Should We Check It? Assessing Interrogation of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in the Emergency Department-The CHECK-ED Study: Implications for Service Planning and Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Requests from the emergency department (ED) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) checks constitute a large workload for cardiac electrophysiology services. We sought to determine the yield of, and clinical characteristics associated with, clinically relevant (remarkable) issues from ED CIED checks. METHODS: Consecutive CIED checks from our ED over a 12-month period were studied. A remarkable issue (RI) was defined as arrhythmia relating to the presentation or device/lead issue requiring reprogramming or intervention. The association between the presenting complaint and an RI was assessed using regression analysis. Multivariable regression model was used to identify pre-specified patient-level characteristics that were predictive of a RI. RESULTS: A RI was found in 28% (n=98) of 354 ED CIED checks for 306 patients (76±16 yrs, 59% male). Most patients had no RI (n=224, 73%). One third of checks occurred after-hours and these had a higher yield of RIs than those during routine clinic hours (35% vs 23%, p=0.018). Presenting with a perceived ICD shock was predictive of a RI (odds ratio [OR] 6.0, 95% CI=1.8-20.0). Syncope/presyncope was five-fold less likely to be predictive of a RI (OR 0.19, 95% CI=0.13-0.28) despite being the most common indication for CIED check (51%, n=180 checks). Only history of AF was predictive of RI while advancing age was predictive of not finding a RI. CONCLUSION: Almost three-quarters of ED CIED checks did not yield any RI. Patient-reported ICD shock and history of AF were predictive of RI, while syncope/presyncope was not. New models of care especially during after-hours, may help to reduce the burden on cardiac electrophysiology services and health care costs.