Determination of time of death by blinded post-mortem interrogation of cardiac implantable electrical devices.

Postmortal interrogation of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIED) may contribute to the determination of time of death in forensic medicine. Recent studies aimed to improve estimation of time of death by combining findings from autopsy, CIED interrogation and patients´ medical history. CIED from deceased undergoing forensic autopsy were included, if time of death remained unclear after forensic assessment. CIED explanted from deceased with known time of death were analysed as a control cohort. CIED were sent to our device interrogation lab and underwent analysis blinded for autopsy findings, medical history and police reports. The accuracy of time of death determination and the accuracy of time of death in the control cohort served as primary outcome. A total of 87 CIED were analysed. The determination of time of death was possible in 54 CIED (62%, CI 52-72%). The accuracy of the estimated time of death was 92.3% in the control cohort. Certain CIED type and manufacturers were associated with more successful determination. Blinded postmortal analysis enables a valid determination of the time of death in the majority of CIED. Analysis of explanted CIED in a cardiological core lab is feasible and should be implemented in forensic medicine.

Permanent pacemaker dependency in patients with new left bundle branch block and new first degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Conduction disorders with need for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation remain frequent complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Up to 22% of PPM after TAVI are implanted for new onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrioventricular block (AVB) I. However, clinical benefit and predictors of ventricular pacing in TAVI patients receiving PPM for this indication remain unclear. We retrospectively evaluated pacemaker interrogation data of patients who received a PPM post TAVI for new LBBB and new AVB I. The primary endpoint of this study was relevant ventricular pacing (ventricular pacing rate: Vp ≥ 1%) at the first outpatient pacemaker interrogation. Secondary endpoints were predictors for relevant ventricular pacing. At the first pacemaker interrogation (median follow up at 6.23 [2.8-14.8] months), median ventricular pacing frequency was 1.0% [0.1-17.8]. Out of 61 patients, 36 (59%) had Vp rates ≥ 1%. Patients with frequent ventricular pacing showed longer QRS duration (155 ms ± 17 ms vs. 144 ms ± 18 ms, p = 0.018) at the time of PPM implantation and were less likely treated with a balloon-expandable Edwards Sapiens Valve (39% vs. 12%, p = 0.040). Our findings suggest that the majority of patients with new LBBB and new AVB I after TAVI show relevant ventricular pacing rates at follow up. Further prospective studies are necessary to identify patients at higher risk of pacemaker dependency.

Survival after left ventricular assist device implantation correlates with a novel device-based measure of heart rate variability: the heart rate score.

OBJECTIVES: The heart rate score (HRS) serves as a device-based measure of impaired heart rate variability and is an independent predictor of death in patients with heart failure and a cardiac implantable electrical device. However, no data are available for predicting death from the HRS in patients with end stage heart failure and a left ventricular assist device. METHODS: From November 2011 to July 2018, a total of 56 patients with a pre-existing cardiac implantable electrical device underwent left ventricular assist device implantation at our 2 study sites. The ventricular HRS was calculated retrospectively during the first cardiac implantable electrical device follow-up examination following the index hospitalization. Survival during follow-up was correlated with initial HRS. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 46.4% of the patients (n = 26) died. The median follow-up period was 33.2 months. The median HRS after the index hospitalization was 41.1 ± 21.8%. More patients with an HRS >65% died compared to patients with an HRS <30% (76.9% vs 14.4%; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In our multicentre experience, survival of patients after an left ventricular assist device implant correlates with the HRS. After confirmation of our findings in a larger cohort, the effect of rate-responsive pacing will be within the scope of further investigation.

Magnetic endoscope imaging for routine colonoscopy: impact on propofol dosage and patient safety - a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: The use of magnetic endoscope imaging (MEI) has been previously shown to facilitate colonoscopy procedures. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of MEI in terms of reduction in propofol dosage in patients undergoing routine colonoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a randomized prospective trial in a university hospital in Germany. Endoscopists were randomly assigned 1:1 to use MEI during colonoscopy (MEI arm) or to conduct colonoscopy without the use of MEI (standard arm). The desired level of sedation was conscious sedation as assessed using the Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scores. After complete recovery, patient satisfaction was assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 1 to 10 points. The primary outcome was total propofol dosage. Secondary outcome measures were patient satisfaction, patients' cooperation, and complication rates, as well as cecal intubation time and adenoma detection. RESULTS: Among 334 randomized patients, no severe adverse events were observed. Median propofol dosage was significantly lower in the MEI arm compared with the standard arm (150 mg vs. 180 mg; P = 0.04). Deep sedation was observed in 7.8 % of patients in the MEI group and 3.6 % in the standard arm (P = 0.10). Patient satisfaction scores were higher in the MEI arm compared with standard procedures (9.0 vs. 8.5; P = 0.04). No significant differences in patients' cooperation, cecal intubation time, and adenoma detection were observed between the study arms. CONCLUSION: The use of MEI may be useful in reducing propofol dosage for colonoscopy and improving patient satisfaction.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02121704.