Management of radiation therapy patients with cardiac defibrillator or pacemaker.

The increasing growth of population with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as Pacemaker (PM) and Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICD), requires particular attention in management of patients needing radiation treatment. This paper updates and summarizes some recommendations from different international guidelines. Ionizing radiation and/or electromagnetic interferences could cause device failure. Current approaches to treatment in patients who have these devices vary among radiation oncology centres. We refer to the German Society of Radiation Oncology and Cardiology guidelines (ed. 2015); to the Society of Cardiology Australia and New Zealand Statement (ed. 2015); to the guidelines in force in the Netherlands (ed. 2012) and to the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology recommendations (ed. 2013) as reported in the guidelines for the treatment of breast cancer in patients with CIED. Although there is not a clear cut-off point, risk of device failure increases with increasing doses. Cumulative dose and pacing dependency have been combined to categorize patients into low-, medium- and high-risk groups. Measures to secure patient safety are described for each category. The use of energy ≤6MV is preferable and it's strongly recommended not to exceed a total dose of 2 Gy to the PM and 1 Gy for ICD. Given the dangers of device malfunction, radiation oncology departments should adopt all the measures designed to minimize the risk to patients. For this reason, a close collaboration between cardiologist, radiotherapist and physicist is necessary.

Implant and long-term evaluation of atrial signal amplification in a single-lead ICD.

BACKGROUND: In patients without clinical indications for pacing the use of a single-lead implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implementing atrial sensing capability with proper signal amplification management may represent a useful therapeutic option, combining the positive features of both single and dual-chamber devices. The aim of the study was to evaluate the atrial signal amplification and its long-term stability in a single-lead ICD system adding atrial sensing to a standard single-chamber ICD. METHODS: P-wave amplitudes were collected and compared at implant both with a conventional external device ("unfiltered" P wave) and telemetrically with the implanted ICD ("filtered" P wave). Filtered/unfiltered P-wave ratio (amplification factor, AmF) was evaluated at implant and during follow-up. RESULTS: In 43 enrolled patients (38 men, age 64 ± 16 years), the mean filtered P wave at implant was significantly higher than the unfiltered P wave (3.85 ± 0.81 mV vs 2.0 ± 1.49 mV; P < 10(-11) ), with a mean AmF value of 2.77 ± 1.62. In seven patients with atrial fibrillation at implant, the AmF was higher (4.62 ± 1.94) than in patients in sinus rhythm (2.41 ± 1.30; P < 0.001). A significant linear correlation was found between the inverse of P wave and the AmF (R = 0.82, P < 0.00001). In 25 patients followed for 384 ± 244 days, atrial undersensing was never documented and AmF did not change from implant (3.19 ± 1.82; P = 0.24), also in different body position and breathing conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The single-lead ICD system evaluated reliably amplified P-wave amplitudes by a factor of about three, maintaining this performance during the observed follow-up.