Device-detected atrial fibrillation in a large remote-monitored cohort: implications for anticoagulation and need for new pathways of service delivery.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) can facilitate early detection of subclinical and symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), providing an opportunity to evaluate the need for stroke prevention therapies. We aimed to characterize the burden of RM AF alerts and its impact on anticoagulation of patients with device-detected AF. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device, at least one AF episode, undergoing RM were included and assigned an estimated minimum CHA2DS2-VASc score based on age and device type. RM was provided via automated software system, providing rapid alert processing by device specialists and systematic, recurrent prompts for anticoagulation. RESULTS: From 7651 individual, 389,188 AF episodes were identified, 3120 (40.8%) permanent pacemakers, 2260 (29.5%) implantable loop recorders (ILRs), 987 (12.9%) implantable cardioverter defibrillators, 968 (12.7%) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) defibrillators, and 316 (4.1%) CRT pacemakers. ILRs transmitted 48.8% of all AF episodes. At twelve-months, 3404 (44.5%) AF < 6 min, 1367 (17.9%) 6 min-6 h, 1206 (15.8%) 6-24 h, and 1674 (21.9%) ≥ 24 h. A minimum CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 was assigned to 1704 (63.1%) of the patients with an AF episode of ≥ 6 h, 531 (31.2%) who were not anticoagulated at 12-months, and 1031 (61.6%) patients with an AF episode duration of ≥ 24 h, 290 (28.1%) were not anticoagulated. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being intensively managed via RM software system incorporating cues for anticoagulation, a substantial proportion of patients with increased stroke risk remained unanticoagulated after a device-detected AF episode of significant duration. These data highlight the need for improved clinical response pathways and an integrated care approach to RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12620001232921.

Should We Check It? Assessing Interrogation of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in the Emergency Department-The CHECK-ED Study: Implications for Service Planning and Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Requests from the emergency department (ED) for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) checks constitute a large workload for cardiac electrophysiology services. We sought to determine the yield of, and clinical characteristics associated with, clinically relevant (remarkable) issues from ED CIED checks. METHODS: Consecutive CIED checks from our ED over a 12-month period were studied. A remarkable issue (RI) was defined as arrhythmia relating to the presentation or device/lead issue requiring reprogramming or intervention. The association between the presenting complaint and an RI was assessed using regression analysis. Multivariable regression model was used to identify pre-specified patient-level characteristics that were predictive of a RI. RESULTS: A RI was found in 28% (n=98) of 354 ED CIED checks for 306 patients (76±16 yrs, 59% male). Most patients had no RI (n=224, 73%). One third of checks occurred after-hours and these had a higher yield of RIs than those during routine clinic hours (35% vs 23%, p=0.018). Presenting with a perceived ICD shock was predictive of a RI (odds ratio [OR] 6.0, 95% CI=1.8-20.0). Syncope/presyncope was five-fold less likely to be predictive of a RI (OR 0.19, 95% CI=0.13-0.28) despite being the most common indication for CIED check (51%, n=180 checks). Only history of AF was predictive of RI while advancing age was predictive of not finding a RI. CONCLUSION: Almost three-quarters of ED CIED checks did not yield any RI. Patient-reported ICD shock and history of AF were predictive of RI, while syncope/presyncope was not. New models of care especially during after-hours, may help to reduce the burden on cardiac electrophysiology services and health care costs.

Atrial fibrillation burden during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to determine the association between the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence in individuals with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). METHOD AND RESULTS: Multi-centre, observational, cohort study over a 100-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID-19) in the USA. Remote monitoring was used to assess AF episodes in patients with a CIED (pacemaker or defibrillator; 20 centres, 13 states). For comparison, the identical 100-day period in 2019 was used (Control). The primary outcomes were the AF burden during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the association of the pandemic with AF occurrence, as compared with 1 year prior. The secondary outcome was the association of AF occurrence with per-state COVID-19 prevalence. During COVID-19, 10 346 CIEDs with an atrial lead were monitored. There were 16 570 AF episodes of ≥6 min transmitted (16 events per 1000 patient days) with a significant increase in proportion of patients with AF episodes in high COVID-19 prevalence states compared with low prevalence states [odds ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-1.48, P < 0.001]. There were significantly more AF episodes during COVID-19 compared with Control [incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.25-1.40, P < 0.001]. This relationship persisted for AF episodes ≥1 h (IRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.53-1.79, P < 0.001) and ≥6 h (IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.38-1.73, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During the first 100 days of COVID-19, a 33% increase in AF episodes occurred with a 34% increase in the proportion of patients with AF episodes observed in states with higher COVID-19 prevalence. These findings suggest a possible association between pandemic-associated social disruptions and AF in patients with CIEDs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12620000692932.

Remote Monitoring Alert Burden: An Analysis of Transmission in >26,000 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the remote monitoring (RM) alert burden in a multicenter cohort of patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED). BACKGROUND: RM of CIEDs allows timely recognition of patient and device events requiring intervention. Most RM involves burdensome manual workflow occurring exclusively on weekdays during office hours. Automated software may reduce such a burden, streamlining real-time alert responses. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 26,713 consecutive patients with a CIED undergoing managed RM utilizing PaceMate software between November 2018 and November 2019. Alerts were analyzed according to type, acuity (red indicates urgent, and yellow indicates nonurgent) and CIED category. RESULTS: In total, 12,473 (46.7%) patients had a permanent pacemaker (PPM), 9,208 (34.5%) had an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), and 5,032 (18.8%) had an implantable loop recorder (ILR). Overall, 82,797 of the 205,804 RM transmissions were alerts, with the remainder being scheduled transmissions. A total of 14,638 (54.8%) patients transmitted at least 1 alert. Permanent pacemakers were responsible for 25,700 (31.0%) alerts, ICDs for 15,643 (18.9%) alerts, and ILRs for 41,454 (50.1%) alerts, with 3,935 (4.8%) red alerts and 78,862 (95.2%) yellow alerts. ICDs transmitted 2,073 (52.7%) red alerts; 5,024 (32.1%) ICD alerts were for ventricular tachyarrhythmias and antitachycardia pacing/shock delivery. CONCLUSIONS: In an RM cohort of 26,713 patients with CIEDs, 54.8% of patients transmitted at least 1 alert during a 12-month period, totaling over 82,000 alerts. ILRs were overrepresented, and ICDs were underrepresented, in these alerts. The enormity of the number of transmissions and the growing ILR alert burden highlight the need for new management pathways for RM.

Ventricular arrhythmia burden during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

AIMS: Our objective was to determine the ventricular arrhythmia burden in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients during COVID-19. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre, observational, cohort study over a 100-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA, we assessed ventricular arrhythmias in ICD patients from 20 centres in 13 states, via remote monitoring. Comparison was via a 100-day control period (late 2019) and seasonal control period (early 2019). The primary outcome was the impact of COVID-19 on ventricular arrhythmia burden. The secondary outcome was correlation with COVID-19 incidence. During the COVID-19 period, 5963 ICD patients underwent remote monitoring, with 16 942 episodes of treated ventricular arrhythmias (2.8 events per 100 patient-days). Ventricular arrhythmia burden progressively declined during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmias amongst the high COVID-19 incidence states was significantly reduced compared with those in low incidence states [odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.69, P < 0.001]. Comparing patients remotely monitored during both COVID-19 and control periods (n = 2458), significantly fewer ventricular arrhythmias occurred during COVID-19 [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.58-0.79, P < 0.001]. This difference persisted when comparing the 1719 patients monitored during both the COVID-19 and seasonal control periods (IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, there was a 32% reduction in ventricular arrhythmias needing device therapies, coinciding with measures of social isolation. There was a 39% reduction in the proportion of patients with ventricular arrhythmias in states with higher COVID-19 incidence. These findings highlight the potential role of real-life stressors in ventricular arrhythmia burden in individuals with ICDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry; URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique Identifier: ACTRN12620000641998.

Auditing an intensive care unit recycling program.

BACKGROUND: The provision of health care has significant direct environmental effects such as energy and water use and waste production, and indirect effects, including manufacturing and transport of drugs and equipment. Recycling of hospital waste is one strategy to reduce waste disposed of as landfill, preserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and potentially remain fiscally responsible. We began an intensive care unit recycling program, because a significant proportion of ICU waste was known to be recyclable. OBJECTIVES: To determine the weight and proportion of ICU waste recycled, the proportion of incorrect waste disposal (including infectious waste contamination), the opportunity for further recycling and the financial effects of the recycling program. METHODS: We weighed all waste and recyclables from an 11-bed ICU in an Australian metropolitan hospital for 7 non-consecutive days. As part of routine care, ICU waste was separated into general, infectious and recycling streams. Recycling streams were paper and cardboard, three plastics streams (polypropylene, mixed plastics and polyvinylchloride [PVC]) and commingled waste (steel, aluminium and some plastics). ICU waste from the waste and recycling bins was sorted into those five recycling streams, general waste and infectious waste. After sorting, the waste was weighed and examined. Recycling was classified as achieved (actual), potential and total. Potential recycling was defined as being acceptable to hospital protocol and local recycling programs. Direct and indirect financial costs, excluding labour, were examined. RESULTS: During the 7-day period, the total ICU waste was 505 kg: general waste, 222 kg (44%); infectious waste, 138 kg (27%); potentially recyclable waste, 145 kg (28%). Of the potentially recyclable waste, 70 kg (49%) was actually recycled (14% of the total ICU waste). In the infectious waste bins, 82% was truly infectious. There was no infectious contamination of the recycling streams. The PVC waste was 37% contaminated (primarily by other plastics), but there was less than 1% contamination of other recycling streams. The estimated cost of the recycling program was about an additional $1000/year. CONCLUSION: In our 11-bed ICU, we recycled 14% of the total waste produced over 7-days, which was nearly half of the potentially recyclable waste. There was no infectious contamination of recyclables and minimal contamination with other waste streams, except for the PVC plastic. The estimated annual cost of the recycling program was $1000, reflecting the greater cost of disposal of some recyclables (paper and cardboard v most plastic types).