8 research outputs found
The extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: The pivotal study plan
Background: Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (TV ICD) provide life-saving therapy for millions of patients worldwide. However, they are susceptible to several potential short- and long- term complications including cardiac perforation and pneumothorax, lead dislodgement, venous obstruction, and infection. The extravascular ICD system's novel design and substernal implant approach avoids the risks associated with TV ICDs while still providing pacing features and similar generator size to TV ICDs. Study Design: The EV ICD pivotal study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, nonrandomized, premarket clinical study designed to examine the safety and acute efficacy of the system. This study will enroll up to 400 patients with a Class I or IIa indication for implantation of an ICD. Implanted subjects will be followed up to approximately 3.5 years, depending on when the patient is enrolled. Objective: The clinical trial is designed to demonstrate safety and effectiveness of the EV ICD system in human use. The safety endpoint is freedom from major complications, while the efficacy endpoint is defibrillation success. Both endpoints will be assessed against prespecified criteria. Additionally, this study will evaluate antitachycardia pacing performance, electrical performance, extracardiac pacing sensation, asystole pacing, appropriate and inappropriate shocks, as well as a summary of adverse events. Conclusion: The EV ICD pivotal study is designed to provide clear evidence addressing the safety and efficacy performance of the EV ICD System
Sex differences in cardiac arrhythmia:a consensus document of the European Heart Rhythm Association, endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society and Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society
2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure
Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified
2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure
Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified
2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure
2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy
Pacing is an important part of electrophysiology and of cardiology in general. Whereas some of the situations requiring pacing are clear and have not changed over the years, many others have evolved and have been the subject of extensive recent research, such as pacing after syncope (section 5), pacing following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI; section 8), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for heart failure (HF) and for prevention of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (section 6), and pacing in various infiltrative and inflammatory diseases of the heart, as well as in different cardiomyopathies (section 8). Other novel topics include new diagnostic tools for decision-making on pacing (section 4), as well as a whole new area of pacing the His bundle and the left bundle branch (section 7). In addition, attention has increased in other areas, such as how to systematically minimize procedural risk and avoid complications of cardiac pacing (section 9), how to manage patients with pacemakers in special situations, such as when magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or irradiation are needed (section 11), how to follow patients with a pacemaker with emphasis on the use of remote monitoring, and how to include shared decision-making in caring for this patient population (section 12).
The last pacing guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) were published in 2013; therefore, a new set of guidelines was felt to be timely and necessary
2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure
Abstract Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacingâinduced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, preâprocedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, followâup evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified
Antibacterial Envelope to Prevent Cardiac Implantable Device Infection
Background Infections after placement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. There is limited evidence on prophylactic strategies, other than the use of preoperative antibiotics, to prevent such infections. Methods We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of an absorbable, antibiotic-eluting envelope in reducing the incidence of infection associated with CIED implantations. Patients who were undergoing a CIED pocket revision, generator replacement, or system upgrade or an initial implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive the envelope or not. Standard-of-care strategies to prevent infection were used in all patients. The primary end point was infection resulting in system extraction or revision, long-term antibiotic therapy with infection recurrence, or death, within 12 months after the CIED implantation procedure. The secondary end point for safety was procedure-related or system-related complications within 12 months. Results A total of 6983 patients underwent randomization: 3495 to the envelope group and 3488 to the control group. The primary end point occurred in 25 patients in the envelope group and 42 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 0.7% and 1.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.98; P=0.04). The safety end point occurred in 201 patients in the envelope group and 236 patients in the control group (12-month Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate, 6.0% and 6.9%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.06; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The mean (+/- SD) duration of follow-up was 20.7 +/- 8.5 months. Major CIED-related infections through the entire follow-up period occurred in 32 patients in the envelope group and 51 patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.98). Conclusions Adjunctive use of an antibacterial envelope resulted in a significantly lower incidence of major CIED infections than standard-of-care infection-prevention strategies alone, without a higher incidence of complications