Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation: A multicenter pre-post intervention safety evaluation of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator function.

BACKGROUND: Stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) appears to be beneficial in selected patients with therapy-refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, high-dose radiotherapy used for STAR-treatment may affect functioning of the patients' implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) by direct effects of radiation on ICD components or cardiac tissue. Currently, the effect of STAR on ICD functioning remains unknown. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post multicenter study evaluating ICD functioning in the 12-month before and after STAR was performed. Patients with (non)ischemic cardiomyopathies with therapy-refractory VT and ICD who underwent STAR were included and the occurrence of ICD-related adverse events was collected. Evaluated ICD parameters included sensing, capture threshold and impedance. A linear mixed-effects model was used to investigate the association between STAR, radiotherapy dose and changes in lead parameters over time. RESULTS: In total, 43 patients (88% male) were included in this study. All patients had an ICD with an additional right atrial lead in 34 (79%) and a ventricular lead in 17 (40%) patients. Median ICD-generator dose was 0.1 Gy and lead tip dose ranged from 0-32 Gy. In one patient (2%), a reset occurred during treatment, but otherwise, STAR and radiotherapy dose were not associated with clinically relevant alterations in ICD leads parameters. CONCLUSIONS: STAR treatment did not result in major ICD malfunction. Only one radiotherapy related adverse event occurred during the study follow-up without patient harm. No clinically relevant alterations in ICD functioning were observed after STAR in any of the leads. With the reported doses STAR appears to be safe.

Reflections on 'Real Science: What it is, and what it means' by John Ziman.

In these reflections on the recent book by John Ziman entitled 'Real Science: What it is and what it means', I have sought to review his main points and carry on the discussion that Ziman seeks to provoke. His approach to this subject arises from what exists on the ground and the way practising scientists view this area. I have taken a wider more abstract view of what is entailed by science than Ziman and have examined the implications of that choice. As we are presently being urged to effect more and more cross and multi-disciplinary activities and research, the boundaries that may be used to set aside that which is scientific are exposed to additional strains that challenge their integrity. The continuation of this discussion into the future is clearly called for; its outcome is less apparent.

Peer review and innovation.

Two important aspects of the relationship between peer review and innovation includes the acceptance of articles for publication in journals and the assessment of applications for grants for the funding of research work. While there are well-known examples of the rejection by journals of first choice of many papers that have radically changed the way we think about the world outside ourselves, such papers do get published eventually, however tortuous the process required. With grant applications the situation differs in that the refusal of a grant necessarily curtails the possible research that may be attempted. Here there are many reasons for conservatism and reservation as to the ability of a grant allocation process based on peer review to deliver truly innovative investigations. Other methods are needed; although such methods need not be applied across the board, they should constitute the methods whereby some 10-20% of the grant monies are assigned. The nomination of prizes for specific accomplishments is one way of achieving innovation although this presumes that investigators or institution already have available the money necessary to effect the innovations; otherwise it is a question of the selection and funding of particular individuals or institutions and requiring them to solve particular problems that are set in the broadest of terms.