Philipp Lacour1, Claas Buschmann2, Christian Storm3, Jens Nee3, Abdul Shokor Parwani1, Martin Huemer1, Philipp Attanasio1, Leif-Hendrik Boldt1, Geraldine Rauch4, Andreas Kucher5, Burkert Pieske1, Wilhelm Haverkamp1, Florian Blaschke6. 1. Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Cardiology (P.L., A.S.P., M.H., P.A., L.-H.B., B.P., W.H., F.B.). 2. Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Germany. Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Campus Mitte, Germany (C.B.). 3. Department of Nephrology and Intensive Care Medicine (C.S., J.N.). 4. Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology, Germany (G.R.). 5. Biotronik, Berlin, Germany (A.K.). 6. Charité-Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Department of Cardiology (P.L., A.S.P., M.H., P.A., L.-H.B., B.P., W.H., F.B.) florian.blaschke@charite.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postmortem interrogations of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), recommended at autopsy in suspected cases of sudden cardiac death, are rarely performed, and data on systematic postmortem CIED analysis in the forensic pathology are missing. The aim of the study was to determine whether nonselective postmortem CIED interrogations and data analysis are useful to the forensic pathologist to determine the cause, mechanism, and time of death and to detect potential CIED-related safety issues. METHODS: From February 2012 to April 2017, all autopsy subjects in the department of forensic medicine at the University Hospital Charité who had a CIED underwent device removal and interrogation. Over the study period, 5368 autopsies were performed. One hundred fifty subjects had in total 151 CIEDs, including 109 pacemakers, 35 defibrillators, and 7 implantable loop recorders. RESULTS: In 40 cases (26.7%) time of death and in 51 cases (34.0%) cause of death could not be determined by forensic autopsy. Of these, CIED interrogation facilitated the determination of time of death in 70.0% of the cases and clarified the cause of death in 60.8%. Device concerns were identified in 9 cases (6.0%), including 3 hardware, 4 programming, and 2 algorithm issues. One CIED was submitted to the manufacturer for a detailed technical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the necessity of systematic postmortem CIED interrogation in forensic medicine to determine the cause and timing of death more accurately. In addition, CIED analysis is an important tool to detect potential CIED-related safety issues.
BACKGROUND: Postmortem interrogations of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), recommended at autopsy in suspected cases of sudden cardiac death, are rarely performed, and data on systematic postmortem CIED analysis in the forensic pathology are missing. The aim of the study was to determine whether nonselective postmortem CIED interrogations and data analysis are useful to the forensic pathologist to determine the cause, mechanism, and time of death and to detect potential CIED-related safety issues. METHODS: From February 2012 to April 2017, all autopsy subjects in the department of forensic medicine at the University Hospital Charité who had a CIED underwent device removal and interrogation. Over the study period, 5368 autopsies were performed. One hundred fifty subjects had in total 151 CIEDs, including 109 pacemakers, 35 defibrillators, and 7 implantable loop recorders. RESULTS: In 40 cases (26.7%) time of death and in 51 cases (34.0%) cause of death could not be determined by forensic autopsy. Of these, CIED interrogation facilitated the determination of time of death in 70.0% of the cases and clarified the cause of death in 60.8%. Device concerns were identified in 9 cases (6.0%), including 3 hardware, 4 programming, and 2 algorithm issues. One CIED was submitted to the manufacturer for a detailed technical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate the necessity of systematic postmortem CIED interrogation in forensic medicine to determine the cause and timing of death more accurately. In addition, CIED analysis is an important tool to detect potential CIED-related safety issues.
Authors: Martin K Stiles; Arthur A M Wilde; Dominic J Abrams; Michael J Ackerman; Christine M Albert; Elijah R Behr; Sumeet S Chugh; Martina C Cornel; Karen Gardner; Jodie Ingles; Cynthia A James; Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang; Stefan Kääb; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Heather MacLeod; Carlos A Morillo; Koonlawee Nademanee; Vincent Probst; Elizabeth V Saarel; Luciana Sacilotto; Christopher Semsarian; Mary N Sheppard; Wataru Shimizu; Jonathan R Skinner; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Dao Wu Wang Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Martin K Stiles; Arthur A M Wilde; Dominic J Abrams; Michael J Ackerman; Christine M Albert; Elijah R Behr; Sumeet S Chugh; Martina C Cornel; Karen Gardner; Jodie Ingles; Cynthia A James; Jyh-Ming Jimmy Juang; Stefan Kääb; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Heather MacLeod; Carlos A Morillo; Koonlawee Nademanee; Vincent Probst; Elizabeth V Saarel; Luciana Sacilotto; Christopher Semsarian; Mary N Sheppard; Wataru Shimizu; Jonathan R Skinner; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen; Dao Wu Wang Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2021-04-08