Concept: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator
Background The presence of a cardiovascular implantable electronic device has long been a contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We established a prospective registry to determine the risks associated with MRI at a magnetic field strength of 1.5 tesla for patients who had a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) that was “non-MRI-conditional” (i.e., not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MRI scanning). Methods Patients in the registry were referred for clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at a field strength of 1.5 tesla. Devices were interrogated before and after MRI with the use of a standardized protocol and were appropriately reprogrammed before the scanning. The primary end points were death, generator or lead failure, induced arrhythmia, loss of capture, or electrical reset during the scanning. The secondary end points were changes in device settings. Results MRI was performed in 1000 cases in which patients had a pacemaker and in 500 cases in which patients had an ICD. No deaths, lead failures, losses of capture, or ventricular arrhythmias occurred during MRI. One ICD generator could not be interrogated after MRI and required immediate replacement; the device had not been appropriately programmed per protocol before the MRI. We observed six cases of self-terminating atrial fibrillation or flutter and six cases of partial electrical reset. Changes in lead impedance, pacing threshold, battery voltage, and P-wave and R-wave amplitude exceeded prespecified thresholds in a small number of cases. Repeat MRI was not associated with an increase in adverse events. Conclusions In this study, device or lead failure did not occur in any patient with a non-MRI-conditional pacemaker or ICD who underwent clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 tesla, was appropriately screened, and had the device reprogrammed in accordance with the prespecified protocol. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; MagnaSafe ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00907361 .).
Background The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is highly effective in reducing mortality among patients at risk for fatal arrhythmias, but inappropriate ICD activations are frequent, with potential adverse effects. Methods We randomly assigned 1500 patients with a primary-prevention indication to receive an ICD with one of three programming configurations. The primary objective was to determine whether programmed high-rate therapy (with a 2.5-second delay before the initiation of therapy at a heart rate of ≥200 beats per minute) or delayed therapy (with a 60-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute, a 12-second delay at 200 to 249 beats per minute, and a 2.5-second delay at ≥250 beats per minute) was associated with a decrease in the number of patients with a first occurrence of inappropriate antitachycardia pacing or shocks, as compared with conventional programming (with a 2.5-second delay at 170 to 199 beats per minute and a 1.0-second delay at ≥200 beats per minute). Results During an average follow-up of 1.4 years, high-rate therapy and delayed ICD therapy, as compared with conventional device programming, were associated with reductions in a first occurrence of inappropriate therapy (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13 to 0.34; P<0.001; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.40; P<0.001) and reductions in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio with high-rate therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.85; P=0.01; hazard ratio with delayed therapy vs. conventional therapy, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.02; P=0.06). There were no significant differences in procedure-related adverse events among the three treatment groups. Conclusions Programming of ICD therapies for tachyarrhythmias of 200 beats per minute or higher or with a prolonged delay in therapy at 170 beats per minute or higher, as compared with conventional programming, was associated with reductions in inappropriate therapy and all-cause mortality during long-term follow-up. (Funded by Boston Scientific; MADIT-RIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00947310 .).
The purpose of this study was to determine if Optim™, a unique copolymer of silicone and polyurethane, protects Riata ST Optim and Durata implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads (SJM, St Jude Medical Inc., Sylmar, CA, USA) from abrasions that cause lead failure.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) patients have a high risk of death, and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, a certain percentage of patients may not be immediate candidates for ICDs, particularly those having a short duration of risk or an uncertain amount of risk. This includes the newly diagnosed patients, as well as those on the cardiac transplant list or NYHA class IV heart failure patients who do not already have an ICD. In these patients, a wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) may be used until long term risk of SCD is defined. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of SCD in this population, and the efficacy of early defibrillation by a WCD. METHODS: Ten enrolling centers identified 89 eligible HF patients who were either listed for cardiac transplantation, diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy, or receiving inotropic medications. Data collected included medical history, device records, and outcomes (including 90 day mortality). RESULTS: Out of 89 patients, final data on 82 patients has been collected. Patients wore the device for 75+/-58 days. Mean age was 56.8+/-13.2, and 72% were male. Most patients (98.8%) were diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy with a low ejection fraction (<40%) and twelve were listed for cardiac transplantation. Four patients were on inotropes. There were no sudden cardiac arrests or deaths during the study. Interestingly, 41.5% of patients were much improved after WCD use, while 34.1% went on to receive an ICD. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the WCD monitored HF patients until further assessment of risk. The leading reasons for end of WCD use were improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or ICD implantation if there was no significant improvement in LVEF.
Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is present in about 0.3%-0.5% of the general population and in about 12% of patients with other abnormalities . This congenital anomaly is usually asymptomatic and does not cause any physiological problems. However, it may become a significant problem in multiple clinical situations. Various complications related to PLVSC are encountered in anaesthesiological, nephrological, oncological and cardiological procedures. The presence of PLSVC is usually incidentally detected during placement of pacemaker (PM), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) leads. Technical difficulties during lead positioning (especially ventricular leads) are commonly known and often described in the literature. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the specific methods used for implantation of increasingly complicated pacing systems, finding an optimal strategy in patients with PLSVC, especially with electrotherapy complications.
The Brugada syndrome (BrS) is a malignant, genetically-determined, arrhythmic syndrome manifesting as syncope or sudden cardiac death (SCD) in individuals with structurally normal hearts. The diagnosis of the BrS is mainly based on the presence of a spontaneous or Na + channel blocker induced characteristic, electrocardiographic (ECG) pattern (type 1 or coved Brugada ECG pattern) typically seen in leads V1 and V2 recorded from the 4th to 2nd intercostal (i.c.) spaces. This pattern needs to be distinguished from similar ECG changes due to other causes (Brugada ECG phenocopies). This review focuses mainly on the ECG-based methods for diagnosis and arrhythmia risk assessment in the BrS. Presently, the main unresolved clinical problem is the identification of those patients at high risk of SCD who need implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), which is the only therapy with proven efficacy. Current guidelines recommend ICD implantation only in patients with spontaneous type 1 ECG pattern, and either history of aborted cardiac arrest or documented sustained VT (class I), or syncope of arrhythmic origin (class IIa) because they are at high risk of recurrent arrhythmic events (up to 10% or more annually for those with aborted cardiac arrest). The majority of BrS patients are asymptomatic when diagnosed and considered to have low risk (around 0.5% annually) and therefore not indicated for ICD. The majority of SCD victims in the BrS, however, had no symptoms prior to the fatal event and therefore were not protected with an ICD. While some ECG markers such as QRS fragmentation, infero-lateral early repolarisation, and abnormal late potentials on signal-averaged ECG are known to be linked to increased arrhythmic risk, they are not sufficiently sensitive or specific. Potential novel ECG-based strategies for risk stratification are discussed based on computerised methods for depolarisation and repolarisation analysis, a composite approach targeting several major components of ventricular arrhythmogenesis, and the collection of large digital ECG databases in genotyped BrS patients and their relatives.
Background The benefit of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure caused by coronary artery disease has been well documented. However, the evidence for a benefit of prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic heart failure that is not due to coronary artery disease has been based primarily on subgroup analyses. The management of heart failure has improved since the landmark ICD trials, and many patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods In a randomized, controlled trial, 556 patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, ≤35%) not caused by coronary artery disease were assigned to receive an ICD, and 560 patients were assigned to receive usual clinical care (control group). In both groups, 58% of the patients received CRT. The primary outcome of the trial was death from any cause. The secondary outcomes were sudden cardiac death and cardiovascular death. Results After a median follow-up period of 67.6 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 120 patients (21.6%) in the ICD group and in 131 patients (23.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.12; P=0.28). Sudden cardiac death occurred in 24 patients (4.3%) in the ICD group and in 46 patients (8.2%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.82; P=0.005). Device infection occurred in 27 patients (4.9%) in the ICD group and in 20 patients (3.6%) in the control group (P=0.29). Conclusions In this trial, prophylactic ICD implantation in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure not caused by coronary artery disease was not associated with a significantly lower long-term rate of death from any cause than was usual clinical care. (Funded by Medtronic and others; DANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00542945 .).
Background A leadless intracardiac transcatheter pacing system has been designed to avoid the need for a pacemaker pocket and transvenous lead. Methods In a prospective multicenter study without controls, a transcatheter pacemaker was implanted in patients who had guideline-based indications for ventricular pacing. The analysis of the primary end points began when 300 patients reached 6 months of follow-up. The primary safety end point was freedom from system-related or procedure-related major complications. The primary efficacy end point was the percentage of patients with low and stable pacing capture thresholds at 6 months (≤2.0 V at a pulse width of 0.24 msec and an increase of ≤1.5 V from the time of implantation). The safety and efficacy end points were evaluated against performance goals (based on historical data) of 83% and 80%, respectively. We also performed a post hoc analysis in which the rates of major complications were compared with those in a control cohort of 2667 patients with transvenous pacemakers from six previously published studies. Results The device was successfully implanted in 719 of 725 patients (99.2%). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the rate of the primary safety end point was 96.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.9 to 97.3; P<0.001 for the comparison with the safety performance goal of 83%); there were 28 major complications in 25 of 725 patients, and no dislodgements. The rate of the primary efficacy end point was 98.3% (95% CI, 96.1 to 99.5; P<0.001 for the comparison with the efficacy performance goal of 80%) among 292 of 297 patients with paired 6-month data. Although there were 28 major complications in 25 patients, patients with transcatheter pacemakers had significantly fewer major complications than did the control patients (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.75; P=0.001). Conclusions In this historical comparison study, the transcatheter pacemaker met the prespecified safety and efficacy goals; it had a safety profile similar to that of a transvenous system while providing low and stable pacing thresholds. (Funded by Medtronic; Micra Transcatheter Pacing Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02004873 .).
A major challenge since the invention of implantable devices has been a reliable and long-term stable transcutaneous communication. In the case of prosthetic limbs, existing neuromuscular interfaces have been unable to address this challenge and provide direct and intuitive neural control. Although prosthetic hardware and decoding algorithms are readily available, there is still a lack of appropriate and stable physiological signals for controlling the devices. We developed a percutaneous osseointegrated (bone-anchored) interface that allows for permanent and unlimited bidirectional communication with the human body. With this interface, an artificial limb can be chronically driven by implanted electrodes in the peripheral nerves and muscles of an amputee, outside of controlled environments and during activities of daily living, thus reducing disability and improving quality of life. We demonstrate in one subject, for more than 1 year, that implanted electrodes provide a more precise and reliable control than surface electrodes, regardless of limb position and environmental conditions, and with less effort. Furthermore, long-term stable myoelectric pattern recognition and appropriate sensory feedback elicited via neurostimulation was demonstrated. The opportunity to chronically record and stimulate the neuromuscular system allows for the implementation of intuitive control and naturally perceived sensory feedback, as well as opportunities for the prediction of complex limb motions and better understanding of sensory perception. The permanent bidirectional interface presented here is a critical step toward more natural limb replacement, by combining stable attachment with permanent and reliable human-machine communication.
Background Many patients requiring pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) surgery are taking warfarin. For patients at high risk for thromboembolic events, guidelines recommend bridging therapy with heparin; however, case series suggest that it may be safe to perform surgery without interrupting warfarin treatment. There have been few results from clinical trials to support the safety and efficacy of this approach. Methods We randomly assigned patients with an annual risk of thromboembolic events of 5% or more to continued warfarin treatment or to bridging therapy with heparin. The primary outcome was clinically significant device-pocket hematoma, which was defined as device-pocket hematoma that necessitated prolonged hospitalization, interruption of anticoagulation therapy, or further surgery (e.g., hematoma evacuation). Results The data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial after the second prespecified interim analysis. Clinically significant device-pocket hematoma occurred in 12 of 343 patients (3.5%) in the continued-warfarin group, as compared with 54 of 338 (16.0%) in the heparin-bridging group (relative risk, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.36; P<0.001). Major surgical and thromboembolic complications were rare and did not differ significantly between the study groups. They included one episode of cardiac tamponade and one myocardial infarction in the heparin-bridging group and one stroke and one transient ischemic attack in the continued-warfarin group. Conclusions As compared with bridging therapy with heparin, a strategy of continued warfarin treatment at the time of pacemaker or ICD surgery markedly reduced the incidence of clinically significant device-pocket hematoma. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care of Ontario; BRUISE CONTROL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00800137 .).