External cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter in patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation and flutter are often treated with external electrical cardioversion (ECV) in patients with potentially electrically sensitive cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Long-term follow-up data on contemporary CIED undergoing ECV is sparse. The aim is to investigate shock-related complications and impact on CIEDs. METHODS: All ECV procedures from 2010 to 2020 in patients with CIED performed at a tertiary university hospital were identified in the Danish National Patient Registry. Changes in device measurements after ECV were retrospectively studied and procedure-related complications were identified by review of medical records. RESULTS: We analyzed 763 ECV procedures in 372 patients, median device implant time 1.9 years. The mean age of patients was 69.9 ± 9.9 years of which 73.4% were men. We identified two cases of device programming changes and four cases of premature battery depletion (≤3 years after device implant). Minor changes in device measurements were found for impedances, sensing, and pacing thresholds. No patients died due to ECV-related device dysfunctions within the first 12 months after cardioversions. CONCLUSION: External cardioversion in patients with contemporary pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators seems safe in the majority of patients. Clinically important changes in device function following cardioversion were rarely observed but may be critical for device function. In an observational study, causality between cardioversion and device dysfunction cannot be established. For patient safety, we suggest that routine device interrogation after cardioversion still should be part of standard care.

Long-term follow-up of abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads: a nationwide cohort study.

AIMS: Commonly, a dysfunctional defibrillator lead is abandoned and a new lead is implanted. Long-term follow-up data on abandoned leads are sparse. We aimed to investigate the incidence and reasons for extraction of abandoned defibrillator leads in a nationwide cohort and to describe extraction procedure-related complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: All abandoned transvenous defibrillator leads were identified in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register from 1991 to 2019. The event-free survival of abandoned defibrillator leads was studied, and medical records of patients with interventions on abandoned defibrillator leads were audited for procedure-related data. We identified 740 abandoned defibrillator leads. Meantime from implantation to abandonment was 7.2 ± 3.8 years with mean patient age at abandonment of 66.5 ± 13.7 years. During a mean follow-up after abandonment of 4.4 ± 3.1 years, 65 (8.8%) abandoned defibrillator leads were extracted. Most frequent reason for extraction was infection (pocket and systemic) in 41 (63%) patients. Procedural outcome after lead extraction was clinical success in 63 (97%) patients. Minor complications occurred in 3 (5%) patients, and major complications in 1 (2%) patient. No patient died from complication to the procedure during 30-day follow-up after extraction. CONCLUSION: More than 90% of abandoned defibrillator leads do not need to be extracted during long-term follow-up. The most common indication for extraction is infection. Abandoned defibrillator leads can be extracted with high clinical success rate and low risk of major complications at high-volume centres.

Long-term risk of cardiovascular implantable electronic device reinterventions following external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter: A nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND: External cardioversion (ECV) is an essential part of rhythm control of atrial fibrillation and flutter in patients with and without cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Long-term follow-up data on ECV-related CIED dysfunctions are limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of CIED reintervention following ECV in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: We identified CIED implants and surgical reinterventions from 2005 to 2021 in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. We included CIED patients undergoing ECV from 2010 to 2019 from the Danish National Patient Registry. For each ECV-exposed generator, 5 matched generators without ECV were identified, and for each ECV-exposed lead, 3 matched leads were identified. The primary endpoints were generator replacement and lead reintervention. RESULTS: We compared 2582 ECV-exposed patients with 12,910 matched patients with a pacemaker (47%), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (29%), cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (6%), or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (18%). During 2 years of follow-up, 210 ECV-exposed generators (8.1%) vs 670 matched generators (5.2%) underwent replacements, and 247 ECV-exposed leads (5.6%) vs 306 matched leads (2.3%) underwent reintervention. Unadjusted hazard ratios were 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.91; P <.001) for generator replacement and 2.39 (95% CI 2.01-2.85; P <.001) for lead reintervention. One-year relative risks were 1.73 (95% CI 1.41-2.12; P <.001) for generator replacement and 2.85 (95% CI 2.32-3.51; P <.001) for lead reintervention, and 2-year relative risks were 1.39 (95% CI 1.19-1.63; P <.001) and 2.18 (95% CI 1.84-2.57; P <.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: ECV in patients with a CIED is associated with a higher risk of generator replacement and lead reintervention. The risks of reinterventions were more pronounced within the first year after cardioversion.