Roger A. Freedman

ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices) developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Sidney C. Smith, Jr, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice-Chair Cynthia D. Adams, RN, PhD, FAHA[§][1] Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA[§][1] Christopher E. Buller, MD, FACC Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC David P. Faxon, MD, FACC,

ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices: Summary Article A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/NASPE Committee to Update the 1998 Pacemaker Guidelines)

The current update of the ACC/AHA/NASPE Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices includes several significant changes in the recommendations and in the supporting narrative portion. In this summary, we list the updated recommendations along with the respective

Adverse Effect of Ventricular Pacing on Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation Among Patients With Normal Baseline QRS Duration in a Clinical Trial of Pacemaker Therapy for Sinus Node Dysfunction

Background Dual‐chamber (DDDR) pacing preserves AV synchrony and may reduce heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with ventricular (VVIR) pacing in sinus node dysfunction (SND). However, DDDR pacing often results in prolonged QRS durations (QRSd) as the result of right ventricular stimulation, and ventricular desynchronization may result. The effect of pacing‐induced ventricular desynchronization in patients with normal baseline QRSd is unknown. Methods and Results Baseline QRSd was obtained from 12‐lead ECGs before pacemaker implantation in MOST, a 2010‐patient, 6‐year, randomized trial of DDDR versus VVIR pacing in SND. Cumulative percent ventricular paced (Cum%VP) was determined from stored pacemaker data. Baseline QRSd <120 ms was observed in 1339 patients (707 DDDR, 632 VVIR). Cum%VP was greater in DDDR versus VVIR (90% versus 58%, P=0.001). Cox models demonstrated that the time‐dependent covariate Cum%VP was a strong predictor of HF hospitalization in DDDR (hazard ratio [HR], 2.99 [95% CI, 1.15 to 7.75] for Cum%VP >40%) and VVIR (HR 2.56 [95% CI, 1.48 to 4.43] for Cum%VP >80%). The risk of AF increased linearly with Cum%VP from 0% to 85% in both groups (DDDR, HR 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09, 1.69]; VVIR, HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.02, 1.43], for each 25% increase in Cum%VP). Model results were unaffected by adjustment for known baseline predictors of HF hospitalization and AF. Conclusions Ventricular desynchronization imposed by ventricular pacing even when AV synchrony is preserved increases the risk of HF hospitalization and AF in SND with normal baseline QRSd. (Circulation. 2003;107:2932‐2937.)

2012 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society.

Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Andrew E. Epstein, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS, Chair ; John P. DiMarco, MD, PhD, FACC, FHRS; Kenneth A. Ellenbogen. MD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS; N.A. Mark Estes III, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS; Roger A.

ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices: Summary Article

The current update of the ACC/AHA/NASPE Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices includes several significant changes in the recommendations and in the supporting narrative portion. In this summary, we list the updated recommendations along with the respective 1998 recommendations, each one accompanied by a brief comment outlining the rationale for the changes, additions, or deletions. All new or revised recommendations are listed in the second column and appear in boldface type. References that support either the 1998 recommendations that have not changed or the new or revised recommendations are noted in parentheses at the end of each recommendation. The reader is referred to the full-text version of the guidelines posted on the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), and North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE) World Wide Web sites for a more detailed exposition of the rationale for these changes. In addition to the recommendation changes listed here, this update includes an expanded section on the selection of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) that reflects the technical advances that have taken place since 1998. A brief expanded summary of pacemaker follow-up procedures is also new to these guidelines. For both of these …

ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Pacemaker Implantation)

The publication of major studies dealing with the natural history of bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias and major advances in the technology of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has mandated this revision of the 1991 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices. This executive summary appears in the April 7, 1998 issue of Circulation. The full text of the guidelines, including the ACC/AHA Class I, II, and III recommendations, is published in the April 1998 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Reprints of both the executive summary and the full text are available from both organizations. Following extensive review of the medical literature and related documents previously published by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology, the writing committee developed recommendations that are evidence based whenever possible. Evidence supporting current recommendations is ranked as level A if the data were derived from multiple randomized clinical trials involving a large number of individuals. Evidence was ranked as level B when data were derived from a limited number of trials involving comparatively small numbers of patients or from well-designed data analysis of nonrandomized studies or observational data registries. Evidence was ranked as level C when consensus of expert opinion was the primary source of recommendation. The committee emphasizes that for certain conditions for which no other therapies are available, the indications for device therapies are based on years of clinical experience as well as expert consensus and are thus well supported, even though the evidence was ranked as level C. These guidelines include expanded sections on selection of pacemakers and ICDs, optimization of technology, cost, and follow-up of implanted devices. The follow-up sections are relatively brief because in many instances the type and frequency of follow-up examinations …

ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities.

the American College of Cardiology Foundation Board of ssociation Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee, oard of Trustees in February 2008. iology Foundation, American Heart Association, and Heart s document be cited as follows: Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, I, Freedman RA, Gettes LS, Gillinov AM, Gregoratos G, y MA, Newby LK, Page RL, Schoenfeld MH, Silka MJ, CC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of report of the American College of Cardiology/American n Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the deline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and oll Cardiol 2008;51:e1–62. This article h 2008 issue of H Copies: Thi College of C americanheart.o document, plea reprints@elsevie Permissions: tion of this doc College of Ca Society. Pleas elsevier.com. avid L. Hayes, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS* ark A. Hlatky, MD, FACC, FAHA . Kristin Newby, MD, FACC, FAHA ichard L. Page, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS ark H. Schoenfeld, MD, FACC, FAHA, FHRS ichael J. Silka, MD, FACC ynne Warner Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA‡ ichael O. Sweeney, MD, FACC*

ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: executive summary.

Practice Guideline: Executive Summary ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 Guidelines for Device-Based Therapy of Cardiac Rhythm Abnormalities: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 Guideline Update for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Intravascular Extraction of Problematic or Infected Permanent Pacemaker Leads: 1994–1996

Of the 400,000–500,000 permanent pacemaker leads implanted worldwide each year, around 10% may eventually fail or become infected, becoming potential candidates for removal. Intravascular techniques for removing problematic or infected leads evolved over a 5‐year period (1989–1993). This article analyzes results from January 1994 through April 1996, a period during which techniques were fairly stable. Extraction of 3,540 leads from 2,338 patients was attempted at 226 centers. Indications were: infection (27%), nonfunctional or incompatible leads (25%), Accufix® or Encor® leads (46%), or other causes (2%). Patients were 64 ± 17 years of age (range 5–96); 59% were men, 41% women. Leads were implanted 47 ± 41 months (maximum 26 years), in the atrium (53%), ventricle (46%), or SVC (1%). Extraction was attempted via the implant vein using locking stylets and dilator sheaths, and/or transfemorally using snares, retrieval baskets, and sheaths. Complete removal was achieved for 93% of leads, partial for 5%, and 2% were not removed. Risk of incomplete or failed extraction increased with implant duration (P < 0.0001), less experienced physicians (P < 0.0001), ventricular leads (P < 0.005), noninfected patients (P < 0.0005), and younger patients (P < 0.0001). Major complications were reported for 1.4% of patients (< 1% at centers with > 300 cases), minor for 1.7%. Risk of complications increased with number of leads removed (P < 0.005) and with less experienced physicians (P < 0.005); risk of major complications was higher for women (P < 0.01). Given physician experience, appropriate precautions, and appropriate patient selection, contemporary lead removal techniques allow success with low complication rates.

ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices: Executive Summary

The publication of major studies dealing with the natural history of bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias and major advances in the technology of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has mandated this revision of the 1991 ACC/AHA Guidelines for Implantation of Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices. This executive summary appears in the April 7, 1998 issue of Circulation. The full text of the guidelines, including the ACC/AHA Class I, II, and III recommendations, is published in the April 1998 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Reprints of both the executive summary and the full text are available from both organizations. Following extensive review of the medical literature and related documents previously published by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology, the writing committee developed recommendations that are evidence based whenever possible. Evidence supporting current recommendations is ranked as level A if the data were derived from multiple randomized clinical trials involving a large number of individuals. Evidence was ranked as level B when data were derived from a limited number of trials involving comparatively small numbers of patients or from well-designed data analysis of nonrandomized studies or observational data registries. Evidence was ranked as level C when consensus of expert opinion was the primary source of recommendation. The committee emphasizes that for certain conditions for which no other therapies are available, the indications for device therapies are based on years of clinical experience as well as expert consensus and are thus well supported, even though the evidence was ranked as level C. These guidelines include expanded sections on selection of pacemakers and ICDs, optimization of technology, cost, and follow-up of implanted devices. The follow-up sections are relatively brief because in many instances the type and frequency of follow-up examinations …