George H. Crossley

Transvenous Lead Extraction: Heart Rhythm Society Expert Consensus on Facilities, Training, Indications, and Patient Management: This document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA)

Cleveland Clinic, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland, OH, Ohio State University, Division of ardiovascular Medicine, Columbus, OH, Broward General Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, FL, University Hospital, ivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Pisa, Italy, University of Miami, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Miami, FL, St. Thomas esearch Institute, University of Tennessee College of Medicine, Nashville, TN, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, A, **Baylor College of Medicine, Pediatrics and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX, Sahlgrenska University ospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland, Providence St. Joseph Medical enter, Burbank, CA, American Heart Association Representative.

The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) Trial: The Value of Wireless Remote Monitoring With Automatic Clinician Alerts

OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to determine if wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts reduces the time from a clinical event to a clinical decision in response to arrhythmias, cardiovascular (CV) disease progression, and device issues compared to patients receiving standard in-office care. A secondary objective was to compare the rates of CV health care utilization between patients in the remote and in-office arms. BACKGROUND In addition to providing life-saving therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators collect advanced diagnostics on the progression of the patients heart disease. Device technology has progressed to allow wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts to replace some scheduled in-office visits. METHODS The CONNECT (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision) study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized evaluation involving 1,997 patients from 136 clinical sites who underwent insertion of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (including cardiac resynchronization therapy devices) and were followed up for 15 months. Health care utilization data included all CV-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and clinic office visits. RESULTS The median time from clinical event to clinical decision per patient was reduced from 22 days in the in-office arm to 4.6 days in the remote arm (p < 0.001). The health care utilization data revealed a decrease in mean length of stay per CV hospitalization visit from 4.0 days in the in-office arm to 3.3 days in the remote arm (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Wireless remote monitoring with automatic clinician alerts as compared with standard in-office follow-up significantly reduced the time to a clinical decision in response to clinical events and was associated with a significant reduction in mean length of CV hospital stay. (Clinical Evaluation of Remote Notification to Reduce Time to Clinical Decision [CONNECT]; NCT00402246).

Clinical Benefits of Remote Versus Transtelephonic Monitoring of Implanted Pacemakers

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to evaluate remote pacemaker interrogation for the earlier diagnosis of clinically actionable events compared with traditional transtelephonic monitoring and routine in-person evaluation. BACKGROUND Pacemaker patient follow-up procedures have evolved from evaluating devices with little programmability and diagnostic information solely in person to transtelephonic rhythm strip recordings that allow monitoring of basic device function. More recently developed remote monitoring technology leverages expanded device capabilities, augmenting traditional transtelephonic monitoring to evaluate patients via full device interrogation. METHODS The time to first diagnosis of a clinically actionable event was compared in patients who were followed by remote interrogation (Remote) and those who were followed per standard of care with office visits augmented by transtelephonic monitoring (Control). Patients were randomized 2:1. Remote arm patients transmitted pacemaker information at 3-month intervals. Control arm patients with a single-chamber pacemaker transmitted at 2-month intervals. Control arm patients with dual-chamber devices transmitted at 2-month intervals with an office visit at 6 months. All patients were seen in office at 12 months. RESULTS The mean time to first diagnosis of clinically actionable events was earlier in the Remote arm (5.7 months) than in the Control arm (7.7 months). Three (2%) of the 190 events in the Control arm and 446 (66%) of 676 events in the Remote arm were identified remotely. CONCLUSIONS The strategic use of remote pacemaker interrogation follow-up detects actionable events that are potentially important more quickly and more frequently than transtelephonic rhythm strip recordings. The use of transtelephonic rhythm strips for pacemaker follow-up is of little value except for battery status determinations. (PREFER [Pacemaker Remote Follow-up Evaluation and Review]; NCT00294645).

The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Expert Consensus Statement on the Perioperative Management of Patients with Implantable Defibrillators, Pacemakers and Arrhythmia Monitors: Facilities and Patient Management: Executive Summary: This document was developed as a joint project with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and in collaboration with the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)

a t C r a t a R The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Expert Consensus Statement on the Perioperative Management of Patients with Implantable Defibrillators, Pacemakers and Arrhythmia Monitors: Facilities and Patient Management This document was developed as a joint project with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and in collaboration with the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)

Development and validation of an integrated diagnostic algorithm derived from parameters monitored in implantable devices for identifying patients at risk for heart failure hospitalization in an ambulatory setting

Background We developed and validated a heart failure (HF) risk score combining daily measurements of multiple device-derived parameters. Methods Heart failure patients from clinical studies with implantable devices were used to form two separate data sets. Daily HF scores were estimated by combining changes in intra-thoracic impedance, atrial fibrillation (AF) burden, rapid rate during AF, %CRT pacing, ventricular tachycardia, night heart rate, heart rate variability, and activity using a Bayesian model. Simulated monthly follow-ups consisted of looking back at the maximum daily HF risk score in the preceding 30 days, categorizing the evaluation as high, medium, or low risk, and evaluating the occurrence of HF hospitalizations in the next 30 days. We used an Anderson–Gill model to compare survival free from HF events in the next 30 days based on risk groups. Results The development data set consisted of 921 patients with 9790 patient-months of data and 91 months with HF hospitalizations. The validation data set consisted of 1310 patients with 10 655 patient-months of data and 163 months with HF hospitalizations. In the validation data set, 10% of monthly evaluations in 34% of the patients were in the high-risk group. Monthly diagnostic evaluations in the high-risk group were 10 times (adjusted HR: 10.0; 95% CI: 6.4–15.7, P < 0.001) more likely to have an HF hospitalization (event rate of 6.8%) in the next 30 days compared with monthly evaluations in the low-risk group (event rate of 0.6%). Conclusion An HF score based on implantable device diagnostics can identify increased risk for HF hospitalization in the next 30 days.

Multi-Center Clinical Experience with a Lumenless, Catheter-Delivered, Bipolar, Permanent Pacemaker Lead: Implant Safety and Electrical Performance

Purpose: Reduced lead diameter and reliability can be designed into transvenous permanent pacing leads through use of redundant insulation and removal of the stylet lumen. The model 3830 lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) is a bipolar, fixed‐screw, steroid‐eluting, lumenless, 4.1‐Fr pacing lead. Implantation can be performed in a variety of right heart sites using a deflectable catheter (Model 10600, Medtronic). Lead performance and safety were studied.

Steroid Elution Improves the Stimulation Threshold in an Active-Fixation Atrial Permanent Pacing Lead A Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND Prior work suggests that the addition of a steroid-eluting reservoir to a passive-fixation permanent pacemaker lead improves the stimulation threshold; however, no large randomized study has addressed this tissue. Over the last several years, there has been an increase in enthusiasm for the use of active-fixation permanent pacemaker leads for various reasons in spite of the generally accepted notion that active-fixation leads have higher stimulation thresholds. METHODS AND RESULTS This multicenter, randomized, controlled study examined the difference in performance between a standard active-fixation atrial lead (Medtronic model 4058) and a steroid-eluting lead (Medtronic model 4068). Stimulation thresholds were obtained in a four-point strength-duration fashion. Evaluations of sensing and impedance were performed as well. These evaluations were performed at implantation, at weeks 1 through 4, and at weeks 6, 12, 24, and 52. Stimulation thresholds were significantly better in the steroid lead than in the nonsteroid lead at each measurement point from 1 week to 12 months. The mean 1.6-V stimulation threshold at 12 months was 0.19 +/- 0.2 ms in the steroid lead and 0.41 +/- 0.30 ms in the control lead. No acute peaking was observed with the steroid lead, whereas significant peaking was observed with the control lead. There was no difference in long-term sensing or impedance. CONCLUSIONS Inclusion of a steroid-eluting reservoir in an active-fixation permanent pacing lead improved stimulation thresholds in both the subacute and chronic periods and therefore should extend pulse-generator longevity.

Occurrence of phrenic nerve stimulation in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: the role of left ventricular lead type and placement site

AIMS Unwanted phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) has been reported in ∼1 in 4 patients undergoing left ventricular (LV) pacing. The occurrence of PNS over mid-term follow-up and the significance of PNS are less certain. METHODS AND RESULTS Data from 1307 patients enrolled in pre-market studies of LV leads manufactured by Medtronic (models 4193 and 4195 unipolar, 4194, 4196, 4296, and 4396 bipolar) were pooled. Left ventricular lead location was recorded at implant using a common classification scheme. Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms were either spontaneously reported or identified at scheduled follow-up visits. A PNS-related complication was defined as PNS resulting in invasive intervention or the termination of LV pacing. Average follow-up was 14.9 months (range 0.0-46.6). Phrenic nerve stimulation symptoms occurred in 169 patients (12.9%). Phrenic nerve stimulation-related complications occurred in 21 of 1307 patients (1.6%); 16 of 738 (2.2%) in the unipolar lead studies, and 5 of 569 (0.9%) in the bipolar lead studies (P = 0.08). Phrenic nerve stimulation was more frequent at middle-lateral/posterior, and apical LV sites (139/1010) vs. basal-posterior/lateral/anterior, and middle-anterior sites (20/297; P= 0.01). As compared with an anterior LV lead position, a lateral LV pacing site was associated with over a four-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.005) and an apical LV pacing site was associated with over six-fold higher risk of PNS (P= 0.001). CONCLUSION Phrenic nerve stimulation occurred in 13% of patients undergoing LV lead placement and was more common at mid-lateral/posterior, and LV apical sites. Most cases (123/139; 88%) of PNS were mitigated via electrical reprogramming, without the need for invasive intervention.

The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Expert Consensus Statement on the Perioperative Management of Patients with Implantable Defibrillators, Pacemakers and Arrhythmia Monitors: Facilities and Patient Management: Executive Summary

a t C r a t a R The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS)/American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Expert Consensus Statement on the Perioperative Management of Patients with Implantable Defibrillators, Pacemakers and Arrhythmia Monitors: Facilities and Patient Management This document was developed as a joint project with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and in collaboration with the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)

Chronic performance of an active fixation coronary sinus lead

BACKGROUND Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in appropriately selected patients with heart failure. Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead placement is useful in enhancing response from CRT. Three significant obstacles to LV lead placement are patient-specific variations in coronary venous anatomy, phrenic nerve stimulation, and a significant rate of LV lead dislodgement or microdislodgement. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of the Medtronic StarFix active fixation LV lead. Secondary objectives evaluated implant success, lead placement and procedure time, lead handling and lobe deployment, additional electrical performance, and all adverse events reported in the study. METHODS There were 441 patients enrolled in this multicenter study. Standard cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) inclusion criteria were used. Patients were followed up for a mean of 23 months. Implant data, success with CRT, LV lead performance, clinical outcomes, and experience with LV lead revisions were prospectively evaluated. RESULTS The mean LV stimulation threshold at implant was 1.3 +/- 1 volts and was stable over time. Sensing was also excellent. In 96.3% of the implantations in this study, the physician was able to place the lead in a nonanterior position. Extracardiac (phrenic nerve) stimulation required invasive intervention in 11 subjects (2.5%). Only 3 dislodgements (0.7%) were observed. Two occurred in the first 5 implants and were attributed to inadequate engagement of the venous subbranch. CONCLUSION The Medtronic 4195 is safe and highly efficacious. It affords the physician more choices in lead placement location and has a remarkably low dislodgement rate.