RESUMEN
(1) Background: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been proposed as a reimplantation strategy in pacing-dependent patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) extraction for infection. In this study, we analysed the risk of LP infection when this device is implanted before lead extraction. (2) Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients who underwent LP implantation between 2017 and 2022. Patients were divided in two groups according to whether LP was implanted following CIED extraction for infection (Group 1) or other indications (Group 2). The primary aim was to describe the risk of LP infection. (3) Results: We included in this study 49 patients with a median age of 81 [20-94] years, mostly males (36, 73%). In Group 1 patients, 17 cases (85%) showed systemic CIED infections, and 11 (55%) had positive lead cultures. Most Group 1 cases (n = 14, 70%) underwent one stage of LP implantation and CIED extraction. Mortality rate during follow-up was 20% (nine patients). Patients were followed up for a median of 927 [41-1925], days and no cases of definite or suspected LP infections were identified. (4) Conclusions: The risk of LP infection was extremely low. LP appears as a potential option for reimplantation in this setting and should be considered in pacing-dependent patients at a high risk of CIED infection recurrence.
RESUMEN
(1) Background: Infections are among the most frequent and life-threatening complications of cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome and safety of a single-procedure device extraction and contralateral implantation versus the standard-of-care (SoC) two-stage replacement for infected CIEDs. (2) Methods: We retrospectively included 66 patients with CIED infections who were treated at two Italian hospitals. Of the 66 patients enrolled in the study, 27 underwent a single procedure, whereas 39 received SoC treatment. All patients were followed up for 12 months after the procedure. (3) Results: Considering those lost to follow-up, there were no differences in the mortality rates between the two cohorts, with survival rates of 81.5% in the single-procedure group and 84.6% in the SoC group (p = 0.075). (4) Conclusions: Single-procedure reimplantation associated with an active antibiofilm therapy may be a feasible and effective therapeutic option in CIED-dependent and frail patients. Further studies are warranted to define the best treatment regimen and strategies to select patients suitable for the single-procedure reimplantation.
Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Endocarditis , Infecciones por Pseudomonas , Humanos , Imipenem/uso terapéutico , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , beta-Lactamasas/genética , Infecciones por Pseudomonas/tratamiento farmacológico , Pruebas de Sensibilidad Microbiana , CefiderocolRESUMEN
(1) Background: Management of cardiac implantable electronic device-related infective endocarditis (CIED-IE) hinges on complete hardware removal. We assessed whether long-term prognosis is affected by device removal, considering baseline patient comorbid conditions; (2) Methods: A total of 125 consecutive patients hospitalized for CIED-IE were included in this retrospective analysis. Outcomes were in-hospital, one-year, and long-term mortality. There were 109 patients who underwent device removal, 91 by transvenous lead extraction (TLE) and 18 by open heart surgery (OHS); (3) Results: TLE translated into lower hospital mortality (4.4% vs. 22.5% with OHS; p = 0.03). Septic pulmonary embolism was the only independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR:7.38 [1.49-36.6], p = 0.013). One-year mortality was in contrast independently associated to tricuspid valve involvement (p = 0.01) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI, p = 0.039), but not the hardware removal modality. After a median follow-up of 41 months, mortality rose to 24%, and was significantly influenced only by CCI. Specifically, patients with a higher CCI who were also treated with TLE showed a survival rate not significantly different from those managed with medical therapy only; (4) Conclusions: In CIED-IE, TLE is the strategy of choice for hardware removal, improving early outcomes. Long-term benefits of TLE are lessened by comorbidities. In cases of CIED-IE with high CCI, a more conservative approach might be an option.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an innovative therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction delivered by a cardiac implantable device (Optimizer Smart®). One of the most prominent periprocedural complications common to all cardiac implantable devices (CIDs) is tricuspid regurgitation (TR) due to the placement of the right ventricular endocardial leads. To date, no published studies have assessed the changes in the TR degree in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) after the implantation of cardiac contractility modulation therapy devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the implantation of the trans-tricuspid leads required to deliver CCM therapy on the severity of TR in patients with HFrEF who previously underwent ICD implantation. METHODS: We enrolled 30 HFrEF patients who underwent CCM therapy between November 2020 and October 2021. For all the patients, echocardiographic evaluations of TR were performed according to current guidelines 24 h before and six months after the Optimizer Smart® implant was applied. RESULTS: At the 6-month follow-up, the grade of TR remained unchanged compared to the preimplant grade. The value of the vena contracta (VC) of TR was 0.40 ± 0.19 cm in the preimplant period and 0.45 ± 0.21 cm at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.33). Similarly, the TR proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) radius value was unchanged at follow-up (0.54 ± 0.22 cm vs. 0.62 ± 0.20 cm; p = 0.18). No statistically significant difference existed between the preimplant VC and PISA radius values, irrespective of the device type. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of right ventricular electrodes for the delivery of CCM therapy did not worsen tricuspid regurgitation in patients with HFrEF and ICD.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Virtually all patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have a reduction of myocardial mechano-energetic efficiency (MEE). Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a novel therapy for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, in whom it improves the quality of life and functional capacity, reduces hospitalizations, and induces biventricular reverse remodeling. However, the effects of CCM on MEE and global longitudinal strain (GLS) are still unknown; therefore, this study aims to evaluate whether CCM therapy can improve the MEE of patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We enrolled 25 patients with HFrEF who received an Optimizer Smart implant (the device that develops CCM therapy) between January 2018 and January 2021. Clinical and echocardiographic evaluations were performed in all patients 24 h before and six months after CCM therapy. RESULTS: At six months, follow-up patients who underwent CCM therapy showed an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (30.8 ± 7.1 vs. 36.1 ± 6.9%; p = 0.032) as well a rise of GLS 10.3 ± 2.7 vs. -12.9 ± 4.2; p = 0.018), of MEE (32.2 ± 10.1 vs. 38.6 ± 7.6 mL/s; p = 0.013) and of MEE index (18.4 ± 6.3 vs. 24.3 ± 6.7 mL/s/g; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: CCM therapy increased left ventricular performance, improving left ventricular ejection fraction, GLS, as well as MEE and MEEi.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of leadless pacemakers (L-PM) have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but real-world data on patient selection, implantation technique, and peri-procedural patient management in a clinical practice setting are lacking. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing L-PM implantation in 14 Italian centers were followed in a prospective, multicentre, observational project. Data on baseline patient characteristics, clinical indications, implantation procedure, and peri-procedural patient management were collected. The rate and nature of device-related complications were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 782 L-PM patients (68.4% male, 75.6 ± 12.4 years) were included in the analysis. The main patients-related reason leading to the choice of implanting a L-PM rather than a conventional PM was the high-risk of device infection (29.5% of cases). The implantation success rate was 99.2%. The median duration of the procedure was 46 min. In 90% of patients the device was implanted in the septum. Of patients on oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) (n = 498) the implantation procedure was performed without interrupting (17.5%) or transiently interrupting OAT without heparin bridging (60.6%). During a median follow-up of 20 months major device-related complications occurred in 7 patients (0.9%): vascular access-site complications in 3 patients, device malfunction in 2 patients, pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade in one patient, device migration in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: In the real world setting of Italian clinical practice L-PM is often reserved for patients at high-risk of infection. The implantation success rate was very high and the risk of major complications was low. Peri-procedural management of OAT was consistent with available scientific evidence.
Asunto(s)
Marcapaso Artificial , Derrame Pericárdico , Diseño de Equipo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Marcapaso Artificial/efectos adversos , Derrame Pericárdico/etiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Introduction: In the context of randomized clinical trials, subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICDs) are non-inferior to transvenous ICDs (T-ICDs) concerning device-related complications or inappropriate shocks in patients with an indication for defibrillator therapy and not in need of pacing. We aimed at describing the clinical features of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation in our clinical practice, as well as the ICD-related complications and the inappropriate therapies among S-ICD vs. T-ICD recipients during a long-term follow-up. Materials and Methods: All patients undergoing ICD, both S-ICD and TV-ICD, at Monaldi Hospital from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2019 and followed up at our institution were included in the present analysis. The clinical variables associated with S-ICD implantation were evaluated by logistic regression analyses. We collected the ICD inappropriate therapies, ICD-related complications (including both pulse generator and lead-related complications), ICD-related infections, appropriate ICD therapies, and overall mortality. Kaplan-Meier (KM) analyses were performed to assess the risk of clinical outcome events between the two subgroups. A time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed to adjust the results. Results: Total 607 consecutive patients (mean age 53.8 ± 16.8, male 77.8%) with both TV-ICD (n: 290, 47.8%) and S-ICD (n: 317, 52.2%), implanted and followed at our center for a mean follow-up of 1614 ± 1018 days, were included in the study. At multivariate logistic regression analysis, an independent association between S-ICD implantation and ionic channel disease [OR: 6.01 (2.26-15.87); p < 0.0001] and ischemic cardiomyopathy [OR: 0.20 (0.12-0.35); p < 0.0001] was shown. The KM analysis did not show a significantly different risk of the inappropriate ICD therapies (log rank p = 0.64) between the two subgroups; conversely, a significant increase in the risk of ICD-related complications (log rank p = 0.02) and infections (log rank p = 0.02) in TV-ICD group was shown. The adjusted risk for ICD-related infections [OR: 0.07 (0.009-0.55), p = 0.01] and complications [0.31 (0.12-0.81), p = 0.01] was significantly lower among patients with S-ICD. Conclusions: The choice to implant S-ICD was mainly driven by younger age and the presence of ionic channel disease; conversely ischemic cardiomyopathy reduces the probability to use this technology. No significant differences in inappropriate ICD therapies were shown among S-ICD vs. TV-ICD group; moreover, S-ICD is characterized by a lower rate of infectious and non-infectious complications leading to surgical revision or extraction.
RESUMEN
Aim: Remote monitoring (RM) of implantable cardiac devices has enabled continuous surveillance of atrial high rate episodes (AHREs) with well-recognized clinical benefits. We aimed to add evidence on the role of the RM as compared to conventional follow-up by investigating the interval from AHRE onset to physician's evaluation and reaction time in actionable episodes. Methods and Results: A total of 97 dual-chamber pacemaker recipients were followed with RM (RM-ON group; N = 64) or conventional in-office visits (RM-OFF group; N = 33) for 18 months. In-office visits were scheduled at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months in the RM-OFF group and at 1 and 18 months in the RM-ON group. The overall AHRE rate was 1.98 per patient-year (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-2.20) with no difference between the two groups (RM-ON vs. RM-OFF weighted-HR, 0.88; CI, 0.36-2.13; p = .78). In the RM-ON group, 100% AHREs evaluated within 11 days from onset, and within 202 days in the RM-OFF group, with a median evaluation delay 79 days shorter in the RM-ON group versus the RM-OFF group (p < .0001). Therapy adjustment in actionable AHREs occurred 77 days earlier in the RM-ON group versus the control group (p < .001). In the RM-ON group, there were 50% less in-office visits as compared to the RM-OFF group (p < .001). Conclusions: In our pacemaker population with no history of atrial fibrillation, RM allowed significant reduction of AHRE evaluation delay and prompted treatment of actionable episodes as compared to biannual in-office visit schedule.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD. No study has yet compared S-ICD and transvenous ICD by assessing patient acceptance as a patient-centered outcome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patient acceptance of the S-ICD and to investigate its association with clinical and implantation variables. In patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the acceptance of the S-ICD was compared with a control group of patients who received a transvenous ICD. METHODS: Patient acceptance was calculated with the Florida Patient Acceptance Survey (FPAS) which measures four factors: return to function (RTF), device-related distress (DRD), positive appraisal (PA), and body image concerns (BIC). The survey was administered 12 months after implantation. RESULTS: 176 patients underwent S-ICD implantation. The total FPAS and the single factors did not differ according to gender, body habitus, or generator positioning. Patients with HFrEF had lower FPAS and RTF. Younger patients showed better RTF (75 [56-94] vs. 56 [50-81], p = .029). Patients who experienced device complications or device therapies showed higher DRD (40 [35-60] vs. 25 [10-50], p = .019). Patients with HFrEF receiving the S-ICD had comparable FPAS, RTF, DRD, and BIC to HFrEF patients implanted with the transvenous ICD while exhibited significantly better PA (88 [75-100] vs. 81 [63-94], p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed positive patient acceptance of the S-ICD, even in groups at risk of more distress such as women or patients with thinner body habitus, and regardless of the generator positioning. Among patients receiving ICDs for HFrEF, S-ICD was associated with better PA versus transvenous ICD.
Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Desfibriladores Implantables/efectos adversos , Femenino , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/etiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Humanos , Volumen Sistólico , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
In the era of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices infections with concomitant viral infection has not been completely defined yet. In this explorable context, we report the first experience of a Cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation after transvenous lead extraction for endocarditis in a COVID-19 patient. We describe both the measures and procedures implemented to reduce the cross-infection in the operating room and our clinical practice to improving procedure effectiveness on patient care.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Desfibriladores Implantables , Endocarditis , Cardiopatías , Dispositivos de Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Remoción de Dispositivos/métodos , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The traditional technique for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation involves three incisions and a subcutaneous (SC) pocket. An intermuscular (IM) 2-incision technique has been recently adopted. AIMS: We assessed acute defibrillation efficacy (DE) of S-ICD (DE ≤65 J) according to the implantation technique. METHODS: We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent S-ICD implantation and DE testing at 53 Italian centers. Regression analysis was used to determine the association between DFT and implantation technique. RESULTS: A total of 805 patients were enrolled. Four groups were assessed: IM + 2 incisions (n = 546), SC + 2 incisions (n = 133), SC + 3 incisions (n = 111), and IM + 3 incisions (n = 15). DE was ≤65 J in 782 (97.1%) patients. Patients with DE ≤65 J showed a trend towards lower body mass index (25.1 vs. 26.5; p = .12), were less frequently on antiarrhythmic drugs (13% vs. 26%; p = .06) and more commonly underwent implantation with the 2-incision technique (85% vs. 70%; p = .04). The IM + 2-incision technique showed the lowest defibrillation failure rate (2.2%) and shock impedance (66 Ohm, interquartile range: 57-77). On multivariate analysis, the 2-incision technique was associated with a lower incidence of shock failure (hazard ratio: 0.305; 95% confidence interval: 0.102-0.907; p = .033). Shock impedance was lower with the IM than with the SC approach (66 vs. 70 Ohm p = .002) and with the 2-incision than the 3-incision technique (67 vs. 72 Ohm; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of S-ICD patients, we observed a high defibrillation success rate. The IM + 2-incision technique provides lower shock impedance and a higher likelihood of successful defibrillation.
Asunto(s)
Desfibriladores Implantables , Índice de Masa Corporal , Cardioversión Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Impedancia Eléctrica , Humanos , Implantación de Prótesis/efectos adversos , Tejido Subcutáneo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the clinical performance of single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LLPM) in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) as pacing indication. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who underwent single chamber LLPM implantation at three tertiary referral centers and to compare the safety and effectiveness of the single-chamber LLPM among patients with or without AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the consecutive patients who underwent LLPM implantation at three referral centers were analyzed. The indications to LLPM in a real-world setting were described. The study population was divided into two groups according to AF as pacing indication. We assessed the procedure-related complications; moreover, we compared syncope, cardiac hospitalization, pacemaker syndrome, and all-cause death recurrence during the follow-up between patients with and without AF as pacing indication. RESULTS: A total of 140 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.24 years, men 64.3%) were included in the study. The indication to implantation of LLPM was permanent AF with slow ventricular response (n: 67; 47.8%), sinus node dysfunction (n: 25; 17.8%), third atrioventricular block (AVB) (n: 20; 14.2%), second-degree AVB (n: 18; 12.8%), and first degree AVB (n: 10; 7.1%). A total of 7 patients (5%) experienced perioperative complications with no differences between the AF vs. non-AF groups. During a mean follow-up of 606.5 ± 265.9 days, 10 patients (7.7%) died and 7 patients (5.4%) were reported for cardiac hospitalization; 5 patients (3.8%) experienced syncope; no patients showed pacemaker syndrome. No significant differences in the clinical events between the groups were shown. The Kaplan-Meier analysis for the combined endpoints did not show significant differences between the AF and non-AF groups [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41-2.16; p = 0.88]. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data suggest that LLPM may be considered a safe and reasonable treatment in patients without AF in need of pacing. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.
RESUMEN
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a rare disease with a significant impact and an increasing mortality despite earlier diagnosis and surgical intervention. It is related to several and the main etiological agents are the Gram-positive cocci. The new guidelines propose new diagnostic criteria that consider the potentiality on integrated multimodality imaging. Echocardiography (TTE) plays a key role for the diagnosis of IE and must be performed as soon as IE is suspected. It allows to identify vegetation, abscess, new dehiscence of prosthetic valve and assesses the number, size, shape, location, echogenicity and mobility of vegetations so it also useful for prediction embolic risk. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is indicated when TTE is positive or non diagnostic, in case of suspected complications and when intracardiac device leads are present. We underline the increasing role of three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography in overcoming the limit of 2DTEE in selecting the maximum true diameter of irregular masses (ie, vegetation). We also underline the diagnostic value of multislice computed tomograpfy (MSCT), cerebral magnetic resonance (RMI) and nuclear imaging and also emphasize the emerging role of particular types of endocarditis specially Lead Endocarditis. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the imaging techniques useful for the diagnosis and identification of any complications. In our opinion, the management of IE is complex, based on an "Endocarditis team " composed by several specialist and an integrated multimodality imaging is essential for the diagnostic approach.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remote Monitoring (RM) has been introduced for several years and nowadays most pacemakers are equipped with such a technology. RM can provide early detection of high atrial rate episodes (AHREs) onset and enable prompt medical intervention. However, there are still little data on the clinical reactions triggered by the AHRE detected by RM of pacemaker recipients and on their possible benefit on patients' outcome. METHODS/DESIGN: The RAPID study is a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional study designed to compare the time from onset to first physician's evaluation of AHRE episode with arrhythmic burden ≥5% (72 minutes) for pacemaker recipients without atrial fibrillation history, between patients followed with RM or conventionally with annual in-hospital visits. A total of 98 patients with implanted dual-chamber pacemaker, assigned to RM-OFF or RM-ON according to ordinary clinical site practice, will be followed for a total of 18 months. After the implant, patients will perform their first in-hospital follow-up visit at 1 month and then, in the RM-OFF group, patients will perform an in-hospital FU every 6 months, while in the active group, patients will be continuously monitored via RM until study termination. All AHREs and consequent medical interventions will be collected over the entire study period. DISCUSSION: The ongoing RAPID study will provide additional information on the role of RM in the management of AHRE detected in pacemaker patients without documented atrial fibrillation history in ordinary clinical practice.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban is the first novel oral anticoagulant to receive regulatory approval for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients who require cardioversion. The MonaldiVert real life experience showed positive benefit-risk profile of short term rivaroxaban administration for transesophageal echocardiogram guided cardioversion in patients who had not achieved adequate pre-procedural vitamin K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulation. METHODS: Aim of our study was to perform a budget impact analysis of MonaldiVert anticoagulation strategy for direct current cardioversion in NVAF patients and to compare the following costs borne by the Regional Healthcare System (RHS) with those for a hypothetical cohort of identical patients underwent from the beginning to early rivaroxaban treatment before direct current cardioversion. RESULTS: The mean costs per each NVAF patient treated with VKA strategy and rivaroxaban rescue strategy were 134.53 and 189.83, respectively. Considering a hypothetical scenario in which all study population would be treated from the beginning with rivaroxaban (rivaroxaban early strategy), the mean cost per patient would have been 81.11. The total cost borne by the RHS, including the cost of the cardioversion procedure, for the two therapeutic strategies carried out at Monaldi Hospital (VKA strategy and Rivaroxaban rescue strategy) was 88,458.53. The total cost would be borne by the RHS for rivaroxaban early strategy, if applied to all study population, would have been 69,989.15 with a saving of 18,469.38 compared to the actually applied strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban rescue strategy for transesophageal echocardiography guided direct current cardioversion in NVAF patients, who had not achieved adequate pre-procedural VKA anticoagulation, is an effective and safe strategy, which allows to not delay the procedure, reducing times and wastage of cardioversion slots, without substantial costs increase.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial/terapia , Cardioversión Eléctrica/métodos , Rivaroxabán/administración & dosificación , Warfarina/administración & dosificación , Anciano , Anticoagulantes/administración & dosificación , Anticoagulantes/economía , Fibrilación Atrial/economía , Ecocardiografía Transesofágica/métodos , Cardioversión Eléctrica/economía , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores del Factor Xa/economía , Femenino , Humanos , Italia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Rivaroxabán/economía , Warfarina/economíaRESUMEN
Aims: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks are associated with a subsequent increased risk of death, and an elevation of cardiac enzymes has been measured after defibrillation testing (DFT). In an experimental swine study, subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) shocks caused less myocardial damage than traditional ICD shocks. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between S-ICD shock and acute cardiac damage in humans, as evaluated by means of sensitive and highly specific circulating biomarkers. Methods and results: We calculated the variation in the serum levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-CTnI) and creatine kinase-MB mass concentration (CK-MB mass), measured before and after an S-ICD shock delivered during intraoperative DFT. We also measured the degree of haemodynamic stress, as the variation in the serum levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and copeptin (CP), after the S-ICD shock. We analysed 30 consecutive patients who received an S-ICD and who underwent DFT by means of a single 65 J shock. The levels of biomarkers did not change from baseline to 1 h post-shock, i.e. hs-CTnI (from 0.029 ± 0.005 ng/mL to 0.030 ± 0.005 ng/mL, P = 0.079) and CK-MB mass (from 1.37 ± 0.17 ng/mL to 1.41 ± 0.18, P = 0.080) and remained stable 6 and 24 h after DFT. The plasma NT-proBNP did not change, whereas CP levels were significantly higher at 1 h post-shock evaluation. However, 6 h after DFT, the levels had returned to the baseline and remained stable at 24 h. Conclusion: The S-ICD shock did not seem to cause myocardial injuries. Although CP levels temporarily rose after DFT, they returned to basal levels within 6 h, which suggests that DFT does not have long-term prognostic implications. ICD shocks are associated with a subsequent increased risk of death, and an elevation of cardiac enzymes has been measured after DFT. We showed that serum levels of biomarkers of myocardial damage did not increase after high-energy DFT in patients who had undergone S-ICD device implantation. This suggests that S-ICD shock does not have long-term prognostic implications.
Asunto(s)
Forma MB de la Creatina-Quinasa/sangre , Muerte Súbita Cardíaca/prevención & control , Desfibriladores Implantables , Cardioversión Eléctrica/instrumentación , Glicopéptidos/sangre , Lesiones Cardíacas/diagnóstico , Miocardio/enzimología , Péptido Natriurético Encefálico/sangre , Fragmentos de Péptidos/sangre , Troponina I/sangre , Adulto , Biomarcadores/sangre , Muerte Súbita Cardíaca/etiología , Cardioversión Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Femenino , Lesiones Cardíacas/sangre , Lesiones Cardíacas/enzimología , Lesiones Cardíacas/etiología , Hemodinámica , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Miocardio/patología , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices has been demonstrated to improve outpatient clinic workflow and patient management. However, few data are available on the socioeconomic impact of RM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the costs and benefits of RM compared with standard care (SC). METHODS: We used 12-month patient data from the Health Economics Evaluation Registry for Remote Follow-up (TARIFF) study (N = 209; RM: n = 102 (48.81%); SC: n = 107 (51.19%)). Cost comparison was made from 2 perspectives: the health care system (HCS) and patients. The use of health care resources was defined on the basis of hospital clinical folders. Out-of-pocket expenses were reported directly by patients. RESULTS: HCS perspective: The overall mean annual cost per patient in the SC group (1044.89 ± 1990.47) was significantly higher than in the RM group (482.87 ± 2488.10) (P < .0001), with a reduction of 53.87% being achieved in the RM group. The primary driver of cost reduction was the cost of cardiovascular hospitalizations (SC: `886.67 ± 1979.13 vs RM: 432.34 ± 2488.10; P = .0030). Patient and caregiver perspective: The annual cost incurred by patients was significantly higher in the SC group than in the RM group (SC: 169.49 ± 189.50 vs RM: 56.87 ± 80.22; P < .0001). Patients' quality-adjusted life-years were not significantly different between the groups. Provider perspective: The total number of inhospital device follow-up visits was reduced by 58.78% in the RM group. CONCLUSION: RM of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is cost saving from the perspectives of the HCS, patients, and caregivers. Introducing appropriate reimbursements will make RM sustainable even for the provider, i.e. the hospitals which provide the service and encourage widespread adoption of RM.