Electromagnetic interference between external defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices.

BACKGROUND: Implantable heart rhythm devices are susceptible to interference in hospitals where electromagnetic interference (EMI) sources are ubiquitous. CASE DESCRIPTION: We report three cases in which EMI from the external defibrillator caused the inability to interrogate Boston Scientific cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P) devices. We have documented interference with the Boston Scientific CRT-P Contact Renewal device model numbers H120/H125 (Natick, MA, USA) and two brands of external defibrillators: the Philips Heartstart XL model number M4735A (Andover, MA, USA) and the Hewlett-Packard Codemaster model number M1722B (Palo Alto, CA, USA). For device implants, we routinely place external pacing pads with the external defibrillator in the "standby" mode for transcutaneous pacing so that only the pacer "start/stop" button needs to be pressed when necessary. We have not been able to interrogate three consecutive Boston Scientific CRT-P devices prior to closure while the external defibrillator had the back-up pacing mode on "standby." In our initial case, a second device was opened because this interaction was not recognized. We documented EMI with the standby pacing mode ON and discovered that by disabling only the "standby" pacing mode on the external defibrillator, the device could be interrogated without difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: This is a case series reporting EMI with a Boston Scientific CRT-P Contact Renewal device H120/H125 telemetry from an external defibrillator with pacing mode on "standby." Failure to recognize this important interaction may lead to inappropriate device and resource utilization.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation in patients with therapeutic international normalized ratios.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who need cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) require chronic anticoagulation. Current guidelines recommend discontinuation of warfarin and the initiation of anticoagulant "bridging" therapy during these procedures. We evaluated the safety of CRT-device (CRT-D) implantation without interruption of warfarin therapy. METHODS: A total of 123 consecutive patients requiring CRT-D therapy were enrolled, 49 identified as high risk for thromboembolic events who received either intravenous heparin, low molecular weight heparin, or warfarin therapy. The control group comprised 74 patients with low risk of thromboembolic events who required only cessation of warfarin perioperatively. Patients were evaluated at discharge and 15 and 30 days postoperatively for pocket hematomas, thromboembolic events, and bleeding. Patients' length of stay was also catalogued. RESULTS: Patients in the bridging arm had a significant increase in the rate of pocket hematomas (4.1%[control] vs 5.0%[warfarin] vs 20.7%[bridging], P = 0.03) and subsequent longer length of stay (1.6 +/- 1.6 [control] vs 2.9 +/- 2.7 [warfarin] vs 3.7 +/- 3.2 [bridging], P < 0.001). Hematoma formation postoperatively was not different among patients undergoing an upgrade procedure versus those without preexisting cardiac rhythm devices (12% vs 6.2%, P = NS). Patients with a prosthetic mechanical mitral valve had a higher incidence of pocket hematoma formation (1.8% vs 20%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that implantation of CRT-Ds without interruption of warfarin therapy in patients at high risk of thromboembolic events is a safe alternative to routine bridging therapy. This strategy is associated with reduced risk of pocket hematomas and shorter length of hospital stay. (PACE 2010; 400-406).

Pro-arrhythmia in atrial fibrillation suppression pacing algorithms.

Atrial overdrive pacing algorithms have been partially effective in controlling atrial fibrillation (AF). A 76-year-old man with history of a cardiomyopathy and paroxysmal AF underwent implant of a dual-chamber ICD. After enabling preferential pacing (PP) algorithms, marked control of his AF was demonstrated, but with inappropriate ICD shocks secondary to a typical AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia. After successful slow pathway modification, no further episodes were documented with suppression of his AF burden with PP algorithms enabled.