Deactivation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in patients nearing end of life : Reality or only recommendation?

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend considering deactivation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing death. We evaluated the implementation of this recommendation in unselected deceased individuals with CIEDs. METHODS: Over a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for CIEDs and these were interrogated in situ. Pacing rate, pacing mode, and lead output were documented as well as patient data including location and time of death. In implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), tachycardia therapy adjustment and occurrence of shocks 24 h prior to death were also recorded. RESULTS: We examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs. Of these subjects, 125 (100%) pacemakers (PMs) and 27 (96.4%) ICDs were eligible for analysis. Death in persons with ICDs occurred most frequently in hospital (55.6%), while this was less frequently the case for individuals with PMs (43.2%). Furthermore, 33.3% of subjects with ICDs and 18.5% with PMs died in palliative care units (PCU). Shock therapies were switched off in three (60%) individuals with ICDs who died in the PCU, whereas antibradycardia therapy was not withdrawn in any PM patient in the PCU. Therapy withdrawal occurred in two patients with PMs (1.3%) who died in hospital. Patients with PMs had high ventricular pacing rates at the last interrogation (69 ± 36.0%) and often suffered atrioventricular block (39.2%). Six (25%) of the 24 active ICDs presented shocks near the time of death. CONCLUSION: Many CIED patients died in hospital; nonetheless, in practice, CIED deactivation near death is rarely performed and might be less feasible in subjects with PMs. However, there is still a need to consider deactivation, especially in individuals with ICDs, as one fourth of them received at least one shock within 24 h prior to death.

Individual programming of current multiprogrammable pacemakers : Still unsatisfactory?

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker (PM) technology has developed tremendously in recent decades. We evaluated the extent of individual programming in current PMs. METHODS: Over a 7-month period in 2016, all deceased persons taken to the Rostock crematorium were prospectively screened for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and these were interrogated in situ. Programming of patient data, leads, and study parameters including mode, lower rate, upper tracking or sensor rate (UTSR), ventricular refractory time, sleeping function, hysteresis, and PM-mediated tachycardia intervention were analyzed and compared with delivery settings. Alterations in atrial/ventricular capture management and atrial/ventricular sensing assurance as well as changes in sensitivity and lead output were evaluated. RESULTS: We examined 2297 subjects, of whom 154 (6.7%) had CIEDs, with 125 (81.2%) being PMs. Finally, 72 (57.6%) PMs were eligible for analysis with an operation time of 31.0 ± 27.0 months. We excluded 28 (18.2%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), 51 (41%) PMs presenting elective replacement indicator (ERI), two (1.6%) PMs with programming to insufficient function prior to death, and the left ventricle parameter of one (1.4%) cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P); further one CIED (0.6%) was not contactable. PMs offered in mean 75.2% of study parameters thereof 88.0% were to adjust manually, whereof 49.3% stayed unchanged to delivery mode. Lead output, UTSR, lower rate, and mode were the most frequently changed parameters (>85.7%, 65.3%, 54.2%, and 52.8%, respectively) compared with unmodified ventricular refractory time and hysteresis (91.7% and. 85.4%, respectively); 2.8% of PMs had out-of-the-box settings. The most frequent personalized data were last (88.9%) and first name (73.6%), while atrial and ventricular serial lead numbers were rarely entered (18.2% and 23.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The programming possibilities of PMs have advanced greatly. Nonetheless, improvements in individual PM programming are still needed as demonstrated by the findings in this study, e.g., PMs with manufacturer settings and lack of individual data.