BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) has been advocated as the new standard of care for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). RM has allowed the early detection of adverse clinical events, such as arrhythmia, lead failure, and battery depletion. However, lead failure was often identified only by arrhythmic events, but not impedance abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: To compare the usefulness of arrhythmic events with conventional impedance abnormalities for identifying lead failure in CIED patients followed by RM. METHODS: CIED patients in 12 hospitals have been followed by the RM center in Okayama University Hospital. All transmitted data have been analyzed and summarized. RESULTS: From April 2009 to March 2016, 1,873 patients have been followed by the RM center. During the mean follow-up period of 775 days, 42 lead failure events (atrial lead 22, right ventricular pacemaker lead 5, implantable cardioverter defibrillator [ICD] lead 15) were detected. The proportion of lead failures detected only by arrhythmic events, which were not detected by conventional impedance abnormalities, was significantly higher than that detected by impedance abnormalities (arrhythmic event 76.2%, 95% CI: 60.5-87.9%; impedance abnormalities 23.8%, 95% CI: 12.1-39.5%). Twenty-seven events (64.7%) were detected without any alert. Of 15 patients with ICD lead failure, none has experienced inappropriate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: RM can detect lead failure earlier, before clinical adverse events. However, CIEDs often diagnose lead failure as just arrhythmic events without any warning. Thus, to detect lead failure earlier, careful human analysis of arrhythmic events is useful.
BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) has been advocated as the new standard of care for patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). RM has allowed the early detection of adverse clinical events, such as arrhythmia, lead failure, and battery depletion. However, lead failure was often identified only by arrhythmic events, but not impedance abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: To compare the usefulness of arrhythmic events with conventional impedance abnormalities for identifying lead failure in CIED patients followed by RM. METHODS: CIED patients in 12 hospitals have been followed by the RM center in Okayama University Hospital. All transmitted data have been analyzed and summarized. RESULTS: From April 2009 to March 2016, 1,873 patients have been followed by the RM center. During the mean follow-up period of 775 days, 42 lead failure events (atrial lead 22, right ventricular pacemaker lead 5, implantable cardioverter defibrillator [ICD] lead 15) were detected. The proportion of lead failures detected only by arrhythmic events, which were not detected by conventional impedance abnormalities, was significantly higher than that detected by impedance abnormalities (arrhythmic event 76.2%, 95% CI: 60.5-87.9%; impedance abnormalities 23.8%, 95% CI: 12.1-39.5%). Twenty-seven events (64.7%) were detected without any alert. Of 15 patients with ICD lead failure, none has experienced inappropriate therapy. CONCLUSIONS: RM can detect lead failure earlier, before clinical adverse events. However, CIEDs often diagnose lead failure as just arrhythmic events without any warning. Thus, to detect lead failure earlier, careful human analysis of arrhythmic events is useful.
Authors: Maully J Shah; Michael J Silka; Jennifer N Avari Silva; Seshadri Balaji; Cheyenne M Beach; Monica N Benjamin; Charles I Berul; Bryan Cannon; Frank Cecchin; Mitchell I Cohen; Aarti S Dalal; Brynn E Dechert; Anne Foster; Roman Gebauer; M Cecilia Gonzalez Corcia; Prince J Kannankeril; Peter P Karpawich; Jeffery J Kim; Mani Ram Krishna; Peter Kubuš; Martin J LaPage; Douglas Y Mah; Lindsey Malloy-Walton; Aya Miyazaki; Kara S Motonaga; Mary C Niu; Melissa Olen; Thomas Paul; Eric Rosenthal; Elizabeth V Saarel; Massimo Stefano Silvetti; Elizabeth A Stephenson; Reina B Tan; John Triedman; Nicholas H Von Bergen; Philip L Wackel Journal: Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J Date: 2021-07-29