Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Heart Rhythm ; 19(2): 206-216, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482622

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey. METHODS: Fifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure. RESULTS: The CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe. CONCLUSION: CIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
Atrioventricular Block , COVID-19 , Infection Control , Postoperative Complications , Prosthesis Implantation , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sick Sinus Syndrome , Aged , Atrioventricular Block/epidemiology , Atrioventricular Block/therapy , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Comorbidity , Defibrillators, Implantable/statistics & numerical data , Female , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Pacemaker, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Prosthesis Implantation/instrumentation , Prosthesis Implantation/mortality , Risk Factors , Sick Sinus Syndrome/epidemiology , Sick Sinus Syndrome/therapy , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Europace ; 24(3): 473-480, 2022 03 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364792

ABSTRACT

It is unclear to what extent the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the use of remote monitoring (RM) of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The present physician-based European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey aimed to assess the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on RM of CIEDs among EHRA members and how it changed the current practice. The survey comprised 27 questions focusing on RM use before and during the pandemic. Questions focused on the impact of COVID-19 on the frequency of in-office visits, data filtering, reasons for initiating in-person visits, underutilization of RM during COVID-19, and RM reimbursement. A total of 160 participants from 28 countries completed the survey. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, there was a significant increase in the use of RM in patients with pacemakers (PMs) and implantable loop recorders (ILRs) during the COVID-19 pandemic (PM 24.2 vs. 39.9%, P = 0.002; ILRs 61.5 vs. 73.5%, P = 0.028), while there was a trend towards higher utilization of RM for cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices during the pandemic (44.5 vs. 55%, P = 0.063). The use of RM with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) did not significantly change during the pandemic (ICD 65.2 vs. 69.6%, P = 0.408; CRT-D 65.2 vs. 68.8%, P = 0.513). The frequency of in-office visits was significantly lower during the pandemic (P < 0.001). Nearly two-thirds of participants (57 out of 87 respondents), established new RM connections for CIEDs implanted before the pandemic with 33.3% (n = 29) delivering RM transmitters to the patient's home address, and the remaining 32.1% (n = 28) activating RM connections during an in-office visit. The results of this survey suggest that the crisis caused by COVID-19 has led to a significant increase in the use of RM of CIEDs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Defibrillators, Implantable , Physicians , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Int J Cardiol ; 328: 247-249, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-957115

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) technology embedded in cardiac rhythm devices permits continuous monitoring of device function, and recording of selected cardiac physiological parameters and cardiac arrhythmias and may be of utmost utility during Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, when in-person office visit for regular follow-up were postponed. However, patients not alredy followed-up via RM represent a challenging group of patients to be managed during the lockdown. METHODS: We reviewed patient files scheduled for an outpatient visit between January 1, 2020 and May 11th, 2020 to assess the proportion of patients in whom RM activation was possible without office visit, and compared them to those scheduled for visit before the lockdown. RESULTS: During COVID-19 pandemic, RM activation was feasible in a minority of patients (7.8% of patients) expected at outpatient clinic for a follow-up visit and device check-up. This was possible in a good proportion of complex implantable devices such as cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillator but only in a minority of patients with a pacemaker the RM function could be activated during the period of restricted access to hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience strongly suggest to consider the systematic activation of RM function at the time of implantation or - by default programming - in all cardiac rhythm management devices.


Subject(s)
Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices/standards , Defibrillators, Implantable/standards , Remote Sensing Technology/standards , Aged , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/diagnosis , Arrhythmias, Cardiac/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices/trends , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Communicable Disease Control/trends , Defibrillators, Implantable/trends , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Remote Sensing Technology/trends
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL