"Real-world" analysis of battery longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: an in-depth analysis of a prospective defibrillator database.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of evidence regarding contemporary implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) battery longevity. Our aim was to assess battery longevity in ICDs in a real-world setting. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional single center study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation from January 2010 to December 2015. Clinical data and battery longevity of all manufacturers were collected. RESULTS: A total of 351 patients (84.6% males, mean age of 61 ± 12 years) were included in the study (292 VVI; 6 VDD; 53 DDD). All manufacturers (Abbott, Biotronik, Boston, Medtronic and Microport) were equally represented in the study (p = 0.110). Median battery longevity was 10.8 years (11 years for VVI and 8.5 for DDD). After a follow-up time of 5 years, 98% of VVI and DDD were still in service (vs. industry-projected longevity of 98%). During this time, 89 patients (25.4%) underwent device replacement - 69 patients (77.5%) due to battery depletion, 6 patients due to infection, 3 patients due to dysfunction and 13 patients due to upgrade to CRT-D. Patients with Medtronic or Biotronik ICDs had a greater probability of being replaced earlier due to battery depletion (Biotronik HR 6.87, 95% CI 2.54-18.58, p < 0.001; Medtronic HR 6.08, 95% CI 2.45-15.06 p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: VVI and DDD ICD battery longevity matched industry-projected longevity after 5 years of follow-up. Medtronic and Biotronik ICDs appeared to have an earlier battery depletion. Further randomized studies are required to ensure optimal care.

Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown in urgent pacemaker implantations: A cross-sectional study.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a decrease in patients' follow-up and interventions with cardiovascular disease. In Portugal, the consequences on emergent pacemaker implantation rates are largely unknown. We sought to analyze the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on emergent pacemaker implantation rate and patient profile. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical profile of the 180 patients who had pacemakers implanted in our hospital in an emergent setting from March 18, 2020, to May 17, 2020 ("lockdown") and May 19 to July 17, 2020 ("postlockdown"). This data was then directly compared to the homologous periods from the year before. RESULTS: Urgent pacemaker implantation rates during "lockdown" was lower than its homologous period (-23.7%), and cases in "postlockdown" were significantly increased (+106.9% vs. "lockdown"; +13.2% vs. May-July 2019).When comparing "lockdown" and "postlockdown," there was a tendency for a higher number of temporary pacemaker use (p = .076). Patients during "lockdown" were 7.57 times more likely to present with hypotension/shock (odds ratio 7.57; p = .013). We also noted a higher tendency for hypotension on presentation during "lockdown" (p = .054) in comparison to 2019. In comparison to its homologous 2019 period, "postlockdown" saw more patients presenting with bradycardia (p = .026). No patients were admitted to the emergency department during "lockdown" for anomalies detected on ambulatory tests. CONCLUSION: Our data show that the COVID-19 pandemic had a real impact on urgent pacemaker implantation. Patients with bradyarrhythmias are at particular risk for severe complications and should seek medical care regardless of the pandemic.

Unsafe Drug Use and Arrhythmic Events in Brugada Patients with ICD: Results of a Long-Term Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: Brugada syndrome is a hereditary disease linked with an increased risk of sudden death that may require an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in order to halt the arrhythmic events. The aim of this study was to identify possible triggers for appropriate ICD therapies in patients with Brugada syndrome, focusing on their past and current therapeutic profiles. METHODS: Thirty patients with high-risk Brugada syndrome, with ICD implanted at the Coimbra Hospital and University Center, were enrolled. Patients were questioned about their Brugada syndrome history, previous cardiac events, comorbidities, present and past medications, and physical activity. Patients were followed up during 5.8 ± 5.3 years. The ICD was interrogated, and arrhythmic events and device therapies were recorded. The cohort who received appropriate ICD therapies was compared with the remaining patients to determine the potential link between clinical variables and potentially fatal arrhythmic events. RESULTS: More than half of the patients (53.3%) took at least one non-recommended drug, and 16.7% received appropriate ICD therapies, with a long-term rate of 4.0%/year. There was a tendency for more appropriate ICD therapies in patients who took unsafe drugs (85.7 versus 45.5%, p = 0.062), and the mean time between unsafe drug intake and appropriate ICD therapies was 3.8 ± 7.5 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that the medical community is still unaware of the pharmacological restrictions imposed by Brugada syndrome. Patients who took non-recommended drugs seem to have a higher risk of ventricular arrhythmic events.