Patient barriers to implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Device therapy is efficacious in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with reduced ejection fraction. However, few who need the device eventually opt to undergo implantation and even fewer reconsider their decisions after deliberation. This is due to many factors, including unresolved patient barriers. This study identified the factors that influenced patients' decision to decline implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation, and those that influenced patients who initially declined an implant to reconsider having one.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A single-centre survey was conducted among 240 patients who had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and met the ICD implantation criteria, but had declined ICD implantation.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Participants who refused ICD implantation were mostly male (84%), Chinese (71%), married (72%), currently employed (54%), and had up to primary or secondary education (78%) and monthly income of < SGD 3,000 (51%). Those who were more likely to reconsider their decision were aware that SCD was a consequence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, knowledgeable of the preventive role of ICDs, currently employed and aware that their doctor strongly recommended the implant. Based on multivariate analysis, knowledge of the role of ICDs for primary prophylaxis was the most important factor influencing patient decision.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>This study identified the demographic and social factors of patients who refused ICD therapy. Knowledge of the role of ICDs in preventing SCD was found to be the strongest marker for reconsidering ICD implantation. Measures to address this information gap may lead to higher rates of ICD implantation.</p>

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

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Remote monitoring of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) has been shown to improve patient safety and reduce in-office visits. We report our experience with remote monitoring via the Medtronic CareLink(®) network.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Patients were followed up for six months with scheduled monthly remote monitoring transmissions in addition to routine in-office checks. The efficacy of remote monitoring was evaluated by recording compliance to transmissions, number of device alerts requiring intervention and time from transmission to review. Questionnaires were administered to evaluate the experiences of patients, physicians and medical technicians.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>A total of 57 patients were enrolled; 16 (28.1%) had permanent pacemakers, 34 (59.6%) had implantable cardioverter defibrillators and 7 (12.3%) had cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillators. Overall, of 334 remote transmissions scheduled, 73.7% were on time, 14.5% were overdue and 11.8% were missed. 84.6% of wireless transmissions were on time, compared to 53.8% of non-wireless transmissions. Among all transmissions, 4.4% contained alerts for which physicians were informed and only 1.8% required intervention. 98.6% of remote transmissions were reviewed by the second working day. 73.2% of patients preferred remote monitoring. Physicians agreed that remote transmissions provided information equivalent to in-office checks 97.1% of the time. 77.8% of medical technicians felt that remote monitoring would help the hospital improve patient management. No adverse events were reported.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Remote monitoring of CIED is safe and feasible. It has possible benefits to patient safety through earlier detection of arrhythmias or device malfunction, permitting earlier intervention. Wireless remote monitoring, in particular, may improve compliance to device monitoring. Patients may prefer remote monitoring due to possible improvements in quality of life.</p>

Non-fluoroscopic navigation systems for radiofrequency catheter ablation for supraventricular tachycardia reduce ionising radiation exposure

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>The use of non-fluoroscopic systems (NFS) to guide radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) for the treatment of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is associated with lower radiation exposure. This study aimed to determine if NFS reduces fluoroscopy time, radiation dose and procedure time.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We prospectively enrolled patients undergoing RFCA for SVT. NFS included EnSiteTM NavXTM or CARTO® mapping. We compared procedure and fluoroscopy times, and radiation exposure between NFS and conventional fluoroscopy (CF) cohorts. Procedural success, complications and one-year success rates were reported.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>A total of 200 patients over 27 months were included and RFCA was guided by NFS for 79 patients; those with atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT), left-sided atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT) and right-sided AVRT were included (n = 101, 63 and 36, respectively). Fluoroscopy times were significantly lower with NFS than with CF (10.8 ± 11.1 minutes vs. 32.0 ± 27.5 minutes; p < 0.001). The mean fluoroscopic dose area product was also significantly reduced with NFS (NSF: 5,382 ± 5,768 mGy*cm2 vs. CF: 21,070 ± 23,311 mGy*cm2; p < 0.001); for all SVT subtypes. There was no significant reduction in procedure time, except for left-sided AVRT ablation (NFS: 79.2 minutes vs. CF: 116.4 minutes; p = 0.001). Procedural success rates were comparable (NFS: 97.5% vs. CF: 98.3%) and at one-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the recurrence rates (NFS: 5.2% vs. CF: 4.2%). No clinically significant complications were observed in both groups.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>The use of NFS for RFCA for SVT is safe, with significantly reduced radiation dose and fluoroscopy time.</p>

A tale of two tachycardias

A patient with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, and pre-existing atypical atrial flutter and left bundle branch block, developed broad complex tachycardia. In this unique and uncommon case of double tachycardia, we discuss the diagnostic approach of ventricular tachycardia in patients with broad complex tachycardia, and the use of different contemporary algorithms to help diagnose ventricular tachycardia and differentiate it from supraventricular tachycardia with aberrant conduction.

Initial experience of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators in Singapore: a case series and review of the literature

Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators are a type of implantable cardiac device. They are effective at reducing total and arrhythmic mortality in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (S-ICDs) are a new alternative that avoids the disadvantages of transvenous lead placement. In this case series, we report on the initial feasibility and safety of S-ICD implantation in Singapore.