Sprint Fidelis implantable cardioverter-defibrillators lead patient management and survival: Single center study

Background: Over the last several years significant rises in the use of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have also resulted in a number of associated complications. This number includes lead failure. Sprint Fidelis (SF) ICD lead is regarded as a lead with elevated failure risk. Every center acting in accordance with the guidelines should observe patients more thoroughly especially with recalled leads and run a registry of their follow-up. The aim of this research was to present follow-up of the patients with SF leads (types 6948, 6949) from a single implantation center. Methods: There were 36 SF leads implanted in 36 patients. Mean follow-up period was 76 months (IQR 40.3–86.8). Patients were subjected to regular check-ups in 3 to 6 month intervals. Results: Patients were implanted at a median age of 66.5 years and majority of them had ischemic cardiomyopathy (72%). A majority of the studied population were men (72.2%). Predominantly dual-chamber ICD (ICD-DR) were implanted (50% ICD-DR vs. 47.2% ICD-VR). The guidelines for management of patients implanted with SF were fully implemented. During the follow-up 14 (38.9%) patients died. No deaths were noted that could be attributed to lead failure. In 5 cases lead failure was identified and of these 4 leads were replaced. Median time from implantation to the detection of lead dysfunction was 52 months (IQR 49; 83). The symptoms of failure consisted of: inappropriate shocks, alternating ventricular lead signal, or loss of ventricular stimulation. Conclusions: The follow-up of patients with recalled SF leads in a single center supports that implementation SF management guidelines could be effective in clinical practice

Kardia Mobile applicability in clinical practice: A comparison of Kardia Mobile and standard 12-lead electrocardiogram records in 100 consecutive patients of a tertiary cardiovascular care center

Background: Mobile devices are gaining a rising number of users in all countries around the globe. Novel solutions to diagnose patients with out-of-hospital onset of arrhythmic symptoms can be easily used to record such events, but the effectiveness of these devices remain unknown.Methods: In a group of 100 consecutive patients of an academic cardiology care center (mean age 68 ± 14.2 years, males: 66%) a standard 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and a Kardia Mobile (KM) record were registered. Both versions were assessed by three independant groups of physicians.Results: The analysis of comparisons for standard ECG and KM records showed that the latter is of lower quality (p < 0.001). It was non-inferior for detection of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter, showed weaker rhythm detection in pacemaker stimulation (p = 0.008), and was superior in sinus rhythm detection (p = 0.02), though. The sensitivity of KM to detect pathological Q-wave was low compared to specificity (20.6% vs. 93.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Basic intervals measured by the KM device, namely PQ, RR, and QT were significantly different (shorter) than those observed in the standard ECG method (160 ms vs. 180 ms [p < 0.001], 853 ms vs. 880 ms [p = 0.03] and 393 ms vs. 400 ms[p < 0.001], respectively).Conclusions: Initial and indicative value of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter detection in KM is comparable to results achieved in standard ECG. KM was superior in detection of sinus rhythm than eye-ball evaluation of 12-lead ECG. Though, the PQ and QT intervals were shorter in KM as compared to 12-lead ECG. Clinical value needs to be verified in large studies, though