Physical Activity, Heart Rate Variability, and Ventricular Arrhythmia During the COVID-19 Lockdown: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) increase with stress and national disasters. Prior research has reported that VA did not increase during the onset of the COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020, and the mechanism for this is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the presence of VA and changes in 2 factors associated with VA (physical activity and heart rate variability [HRV]) at the onset of COVID-19 lockdown measures in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) followed at a regional cardiac center in Ontario, Canada with data available for both HRV and physical activity between March 1 and 31, 2020, were included. HRV, physical activity, and the presence of VA were determined during the pre- (March 1-10, 2020) and immediate postlockdown (March 11-31) period. When available, these data were determined for the same period in 2019. RESULTS: In total, 68 patients had complete data for 2020, and 40 patients had complete data for 2019. Three (7.5%) patients had VA in March 2019, whereas none had VA in March 2020 (P=.048). Physical activity was reduced during the postlockdown period (mean 2.3, SD 1.6 hours vs mean 2.1, SD 1.6 hours; P=.003). HRV was unchanged during the pre- and postlockdown period (mean 91, SD 30 ms vs mean 92, SD 28 ms; P=.84). CONCLUSIONS: VA was infrequent during the COVID-19 pandemic. A reduction in physical activity with lockdown maneuvers may explain this observation.

The Natural History and Treatment of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Associated Pneumothorax-A 10-Year Single-Centre Experience.

BACKGROUND: Pneumothorax is a common complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures. There is a paucity of data on the natural history and management of a CIED-associated pneumothorax. METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective study of all consecutive patients with a CIED-associated pneumothorax between March 2010 and March 2020. Pneumothorax size was determined on all chest x-rays after device implantation and before chest tube insertion (if placed). Changes in pneumothorax size on serial chest x-rays were reported. Clinical outcomes in patients with a severe-sized pneumothorax treated with a chest tube were compared with those treated conservatively. RESULTS: A total of 86 CIED-associated pneumothoraxes were identified, with 55 (63.9%) patients having a pneumothorax severe in size. Thirty-seven patients with a severe pneumothorax received a chest tube, whereas 18 were managed conservatively. Chest tube use was associated with a higher rate of admission to hospital (100% vs 63%, P = 0.02) for patients undergoing outpatient procedure, longer length of stay (6.3 ± 3.9 vs 2.7 ± 2.9 days, P = 0.04), but fewer chest x-rays (1.9 ± 0.7 vs 4.1 ± 2.5, P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: An initial strategy of conservative management of a CIED-associated pneumothorax in select patients may be feasible and safe.

CONTEXTE: Le pneumothorax est une complication courante des interventions visant à mettre en place un dispositif cardiaque électronique implantable (DCEI). Il n'existe que très peu de données sur l'évolution naturelle et la prise en charge du pneumothorax lié à la pose d'un DCEI. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons étudié rétrospectivement les cas de patients ayant présenté un pneumothorax lié à un DCEI et traités consécutivement dans un même centre entre mars 2010 et mars 2020. La taille du pneumothorax a été déterminée dans toutes les cradiographies pulmonaires obtenues après la pose du DCEI et avant l'insertion d'un drain thoracique (le cas échéant). Les variations de la taille du pneumothorax mesurée sur les radiographies pulmonaires successives ont été rapportées. Les résultats cliniques observés chez les patients présentant un pneumothorax important traités par drainage thoracique ont été comparés à ceux de patients traités selon l'approche classique. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 86 cas de pneumothorax liés à un DCEI ont été relevés; 55 patients (63,9 %) présentaient un pneumothorax important. De ce nombre, 37 patients ont subi un drainage thoracique, tandis que les 18 autres ont été pris en charge selon l'approche classique. Le recours à un drain thoracique a été associé à un taux d'admission à l'hôpital plus élevé (100 % vs 63 %; p = 0,02) dans le cas des interventions ambulatoires et à une hospitalisation plus longue (6,3 ± 3,9 vs 2,7 ± 2,9 jours; p = 0,04), mais à un moins grand nombre de radiographies pulmonaires (1,9 ± 0,7 vs 4,1 ± 2,5; p = 0,002). CONCLUSION: Dans certains cas, il est possible et sûr d'avoir recours à une prise en charge initiale classique du pneumothorax lié à un DCEI.

Assessment of Radiation-Induced Malfunction in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is a standard cancer treatment modality, and an increasing number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being referred for RT. The goals of this study were as follows: (i) to determine the incidence of CIED malfunction following RT; (ii) to characterize the various types of malfunctions that occur; and (iii) to identify risk factors associated with CIED malfunction following RT. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with CIEDs who received RT between 2007 and 2018 at 4 Canadian centres (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, and University of Ottawa Heart Institute) was conducted. Patients underwent CIED interrogation after completion of RT, to assess for late damage to the CIEDs. Data on demographics, devices, and RT were compared for the primary outcome of device malfunction. RESULTS: Of 1041 patients with CIEDs who received RT, 811 patients with complete data were included. Device malfunctions occurred in 32 of 811 patients (4%). The most common device malfunctions were reduced ventricular/atrial sensing (in 13 of 32 [41%]), an increase in lead threshold (in 9 of 32 [22%]), lead noise (in 5 of 32 [16%]), and electrical reset (in 2 of 32 [6%]). Higher beam energy (≥ 10 MV) was associated with malfunction (P < 0.0001). Radiation dose was not significantly different between the malfunction and non-malfunction groups (58.3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectively, P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Although RT-induced CIED malfunctions are rare (occurring in 4% of patients with a CIED who undergo RT), collaborative efforts between radiation oncologists and cardiac rhythm device clinics to optimize CIED monitoring are needed, to detect and manage CIED malfunctions. Malfunctions are more common in patients receiving higher-beam energy ( ≥ 10 MV ) RT.

CONTEXTE: La radiothérapie (RT) est une modalité standard de traitement du cancer, et un nombre croissant de patients porteurs de dispositifs cardiaques électroniques implantables (DCEI) doivent recevoir un traitement de RT. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient les suivants : (i) déterminer l'incidence d'une défaillance du DCEI après une RT; (ii) caractériser les différents types de défaillances qui se produisent; (iii) déterminer les facteurs de risque associés à la défaillance du DCEI après une RT. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une étude rétrospective des patients avec un DCEI ayant reçu une RT entre 2007 et 2018 dans quatre centres canadiens (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre et Institut de cardiologie de l'Université d'Ottawa) a été menée. Le DCEI des patients a été interrogé après la fin de la RT, pour en évaluer les dommages tardifs. Les données sur les caractéristiques démographiques, les dispositifs et la RT ont été comparées pour le paramètre d'évaluation principal, soit la défaillance du dispositif. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1 041 patients avec un DCEI ayant reçu une RT, 811 patients avec des données complètes ont été inclus. Des défaillances du dispositif sont survenues chez 32 des 811 patients (4 %). Les défaillances les plus fréquentes du dispositif étaient une détection ventriculaire/atriale réduite (chez 13 des 32 patients [41 %]), une augmentation du seuil de la sonde (chez 9 des 32 patients [22 %]), un bruit provenant de la sonde (chez 5 des 32 patients [16 %]) et une réinitialisation électrique (chez 2 des 32 patients [6 %]). Une énergie de faisceau plus élevée (≥ 10 MV) était associée à une défaillance (p < 0,0001). La dose de rayonnement ne présentait pas de différence significative entre le groupe où une défaillance a été constatée et l'autre groupe (58,3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectivement, p = 0,71). CONCLUSIONS: Bien que les défaillances du DCEI causées par la RT soient rares (survenant chez 4 % des patients avec un DCEI qui subissent une RT), une collaboration est nécessaire entre les radio-oncologues et les cliniques de dispositifs de gestion du rythme cardiaque, afin d'optimiser la surveillance du DCEI et de détecter et de gérer ces défaillances. Les défaillances sont plus fréquentes chez les patients recevant une énergie de faisceau plus élevée au moment de la RT ( ≥ 10 MV ) .

Discussions on Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Deactivation in Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy: A Missed Opportunity.

Established guidelines discuss end-of-life care in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). It is not known how frequently these discussions take place in patients who have ICDs and are receiving active treatment for cancer. Chart review from a large regional cardiac and cancer center from 2005 to 2019 highlighted that discussions on ICD deactivation were infrequent (28% of patients). Receipt of a palliative care consultation increased the likelihood of patients having discussions on ICD deactivation during this time. Collaboration with palliative care teams may facilitate discussions on ICD deactivation during this opportune time.

Quality dying: An approach to ICD deactivation in the hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, cardiovascular disease is the second most common cause of death. A subset of these patients will require a cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). An estimated 200 000 Canadians are living with a CIED. CIEDs can improve life and prevent premature death. However, when patients reach the end of their lives, they can pose a challenge. An example of which is a painful shock delivered from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for an arrhythmia in a dying patient. Receiving a shock at the end of life (EOL) is unacceptable in an age when we aim to ease the suffering of the dying and allow for a comfortable death. METHODS: As a quality standard of practice, all clinicians are expected to engage in EOL conversations in patients requiring CIED deactivation. Due to the potential discomfort of an ICD shock, specific conversations about deactivation of an ICD are encouraged. A process improvement approach was developed by our hospital that included an advance care planning simulation lab, electronic documentation and a standardized comfort measures order set that includes addressing the need for ICD deactivation at EOL. RESULTS: EOL conversations are complex. Health care providers have been equally challenged to have conversations about ICD deactivation. Standardization of the process of ICD deactivation ensures an approach to EOL which respects the individuality of patients and promotes quality dying. CONCLUSION: Our hospital is committed to assisting clinicians to provide quality care by improving conversations about EOL care. On the basis of a synthesis of existing literature, we describe the importance of and the ideal process for having EOL conversations in patients about ICD deactivation at the EOL.

An "UninTENSional" Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator Shock.

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) (S-ICDs) are advantageous because they eliminate the need for transvenous leads. However, just like in the case of traditional ICDs, inappropriate shocks are an unwanted complication that may result following their placement. In this case, we discuss the mechanism of an inappropriate shock in a patient with an S-ICD.

Barriers to Influenza Vaccination in Patients with Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated a reduction of cardiovascular events in patients who receive the annual influenza vaccine. Despite recommendations from cardiovascular societies, influenza vaccination remains suboptimal in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) population. Barriers to receiving the influenza vaccination have not been explored. PURPOSE: To evaluate the barriers to receiving the influenza vaccine in patients with ICDs. DESIGN: Exploratory descriptive design using a survey developed by the staff of the ICD clinic. PROCEDURE: A pilot study was conducted as part of a quality initiative of ICD patients at a regional cardiac centre. These patients were approached to participate in a one-page survey assessing barriers to receipt of the influenza vaccination. Predictors of vaccination were determined using multivariate logistic regression. FINDINGS: Of the 229 patients who completed the survey between September 1 and November 31, 2011, 78% of the patients received the influenza vaccine. The only factor independently associated with influenza vaccination was a positive patient attitude toward the safety of influenza vaccination. Easier access to the influenza vaccination was not associated with its receipt. CONCLUSION: A positive patient attitude toward the influenza vaccine is associated with its use. ICD clinic practitioners may have an opportunity to explore any misconceptions toward the influenza vaccine at each clinic visit in hope of increasing its receipt. Given the importance of this vaccination, future studies are recommended.

Prevention of death in chronic kidney disease: the role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Cardiac arrhythmia is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (McCullough & Sandberg, 2004). The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to decrease mortality of patients with cardiac arrhythmias, yet CKD patients are usually excluded from clinical trials. This article discusses the ICD as it relates to CKD patients, including care of the patient and possible complications that can be encountered.