Literature DB >> 19103654

Potential role of home monitoring to reduce inappropriate shocks in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients due to lead failure.

Sebastian Spencker1, Nalan Coban, Lydia Koch, Alexander Schirdewan, Dirk Müller.   

Abstract

AIMS: Lead dysfunctions in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients can lead to inappropriate shocks or even complete loss of function of the device. Home monitoring (HM) systems are capable of daily data transmissions regarding the device and the lead integrity as well as information concerning anti-arrhythmic therapies. We therefore analysed the data from the Biotronik HM system whether it enables physicians to react quickly on serious ICD malfunctions and to avoid inappropriate shocks. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Fifty-four patients who had to undergo resurgery due to malfunctions of the ICD lead were included. Eleven of them were on HM interrogating the device every night at 3 am. If any adverse event was detected, a fax alert was sent to the clinic and the patients were asked for in-hospital ICD interrogation. The rate of inappropriate shocks and symptomatic pacemaker inhibition due to oversensing was compared with the 43 patients without remote surveillance. HM sent alert messages in 91% of all incidents. All lead failures became obvious because of oversensing of high frequency artefacts. Only in 18%, changes in the pacing impedance were noticed, in all cases preceded by oversensing. Eighty per cent of the patients were asymptomatic at the first onset of oversensing. Only one patient suffered an inappropriate shock as first manifestation of lead failure. Compared with the patients without HM, inappropriate shocks occurred in 27.3% in the HM group vs. 46.5% (P = n.s.). This trend gains statistical significance, if the compound endpoint of symptomatic lead failure consisting of inappropriate shocks and symptomatic pacemaker inhibition due to oversensing is focused: 27.3% event in the HM group vs. 53.4% in the group without HM (P = 0.04). Event messages were despatched in a mean of 54 days after the last ICD interrogation and 56 days before next scheduled visit. Thus, 56 days of reaction time are gained to avoid adverse events.
CONCLUSION: In 91% of all lead-related ICD complications, the diagnosis could be established correctly by an alert of the HM system. Mostly, the first incident sent was oversensing of artefacts, falsely detected as ventricular fibrillation-the VF zone. The automatic HM surveillance system enables physicians to detect severe lead problems early and to react quickly; thus, it might have a potential to avoid inappropriate shocks due to lead failure and T-wave oversensing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19103654     DOI: 10.1093/europace/eun350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Europace        ISSN: 1099-5129            Impact factor:   5.214


  31 in total

1.  ISHNE/EHRA expert consensus on remote monitoring of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

Authors:  Sergio Dubner; Angelo Auricchio; Jonathan S Steinberg; Panos Vardas; Peter Stone; Josep Brugada; Ryszard Piotrowicz; David L Hayes; Paulus Kirchhof; Günter Breithardt; Wojciech Zareba; Claudio Schuger; Mehmet K Aktas; Michal Chudzik; Suneet Mittal; Niraj Varma
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 2.  Strategic choices to reduce implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related morbidity.

Authors:  Oussama Wazni; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  Remote monitoring of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: a Southeast Asian, single-centre pilot study.

Authors:  Paul Chun Yih Lim; Audry Shan Yin Lee; Kelvin Chi Ming Chua; Eric Tien Siang Lim; Daniel Thuan Tee Chong; Boon Yew Tan; Kah Leng Ho; Wee Siong Teo; Chi Keong Ching
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.858

4.  [Home monitoring of an incessant VT in an ICD patient].

Authors:  N Reinsch; D Woydowski; H Schön; M Buddensiek; W Weissenberger; R Erbel; T Konorza
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2010-12-23       Impact factor: 1.443

5.  Impact of in-clinic follow-up visits in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators: demographic and socioeconomic analysis of the TARIFF study population.

Authors:  Renato P Ricci; Alfredo Vicentini; Antonio D'Onofrio; Antonio Sagone; Antonio Vincenti; Luigi Padeletti; Loredana Morichelli; Antonio Fusco; Filippo Vecchione; Francesco Lo Presti; Alessandra Denaro; Annalisa Pollastrelli; Massimo Santini
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-09-21       Impact factor: 1.900

6.  [Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: Is remote monitoring obligatory?].

Authors:  Fritz W Horlbeck; J O Schwab
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-04-22

7.  Can we predict and prevent adverse events related to high-voltage implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure?

Authors:  Renato Pietro Ricci; Carlo Pignalberi; Barbara Magris; Stefano Aquilani; Vito Altamura; Loredana Morichelli; Antonio Porfili; Laura Quarta; Fabio Saputo; Massimo Santini
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  T-wave Oversensing with Inappropriate Therapy in Remote Monitoring.

Authors:  Manuel Frutos; Alonso Pedrote; Eduardo Arana; Juan Sanchez-Brotons
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2010-06-05

9.  Contributions of remote monitoring to the follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads under advisory.

Authors:  Laurence Guédon-Moreau; Philippe Chevalier; Christelle Marquié; Claude Kouakam; Didier Klug; Dominique Lacroix; Francois Brigadeau; Salem Kacet
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 29.983

10.  [Telemedicine in pacemaker therapy and follow-up].

Authors:  A Schuchert
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2009-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.