ICD and neuromodulation devices: is peaceful coexistence possible?

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential cross-talk between implantable cardioverter defibrillator device (ICD) and implantable neuromodulation device (IND) during the implantation procedure and the ventricular fibrillation induction test and in daily life. METHODS: We present two cases of patients with an IND who underwent ICD implantation and one case of a patient implanted with a biventricular ICD who received an IND 6 months later. Two of these patients had a spinal cord stimulator (SCS), while the other had a sacral neuromodulator. RESULTS: No cross-talk was recorded in the patient with the sacral neuromodulator and the ICD. Temporary damage to one of the SCSs was observed after multiple ICD shocks. CONCLUSIONS: When implanted contemporarily with sacral or spinal neurostimulators, cardiac devices appear to be safe, as confirmed by the appropriate detection and interruption of arrhythmic episodes. On the other hand, neuromodulation devices could be temporarily or permanently damaged by multiple ICD discharges. It is recommended that the neurostimulator be interrogated after an ICD shock, in order to check the state of the device.

Is a dual-sensor pacemaker appropriate in patients with sino-atrial disease? Results from the DUSISLOG study.

BACKGROUND: Rate-responsive pacemakers (PMs) are often supplied with accelerometer (XL) and minute ventilation (MV) sensors to provide a physiologic rate response according to patient needs. No information is available about the real benefit of dual-sensor rate-responsive pacing on the daily life of patients. METHODS: DUSISLOG (Dual Sensor vs Single Sensor comparison using patient activity LOGbook) is a two-arm prospective, randomized, multicenter study that enrolled 105 patients who received a rate-responsive PM (Insignia), Guidant Corp.). After 1 month of DDD pacing at 60 ppm lower rate, a single sensor (XL or MV, randomized) was activated for 3 months at the manufacturer's suggested nominal settings, followed by a 3-month period with dual sensors optimized with automatic response. During the last month of each period, the following data concerning patient physical activity were retrieved from PM diagnostics (Activity Log): mean percentage of physical activity, mean intensity of activity. Quality of life (QoL) scores and 6-minute walk test (WT) were also recorded. RESULTS: Single-sensor rate-responsive pacing resulted in symptomatic benefit equally with XL and MV sensors while no additional benefit was found using dual sensor. In a subgroup analysis, patients (17%) with marked chronotropic incompetence and with 0% atrial sensing received benefits from single sensor with an additional advantage from sensor (QoL: +21 +/- 14% P < 0.05; WT: +17 +/- 7% P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: In most patients with rate-responsive devices, a single sensor is sufficient to achieve a satisfactory rate response. A dual sensor combination and optimization provides an additional benefit only in a selected population with an advanced atrial chronotropic disease.

DDD versus VVIR versus VVI mode in patients with indication to dual-chamber stimulation: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare VVI, VVIR and DDD modes in patients with indication to dual-chamber stimulation, depending on left ventricular function. METHODS: Two groups of patients were implanted with a DDD pacemaker: Group I with ejection fraction > 40% and Group II with ejection fraction < 40%. Patients with a history of atrial arrhythmia or retrograde conduction were excluded. At follow-up (1 month each) quality of life (QoL), patient preference and echo parameters were collected. At hospital discharge all patients were programmed in DDD for 1 month and then randomized to VVI or VVIR mode. At the end of the period in VVI or VVIR mode each patient underwent a control period in DDD and then was programmed in VVIR or VVI mode. RESULTS: Seventeen patients out of 23 preferred DDD mode and 6 did not perceive any subjective difference among DDD, VVI and VVIR modes (4/9 in Group I and 2/14 in Group II, p = 0.0017). QoL was significantly different between the two groups and at each follow-up showed the best values in DDD. The correlation between QoL and Tei index was 0.62 in Group I (p < 0.001) and 0.35 in Group II (p = 0.001). Neither ejection fraction nor fractional shortening showed any significant difference during the three phases of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients preferred the DDD mode. The Tei index showed a good correlation with QoL and both QoL and Tei index significantly improved with DDD mode as compared to VVI and VVIR.

Prediction of the Third and Fourth Heart Sounds by Doppler Echocardiography.

Doppler echocardiographic variables were sought for predicting the third and fourth heart sounds, as documented by phonocardiography. Phonocardiographic recordings of gallop sounds and Doppler echocardiographic investigations of mitral inflow and pulmonary venous flow were evaluated in 85 subjects by discriminant and multiple regression analysis. Of 85 subjects 47% had a third sound and 72% a fourth sound, evaluated by phonocardiography. A correct identification of 85% subjects with, and 82% without, the third sound was possible by discriminant analysis using the ratio of peak early diastolic to peak atrial mitral flow velocity (FV), the interval from peak ECG R wave to peak early diastolic mitral FV, and the early diastolic mitral FV deceleration time. At the observed prevalence of the third heart sound (47%), the predictive positive value was 81% and the predictive negative value was 86%. A correct identification of 72% of the subjects with, and 83% without, a fourth sound was possible by discriminant analysis using the ratio of peak early diastolic to peak atrial mitral FV, the interval between the end of atrial mitral FV and the peak ECG R wave, and the duration of pulmonary venous reverse FV at atrial systole. At the observed prevalence of the fourth heart sound (72%) the predictive positive value was 92% and the predictive negative value was 54%. By multiple regression analysis, up to 50% of the amplitude of both gallop sounds was predictable by a combination of Doppler echocardiographic variables.