RESUMEN
Australian Driving Guidelines for patients with pacemakers and implanted cardioverter defibrillators are in line with many around the world, with some minor differences. Some aspects of these guidelines lack contemporary evidence in key decision-making areas and make broad recommendations regarding groups with heterogeneous populations. In addition, more recent studies suggest lower rates of adverse events in some patients with these devices than previously thought. Through a systematic literature review, along with discussion of current guidelines, we combine new evidence with well established risk assessment tools to ask the following questions: (i) Given the heterogeneity of patient risk within the defibrillator population, should guidelines allow for further individualisation of risk and subsequent licensing restrictions?; and (ii) Could some patients with primary prevention automated cardioverter defibrillators be able to hold a commercial driving licence?
Asunto(s)
Conducción de Automóvil , Desfibriladores Implantables , Marcapaso Artificial , Australia/epidemiología , Cardioversión Eléctrica , Humanos , Prevención PrimariaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Prior studies suggest increased rates of noise on the Tendril (St Jude Medical/Abbott, St. Paul, MN, USA) pacemaker lead. We aim to assess the incidence of lead noise in the Tendril and 5076 (Medtronic PLC, Minneapolis, MN, USA) pacemaker leads in our cohort and in the process assess the utility of remote monitoring for identifying lead malfunction. METHODS: Deidentified, multi-centre, prospectively collected observational cohort data was obtained to assess the incidence of noise on the Tendril and 5076 pacemaker leads. RESULTS: 148 Tendril and 737 CapSureFix Novus 5076 (Medtronic, MN, USA) pacemaker leads were remotely monitored. Incidence of noise on the Tendril was 8% and 0.27% on the CapSureFix Novus. CONCLUSION: Rates of noise in the Tendril lead are higher than a market competitor. Remote monitoring is useful in detecting this concerning anomaly.