[Smoking cessation in hospitalised patients - Initiate among inpatients, continue when outpatients - A Position Paper by the German Respiratory Society (DGP) Taskforce for Smoking Cessation]. / Tabakentwöhnung bei hospitalisierten Patienten:innen ­ Stationär einleiten, ambulant fortführen.

Tobacco smoking is the greatest preventable health risk. The effects are serious, both individually and societal. Nevertheless, the current prevalence of tobacco smokers in Germany is still high at around 35 %. A recent strong increase in actively smoking adolescents (14- to 17-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 16 %) and young adults (18- to 24-year-olds, current prevalence approx. 41 %) is also a cause for concern. About a third of all inpatients continue smoking while being treated. The hospitalization of active smokers in acute and rehabilitation hospitals serves as a "teachable moment" for initiation of cessation offers. An intervention that begins in hospital and continues for at least a month after discharge results in about 40 % additional smokefree patients. It is scientifically well-researched, effective and cost-efficient. After initiation in hospital these measures can be continued via ambulatory cessation programs, rehabilitation facilities, an Internet or telephone service. In Germany, there are structured and quality-assured cessation offers, both for the inpatient and for the outpatient area. The biggest obstacle to broad establishment of such offers is the lack of reimbursement. Two feasible ways to change this would be the remuneration of the existing OPS 9-501 "Multimodal inpatient treatment for smoking cessation" and the establishment of quality contracts according to §â€Š110a SGB V. An expansion of tobacco cessation measures in healthcare facilities would reduce smoking prevalence, associated burden of disease and consecutive costs.

Is mortality a useful parameter for public reporting in pacemaker implantation? Results of an obligatory external quality control programme.

AIMS: To evaluate if public reporting of pacemaker implantation-associated mortality is meaningful in a large contemporary patient cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: The database of the obligatory external quality control programme in the Federal State of Hessen, Germany, of patients undergoing permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation was evaluated retrospectively. We compared the baseline features of patients who died compared with those who did not during hospitalization after PPM. Of 5079 patients who underwent PPM implantation in 2009, 74 (1.5%) died during the hospital stay. Cause of death was available in 70/74 patients (94.6%) who died. Deceased patients were older (79.6 ± 8.7 vs. 76.3 ± 9.9 years, P = 0.006), had worse American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status (P < 0.001), lower ejection fraction (P < 0.001), a greater prevalence of high-degree atrioventricular-block (44.3 vs. 35.0%, P = 0.001), and were more likely to receive single-chamber devices (41.4 vs. 25.0%, P < 0.002). Perioperative complications were similar in both cohorts. Death was not attributable directly to PPM procedure in any patients but was related to (i) non-device-related infections (28.6%), (ii) heart failure (25.7%), (iii) extracardiac diseases (21.4%), (iv) multiorgan failure (8.6%), (v) previous resuscitation with hypoxic brain damage (8.6%), and (vi) arrhythmogenic death (7.1%). CONCLUSION: Mortality associated with PPM implantation in vast majority of cases was not related to the procedure, but to comorbidities and other existing diseases at the time of PPM implantation. Thus, PPM implantation in-hospital mortality should not be chosen for public reporting comparing hospital quality, even after adjusting for baseline risk.

The patient perspective on remote monitoring of implantable cardiac devices.

Aims: Remote monitoring for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is well established in clinical routine and recommended by current guidelines. Nevertheless, data regarding patients' perceptions are limited. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the patient perspectives on the remote monitoring of cardiac devices in Germany. Methods and results: Patients with CIEDs and remote monitoring of all current manufacturers from three German centers were asked to participate. The questionnaire consisted of 37 questions regarding the patients' individual use and perspectives on remote monitoring. Survey participation was anonymous and on a voluntary basis. A total of 617 patients (71.6% men) participated. Most patients reported feeling well informed (69.3%) and reported having unchanged or improved coping (98.8%) since the start of remote monitoring. At least 39.7% of patients experienced technical problems regarding the transmitter, whereas most patients (60.3%) reported that they never noted technical issues. Older patients had significantly less interest than younger patients in using their own smartphones for data transfer (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients with remote follow-up of CIED reported that they felt well informed about the remote monitoring approach. Remote monitoring can support coping with their disease. With remote monitoring, patients experienced a prolongation of intervals of in-person follow-up visits, and especially younger patients would appreciate smartphone-based data transfer of their CIEDs.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

Clinical efficacy of left ventricular pacing vector programmability in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients for management of phrenic nerve stimulation and/or elevated left ventricular pacing thresholds: insights from the Efface Phrenic Stim study.

AIMS: Elevated left ventricular (LV) pacing thresholds or phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) might be possible reasons for absence of continuous and effective biventricular stimulation. This study investigated the benefit and clinical efficacy of the ability to choose one out of three different LV pacing vectors for the management of suboptimal LV pacing thresholds and PNS. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, observational multicentre study enrolled 132 patients (Pts) implanted with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator, that offers three LV pacing vectors: (i) Bipolar; (ii) LVtip ↔ RVcoil; (iii) LVring ↔ RVcoil (RV = right ventricular). Left ventricular pacing thresholds and PNS thresholds were obtained in sitting and left lateral body position for all programmable LV pacing vectors at hospital discharge and follow up (FU). In 97%, a bipolar transvenous LV lead was successfully implanted. In 87% of Pts at least one acceptable pacing vector could be identified that provides good pacing threshold (≤ 2.5 V at 5 ms) and acceptable margin to PNS (≥ 2:1). This is an increase of 18% compared with conventional bipolar systems (74%) with two LV vectors and of 25% compared with unipolar systems (70%). The LVtip ↔ RVcoil vector provided the best LV pacing thresholds, but the highest rate of PNS. CONCLUSIONS: The programmability of LV pacing vectors is a powerful feature to avoid PNS and obtain acceptable LV pacing thresholds. In order to retain reprogramming options for LV vectors during FU, LV pacing leads with at least two electrodes should be chosen whenever possible.

[Electromagnetic interference : Pacemakers, cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator]. / Elektromagnetische Interferenzen : Schrittmacher, kardiale Resynchronisationstherapie, implantierbarer Kardioverter-Defibrillator.

Patients with cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (CRT) are exposed to different types of electromagnetic interference (EMI) at home and at work. Due to the constantly increasing role of electrically active appliances in daily use and the introduction of new therapy concepts such as the leadless cardiac pacemaker and the subcutaneous defibrillator, this topic is of great relevance. The further development of the implanted devices and the almost complete use of bipolar leads has reduced the overall risk of EMI. This review article provides information about the current status of possible interference in the private environment and how to avoid it. In addition, information is provided on how to deal with occupational sources of interference.

[Travelling with a pacemaker or implanted defibrillator]. / Mit Herzschrittmacher oder Defibrillator auf Reisen.

There are no guidelines for patients travelling with implanted pacemakers or defibrillators. Only few publications deal with specific problems that this patient group might face. In this article different aspects of travelling with implanted electric devices are summarized. Patients with pacemakers and implanted defibrillators have nearly no limits when travelling. An exception to that rule is scuba diving, which mostly is limited because of the device. In general it is the underlying heart disease or arrhythmia that limits patients' travel activities. It is reasonable to travel after implantation only after wound healing is complete because arm movement on the implant site is limited and the risk of wound infection and lead dislocation is elevated in the early phase. However, if necessary, flying is possible 2 days after an uncomplicated implantation if pneumothorax can be excluded. Security checks can be passed safely by patients with pacemakers/defibrillators. Only repetitive movement of a handheld metal detector over the device should be avoided. When travelling to different time zones it might be reasonable to deactivate a programmed sleep rate (Medtronic, Biotronik). Patients at risk for ventricular arrhythmia (mainly patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator) must make sure to take all possible preventive measures to avoid travelers' diarrhea. In case of infection early replacement of fluids and electrolytes is essential.

Proarrhythmic effect of pacemaker stimulation in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the potential of right ventricular VVI backup pacing to induce ventricular tachyarrhythmias in patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators. METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients presenting exclusively with pacemaker-induced tachycardias (PITs) were included in a prospective study using a crossover protocol. Patients were randomized to either group 1 (augmentation of the baseline frequency of the pacemaker to 60 bpm) or group 2 (pacemaker turned off) and were followed up for 1 year and then crossed over to the other programming, looking for reoccurrence of PIT. Of 150 consecutive patients, 39 (26%) had PIT, 13 of them exclusively (8.6%). Forty of 1063 analyzed tachyarrhythmias of all the patients were PIT (3%). Before inclusion in the study, the patients had 2.7+/-0.9 PITs in 11+/-6.5 months with their pacemakers programmed empirically at 42.3 bpm. During the study phase, no PIT occurred while the pacemaker was turned off, whereas programming to 60 bpm led to the recurrence of PIT in 5 of 6 patients (1.4+/-0.6 per patient). At the end of the study, 9 patients underwent a prolonged follow-up with their pacemakers turned off, resulting in spontaneous episodes of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation in 5 patients, but PITs were no longer observed. CONCLUSIONS: This crossover protocol proves the potential proarrhythmic effect of pacemaker stimulation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients. Resulting PITs led to clinical symptoms and antitachycardia therapy by the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Thus, in patients presenting with PIT but without a pacemaker indication, the pacemaker feature should be turned off, or, alternatively, the longest possible escape interval should be programmed.

Individualized selection of pacing algorithms for the prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation: Results from the VIP registry.

OBJECTIVES: The VIP registry investigated the efficacy of preventive pacing algorithm selection in reducing atrial fibrillation (AF) burden. BACKGROUND: There are few data identifying which patients might benefit most from which preventive pacing algorithms. METHODS: Patients, with at least one documented AF episode and a conventional antibradycardia indication for pacemaker therapy, were enrolled. They received pacemakers with AF diagnostics and four preventive algorithms (Selection and PreventAF series, Vitatron). A 3-month Diagnostic Phase with conventional pacing identified a Substrate Group (>70% of AF episodes with <2 premature atrial contractions [PACs] before AF onset) and a Trigger Group (< or =70% of AF episodes with <2 PACs before AF onset). This was followed by a 3-month Therapeutic Phase where in the Trigger Group algorithms were enabled aimed at avoiding or preventing a PAC and in the Substrate Group continuous atrial overdrive pacing was enabled. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six patients were evaluated. In the Trigger Group (n = 73), there was a statistically significant 28% improvement in AF burden (median AF burden: 2.06 hours/day, Diagnostic Phase vs 1.49 hours/day, Therapy Phase; P = 0.03304 signed-rank test), and reduced PAC activity. There was no significant improvement in AF burden in the Substrate Group (median AF burden: 1.82 hours/day, Diagnostic Phase vs 2.38 hours/day, Therapy Phase; P = 0.12095 signed-rank test), and little change in PAC activity. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a subgroup of patients for whom the selection of appropriate pacing algorithms, based on individual diagnostic data, translated into a reduced AF burden. Trigger AF patients were more likely responders to preventive pacing algorithms as a result of PAC suppression.