and physiological data extracted from serial PPM interrogations. Frailty was quantified according to the Rockwood clinical frailty scale (1–9). Cause of death was provided by the patients' General Practitioner. Cox proportional hazards analysis (HR, 95% CI) examined associations with all-cause mortality and death from congestive cardiac failure (CCF).

Results

168 consecutive patients were included (44.3% Male, Median age: 91 (2) years) and followed-up for 26.9±14.6 months. 22 patients (13.1%) were implanted with single chamber pacemakers (all programmed VVIR); when compared with patients receiving dual chamber devices, these patients had similar median age (93 (3) versus 91 (2) years, p=0.15) and LV systolic function (LVEF: 49.2% ±9.7 versus 50.7% ±10.1, p=0.71), but were more frail (Rockwood scale: 5.2±1.8 versus 4.3±1.1, p=0.004) and more likely to have severe cognitive impairment (27.3% versus 9.2%, p=0.018). Post implant, patients who received single chamber devices had higher average respiratory rates (21.3±2.4 breaths per minute versus 17.5±2.6 breaths per minute, p=0.002), lower average heart rates (65.5±10.1 bpm versus 71.9±8.6 bpm, p=0.002), and lower daily activity levels (0.57±0.3 hours of activity versus 1.5±1.1 hours of activity, p=0.016) than those with dual chamber devices. Death from CCF was more common in patients receiving single chamber devices (40.9% versus 6.2%, log rank p<0.0001); this association persisted when adjusting for age, frailty and cognitive impairment (adjusted HR: 6.2 (2.2–17.3, p=0.0005). However, in this age group, single chamber pacing was not independently associated with all-cause mortality when compared with dual chamber pacing (adjusted HR: 1.9 (0.95–3.6, p=0.07).

Conclusions

In nonagenarians with CHBs, dual chamber pacing was associated with improved symptomatic outcomes and a reduced risk of death from CCF, but did not affect all-cause mortality when compared with single chamber pacing.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: prognostic value of the PADIT score and its cost-utility implications for antimicrobial envelope use in the United Kingdom

Background

The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections is rising.

Purpose

We examined the factors associated with CIED infection, assessed the prognostic power of the PADIT risk score, and modelled the cost-utility of selective TYRX antimicrobial envelope use for preventing CIED infections.

Methods

Data were extracted from 2016 to 2019, and included all de novo implants, generator changes and lead interventions for transvenous CIEDs at a high-volume UK centre. CIED infection was defined as hospitalisation for device infection within 12 months of a procedure. Cost-utility analysis was informed by standardised tariffs, and quality adjusted life year (QALY) and efficacy data was extrapolated from analysis of the WRAP-IT trial.

Results

6,035 patients underwent 7,383 procedures; CIED infection occurred in 59 individuals (0.8%). In addition to the constituents of the PADIT score, lead extraction (HR 3.3 (1.9–6.1), p<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50mg/l (HR 3.0 (1.4–6.4), p=0.005), re-intervention within two years (HR 10.1 (5.6–17.9), p<0.0001), and procedure duration over two hours (HR 2.6 (1.6–4.1), p=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. Increased PADIT score was strongly associated with infection (AUC: 0.82, HR per point increase: 1.36 (1.27–1.47), p<0.0001). A cost-utility model assigning TYRX envelopes to patients with PADIT scores ≥6 predicted a reduction in infections (number needed to treat: 72) and a cost per QALY gained within the UK's (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold (£25,107).

Conclusions

The PADIT score was a powerful predictor of CIED infections in a heterogeneous population,and may facilitate cost-effective TYRX envelope allocation in selected high-risk patients.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Pharmacist-led medicines optimisation clinic for implantable cardiac device patients

Funding Acknowledgements

Type of funding sources: None.

Background/Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) enhance detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), providing a comprehensive measure of AF burden.  Patients with device-detected AF are usually referred for anticoagulation to their local anticoagulation clinic or General Practitioner (GP), which often delays time to initiation, potentially increasing the risk of stroke.  In addition, AF is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality.  Optimising blood pressure, cholesterol and lifestyle choices can significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and associated mortality in these patients.

Purpose

To develop and evaluate an innovative pathway to allow Specialist Cardiac Pharmacists to promptly assess and initiate anticoagulation in patients with device-detected AF, and additionally address risk factors for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Methods

As part of a quality improvement initiative, a pathway was developed where patients with AF identified on CIED who require anticoagulation are referred for assessment and management to a pharmacist-led optimisation clinic.  Specialist Cardiac Pharmacists contact patients within 5 days of referral to discuss and initiate or optimise treatment for AF, blood pressure, cholesterol and lifestyle choices.  Patients deemed inappropriate for anticoagulation were referred back to the medical team for further assessment.  All patients received a follow-up telephone consultation at 4-6 weeks to assess tolerability, adherence and response to treatment.

Results

Between September 2020 and February 2021, 22 patients were referred to the optimisation clinic. Mean age was 74.32 +/- 12.34 years and 77% were men.  Mean CHA2DS2VASc was 3.4 +/- 0.8 and mean HASBLED was 1.2 +/- 0.6. The average time from referral to anticoagulation was 3 days compared to 4 weeks prior to implementation of the pathway. All patients were assessed and appropriately anticoagulated, whereas approximately 15% of patients were still not anticoagulated at 3 months prior to implementation of the pathway despite referral to their local clinic. All patients had their blood pressure and cholesterol reviewed, which were optimised in 23% and 41% of patients respectively.  All patients confirmed adherence and suffered no adverse effects on follow-up.

Conclusion(s): We report the safe and successful implementation of a pharmacist-led medicines optimisation clinic.  This has significantly reduced time to anticoagulation without compromising safety, as well as assuring all patients are appropriately anticoagulated.  In addition, over half of patients required blood pressure and/or cholesterol optimisation to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, a service not previously provided for this cohort of patients.