Should all patients receive dual chamber pacing ICDs? The rationale for the DAVID trial

All of the prospective multicenter trials that support the use of implantable defibrillators have used single chamber pacemakers/implantable cardiovertor defibrillators (ICDs). Despite the significantly increased cost of dual chamber pacemaker/ICD devices and the lack of outcome data, these devices accounted for approximately two-thirds of the ICDs implanted in the United States during the 12 months ending April 2001. Dual chamber pacemaker trials have not provided data that would support this trend, but the high incidence of atrial fibrillation, bradycardia, and congestive heart failure, as comorbid conditions, suggest that the situation could be different in the defibrillator patient population. The DAVID (Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator) trial is designed to measure the incremental benefit of dual chamber pacemaker/ICDs

Safety of magnetic resonance imaging of patients with a new Medtronic EnRhythm MRI SureScan pacing system: clinical study design

BACKGROUND: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of patients with implanted cardiac devices is currently considered hazardous due to potential for electromagnetic interference to the patient and pacemaker system. With approximately 60 million MRI scans performed worldwide per year, an estimated majority of pacemaker patients may develop an indication for an MRI during the lifetime of their pacemakers, suggesting that safe use of pacemakers in the MRI environment would be clinically valuable. A new pacing system (Medtronic EnRhythm MRItrade mark SureScantrade mark and CapSureFix MRItrade mark leads) has been designed and pre-clinically tested for safe use in the MRI environment. The EnRhythm MRI study is designed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this new pacing system. METHODS: The EnRhythm MRI study is a prospective, randomized controlled, unblinded clinical trial to confirm the safety and efficacy of MRI at 1.5 Tesla in patients implanted with a specifically designed pacemaker and lead system. The patients have standard indications for dual chamber pacemaker implantation. Successfully implanted patients are randomized in a 2:1 ratio to undergo MRI (MRI group) or to have no MRI scan (control group) at 9-12 weeks after pacemaker system implantation. Magnetic resonance (MR) scanning includes 14 head and lumbar scan sequences representing clinically relevant scans while maximizing the gradient slew rate up to 200 T/m/s, and/or the transmitted radiofrequency (RF) power up to SAR (specific absorption rate) levels of 2 W/kg body weight (upper limit of normal operating mode). Full interrogation of all device information and sensing and capture function are measured at device implantation, every follow-up and before and immediately after MRI in the MRI group and at the same time points in the control group. Complete pacemaker and lead evaluations are also done at one week and one month after the scan for the MRI and control group patients.The primary endpoint is safe and successful completion of the MRI scan as measured by freedom from both MRI-procedure related complications and clinically significant changes in the sensing and capture function of the leads. RESULTS: Results will be communicated after approximately 156 and 470 patients have completed 4 months of follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00433654

Differential Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Clinical Outcomes According to QRS Morphology and QRS Duration

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to examine the relative impact of QRS morphology and duration in echocardiographic responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and clinical outcomes.BackgroundAt least one-third of all patients treated with CRT fail to derive benefit. Patients without left bundle branch block (LBBB) or patients with smaller QRS duration (QRSd) respond less or not at all to CRT.MethodsWe retrospectively assessed baseline characteristics, clinical and echocardiographic response, and outcomes of all patients who received CRT at our institution between December 2003 and July 2007. Patients were stratified into 4 groups according to their baseline QRS morphology and QRSd.ResultsA total of 496 patients were included in the study; 216 (43.5%) had LBBB and a QRSd ≥150 ms, 85 (17.1%) had LBBB and QRSd <150 ms, 92 (18.5%) had non-LBBB and a QRSd ≥150 ms, and 103 (20.8%) had non-LBBB and QRSd <150 ms. Echocardiographic response (change in ejection fraction) was better in patients with LBBB and QRSd ≥150 ms (12 ± 12%) than in those with LBBB and QRSd <150 ms (8 ± 10%), non-LBBB and QRSd ≥150 ms (5 ± 9%), and non-LBBB and QRSd <150 ms (3 ± 11%) (p < 0.0001). In a multivariate stepwise model with change in ejection fraction as the dependent variable, the presented classification was the most important independent variable (p = 0.0003). Long-term survival was better in LBBB patients with QRSd ≥150 ms (p = 0.02), but this difference was not significant after adjustment for other baseline characteristics (p = 0.15).ConclusionsQRS morphology is a more important baseline electrocardiographic determinant of CRT response than QRSd

Infectious consequences of hematoma from cardiac implantable electronic device procedures and the role of the antibiotic envelope: A WRAP-IT trial analysis.

Hematoma is a complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures and may lead to device infection. The TYRX antibacterial envelope reduced major CIED infection by 40% in the randomized WRAP-IT (World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) study, but its effectiveness in the presence of hematoma is not well understood.The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence and infectious consequences of hematoma and the association between envelope use, hematomas, and major CIED infection among WRAP-IT patients.All 6800 study patients were included in this analysis (control 3429; envelope 3371). Hematomas occurring within 30 days postprocedure (acute) were characterized and grouped by study treatment and evaluated for subsequent infection risk. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression modeling.Acute hematoma incidence was 2.2% at 30 days, with no significant difference between treatment groups (envelope vs control hazard ratio [HR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.58; P = .39). Through all follow-up, the risk of major infection was significantly higher among control patients with hematoma vs those without (13.1% vs 1.6%; HR 11.3; 95% CI 5.5-23.2; P.001). The risk of major infection was significantly lower in the envelope vs control patients with hematoma (2.5% vs 13.1%; HR 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.85; P = .03).The risk of hematoma was 2.2% among WRAP-IT patients. Among control patients, hematoma carried a11-fold risk of developing a major CIED infection. This risk was significantly mitigated with antibacterial envelope use, with an 82% reduction in major CIED infection among envelope patients who developed hematoma compared to control

Risk Factors for CIED Infection After Secondary Procedures

OBJECTIVES This study aimed to identify risk factors for infection after secondary cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures. BACKGROUND Risk factors for CIED infection are not well defined and techniques to minimize infection lack supportive evidence. WRAP-IT (World-wide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention trial), a large study that assessed the safety and efficacy of an antibacterial envelope for CIED infection reduction, offers insight into procedural details and infection prevention strategies. METHODS This analysis included 2,803 control patients from the WRAP-IT trial who received standard preoperative antibiotics but not the envelope (44 patients with major infections through all follow-up). A multivariate least absolute shrinkage and selection operator machine learning model, controlling for patient characteristics and procedural variables, was used for risk factor selection and identification. Risk factors consistently retaining predictive value in the model (appeared >10 times) across 100 iterations of imputed data were deemed significant. RESULTS Of the 81 variables screened, 17 were identified as risk factors with 6 being patient/device-related (nonmodifiable) and 11 begin procedure-related (potentially modifiable). Patient/device-related factors included higher number of previous CIED procedures, history of atrial arrhythmia, geography (outside North America and Europe), device type, and lower body mass index. Procedural factors associated with increased risk included longer procedure time, implant location (non-left pectoral subcutaneous), perioperative glycopeptide antibiotic versus nonglycopeptide, anticoagulant, and/or antiplatelet use, and capsulectomy. Factors associated with decreased risk of infection included chlorhexidine skin preparation and antibiotic pocket wash. CONCLUSIONS In WRAP-IT patients, we observed that several procedural risk factors correlated with infection risk. These results can help guide infection prevention strategies to minimize infections associated with secondary CIED procedures. (J Am Coll Cardiol EP 2022;8:101-111) (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1Design of the Primary Prevention Parameters Evaluation (PREPARE) trial of implantablecardioverter defibrillators to reduce patient morbidity [NCT00279279]

BACKGROUND: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been proven to be beneficial and efficacious for the treatment of serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias in primary prevention patients. However, primary prevention patients appear to have a lower incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in comparison to secondary prevention patients and consequently likely experience a higher proportion of detections due to supraventricular arrhythmias. Recent trials have demonstrated that strategic and specific programming choices reduce the number of inappropriate shocks and that anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) is an effective alternative to shock therapy for many sustained ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: The Primary Prevention Parameters Evaluation (PREPARE) study is a multi-center cohort study, evaluating the efficacy of a pre-specified strategic profile of VT/VF detection and therapy settings in 700 primary prevention patients in an effort to safely reduce the number of shock therapies delivered. The patients, both with and without cardiac resynchronization therapy, are compared to a well-qualified set (n = 691) of historical controls derived from the MIRACLE ICD and EMPIRIC trials. This manuscript describes the design of the PREPARE study. The study results, to be presented separately, will characterize the efficacy of this programming set (PREPARE) compared with physician-tailored programming (MIRACLE ICD and EMPIRIC)

Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes in Elderly Patients Treated with Ventricular Pacing as Compared with Dual-Chamber Pacing

ABSTRACT Background Standard clinical practice permits the use of either single-chamber ventricular pacemakers or dual-chamber pacemakers for most patients who require cardiac pacing. Ventricular pacemakers are less expensive, but dual-chamber pacemakers are believed to be more physiologic. However, it is not known whether either type of pacemaker results in superior clinical outcomes. Methods The Pacemaker Selection in the Elderly study was a 30-month, single-blind, randomized, controlled comparison of ventricular pacing and dualchamber pacing in 407 patients 65 years of age or older in 29 centers. Patients received a dual-chamber pacemaker that had been randomly programmed to either ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing. The primary end point was health-related quality of life as measured by the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey. Results The average age of the patients was 76 years (range, 65 to 96), and 60 percent were men. Quality of life improved significantly after pacemaker implantation (P0.001), but there were no differences between the two pacing modes in either the quality of life or prespecified clinical outcomes (including cardiovascular events or death). However, 53 patients assigned to ventricular pacing (26 percent) were crossed over to dual-chamber pacing because of symptoms related to the pacemaker syndrome. Patients with sinus-node dysfunction, but not those with atrioventricular block, had moderately better quality of life and cardiovascular functional status with dual-chamber pacing than with ventricular pacing. Trends of borderline statistical significance in clinical end points favoring dual-chamber pacing were observed in patients with sinus-node dysfunction, but not in those with atrioventricular block. Conclusions The implantation of a permanent pacemaker improves health-related quality of life. The quality-of-life benefits associated with dualchamber pacing as compared with ventricular pacing are observed principally in the subgroup of patients with sinus-node dysfunction. (N Engl J Med 1998;338:1097-104.

ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013

Because there are many potential risks in the MR environment and reports of adverse incidents involving patients, equipment and personnel, the need for a guidance document on MR safe practices emerged. Initially published in 2002, the ACR MR Safe Practices Guidelines established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments. As the MR industry changes the document is reviewed, modified and updated. The most recent version will reflect these changes. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:501–530. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/96674/1/24011_ftp.pd