S Foulon

Potential role of remote monitoring for scheduled and unscheduled evaluations of patients with an implantable defibrillator.

AIMS Follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients, with regular in-office visits every 3-6 months, puts a significant burden on specialized electrophysiology clinics. New technology allows for remote monitoring of device function. We wanted to investigate its potential reliability and to which extent its use can reduce in-office visits. METHODS AND RESULTS We retrospectively analysed data from 1739 prospectively coded ICD visits in a random set of 169 patients (followed between 2 month and 10.4 year in an academic centre). We defined (i) whether the visit was planned or not, (ii) what were the reasons for unplanned visits, (iii) whether any relevant finding was made, (iv) whether a remote monitoring system with the ability or not to detect pacing threshold would have been able to capture the problem, and (v) what actions were taken. The standard follow-up scheme consisted of in-office visits 1 month after implantation and then every 6 months, unless approaching battery depletion. From the 1739 visits, 1530 were performed according to clinical schedule (88%) and in 1197 of those (78.2%), no relevant finding was made. In 0.52% (n = 8) early post-implant pacing threshold increases would not have been detected by remote monitoring without the ability to determine thresholds (although two patients showed a high impedance). Moreover, in 6% of the planned visits, reprogramming would require a consecutive in-office visit (4%) or hospitalization (2%). Only 175 visits (9.6% of all) were conducted prior to the planned follow-up date due to patient symptoms [another 42 (2.4%) were due to planned surgery or safety warnings]. The proportion of relevant findings during unscheduled visits was significantly higher than during scheduled visits (80.6 vs. 21.8%; P < 0.0001) and a higher proportion of those was arrhythmia- and/or device-related (85.1 vs. 55.3%, P < 0.0001). Reprogramming was required more often (33.1 vs. 4%; P < 0.0001) and hospitalization rate was higher (18.3 vs. 2%; P < 0.0001), so that 51.4% of unscheduled visits would require in-office evaluation. Overall, remote follow-up would correctly exclude device function abnormalities or arrhythmic problems in 1402 (82.2%), identify an arrhythmic problem in 262 (15.3%), correctly identify a device-related problem in 35 (2.1%), but potentially miss an isolated pacing problem in 6 (0.46%). Clinical evaluation would diagnose a relevant clinical problem in the absence of any device interrogation abnormality in 170 patients (10%). CONCLUSION ICD remote monitoring can potentially diagnose >99.5% of arrhythmia- or device-related problems if combined with clinical follow-up by the local general practitioner and/or referring cardiologist. It may provide a way to significantly reduce in-office follow-up visits that are a burden for both hospitals and patients.

Ablation of focally induced atrial fibrillation: selective or extensive?

Introduction: Focally induced atrial fibrillation (AF) often is due to ectopic activity in the pulmonary veins (PV). Although initial approaches were aimed at ablating only the ectopic foci, more extensive ablation approaches have evolved that isolate all PVs empirically and/or create circumferential ablation lines in the left atrium (LA). These techniques last longer and may be associated with more risks. We retrospectively evaluated the outcome and risks of ablation for focally induced AF in a single‐center patient population.

The impact of changes in LVEF and renal function on the prognosis of ICD patients after elective device replacement

A proportion of patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) in prevention of sudden cardiac death will only receive their first appropriate ICD therapy (AT) after device replacement. Clinical reassessment at the time of replacement could be helpful to guide the decision to replace or not in the future.

Monocentric experience of leadless pacing with focus on challenging cases for conventional pacemaker

Abstract Aim: Leadless cardiac pacemaker has been developed to reduce complications related to cardiac pacing and is considered as an alternative to conventional pacemaker although safety and efficacy data in clinical practice are limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy profile of Micra Transcatheter Pacing System (TPS) used in daily clinical activity with a focus on challenging cases for conventional pacing. Methods: A total of 66 patients (46 men, 79.1 ± 9.7 years) having a Class I or II indication for ventricular pacing underwent a Micra TPS implant procedure. All patients were enrolled in a prospective registry. Follow-up visits were scheduled at discharge and after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Results: Primary indication for pacing was third degree atrioventricular block (30.3%), sinus node dysfunction (21.2%) or permanent atrial fibrillation with bradycardia (45.5%). The device was successfully implanted in 65 patients (98.5%). During follow-up of 10.4 ± 6.1 months (range 1–23 months), electrical measurements remained stable. Mean pacing capture threshold, pacing impedance and R-wave sensing were respectively 0.57 ± 0.32 V, 580 ± 103 Ohms, 10.62 ± 4.36 mV at the last follow-up. One major (loss of function) and three minor adverse events occurred. Pericardial effusion, dislodgement, device related infection or pacemaker syndrome were not observed. Micra TPS implantation was straightforward for patients with congenital or acquired cardiac and/or vascular abnormalities, previous tricuspid surgery and after heart transplantation. Conclusion: Our experience confirms that implantation of Micra is safe and efficient in a real world population including patients who present a challenging condition for conventional pacing.