2013 Esc Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Brignole, Michele; Auricchio, Angelo; Barón-Esquivias, Gonzalo; Bordachar, Pierre; Boriani, Giuseppe; Breithardt, O.A.; Cleland, John; Deharo, Jean‐Claude; Delgado, Victoria; Elliott, Perry M.; Görenek, Bülent; Israel, Carsten W.; Leclercq, Christophe; Linde, Cecilia; Mont, Lluı́s; Padeletti, Luigi; Sutton, Richard; Vardas, Panos

doi:10.15829/1560-4071-2014-4-5-63

Cited by 144 publications

(232 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

201

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it has a somewhat limited diagnostic value for central veins, sonography should be considered as an alternative especially in younger patients, or in patients with contraindications for contrast media exposure such as previous allergic reaction, chronic kidney disease > grade II, and previous contrast-induced nephropathy. While magnetic resonance imaging often represents an alternative imaging modality in patients with known kidney disease and allows for imaging of the entire thoracic vasculature, its use is not recommended by current guidelines due to the presence of ferromagnetic material [26]. There are several limitations to the present study.…”

Section: Vessels 1033mentioning

confidence: 96%

Venous Obstruction in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing First Implantation or Revision of a Cardiac Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis

Pieper

Weis

Fimmers

et al. 2015

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Venograms were used to determine the presence of venous obstruction. Interrelations between the incidence of venous obstruction and patient-or devicerelated parameters were identified using Fisher's exact test and univariate logistic regression. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of venous obstruction. Results: 456 patients met the inclusion criteria (330 males, 126 females, 67.8 ± 12.9 years). 100 patients underwent first implantation, and 356 patients underwent device revision (mean time since implantation 82.5 ± 75.3 months). Venous obstruction was present in 11.0 % and 30.1 % before implantation and revision, respectively. Only presence of ventricular escape rhythm was significantly related to venous occlusion (p < 0.001) prior to first implantation. Prior to revision, significant predictors were male sex (p = 0.01), time since implantation (p < 0.0001), presence of escape rhythm (p = 0.02), compromised coagulation (p = 0.02), phenprocoumon (p = 0.005), and peripheral arterial disease (p = 0.01). Conclusion: Although several risk factors could be identified, reliable prediction of venous obstruction was not possible. Therefore, we advocate performing venography in all patients prior to device revision or upgrade to avoid complications. In cases of first device implantation, the risks associated with venography should be weighed against the surprisingly high rate of deep upper vein obstruction.This document was downloaded for personal use only. Unauthorized distribution is strictly prohibited.

show abstract

Section: Vessels 1033mentioning

confidence: 96%

Venous Obstruction in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing First Implantation or Revision of a Cardiac Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis

Pieper

Weis

Fimmers

et al. 2015

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the European Society of Cardiology's 2013 guidelines [4], cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has class I indication in patients with sinus rhythm in NYHA functional class II, III and ambulatory class IV heart failure, QRS duration > 120 ms and a persistently reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF < 35%), with optimal pharmacological therapy. CRT has class IIa indication in patients with atrial fibrillation and symptomatic heart failure (HF) (NYHA functional class III and ambulatory class IV), QRS duration > 120 ms and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35%, despite optimal pharmacological therapy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Gyalai

Jeremiás

Baricz

et al. 2016

THC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The aim of this study is to observe the differences between mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony in patients with impaired systolic ventricular function and symptomatic heart failure and to highlight the importance of mechanical dyssynchrony besides electrical dyssynchrony in clinical guidelines and clinical practice. Fifty-eight patients with heart failure, who are with the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) under 35%, were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups, according to the duration of QRS complex (> 120 ms and 120 ms respectively). Echocardiographic parameters of interventricular (interventricular mechanical delay -IMD) and intraventricular (septal-to-posterior wall motion delay -SPWMD) dyssynchrony were measured in both groups. Results indicate that the duration of the QRS complex (i.e. electrical dyssynchrony) is not a fully reliable indicator of ventricular dyssynchrony; therefore ecocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony should also be recommended for better selection of candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

show abstract

“…Remote follow-up and monitoring of patients implanted with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been introduced over a decade ago, and is now indicated according to European (class IIa indication 1 ) and American (class I indication 2 ) guidelines. There have been high expectations that this technology will improve patient outcome, as it significantly shortens response to actionable events (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Is There a Future for Remote Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Management?

Burri

2017

Arrhythmia &Amp; Electrophysiology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remote follow-up and monitoring of patients implanted with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) has been introduced over a decade ago, and is now indicated according to European (class IIa indication 1 ) and American (class I indication 2 ) guidelines. There have been high expectations that this technology will improve patient outcome, as it significantly shortens response to actionable events (e.g. AF) compared with standard in-office follow-up. 3,4 However, several randomised trials have failed to meet this promise. 5,6The remote management of heart failure using implanted devices and formalised follow-up procedures (REM-HF) study has been published recently. 7 This trial, conducted at nine centres in England, randomised 1650 patients implanted with an ICD, cardiac resynchronisation therapy defibrillator or cardiac resynchronisation therapy pacemaker to either remote management with weekly transmissions or to usual care.After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, there were no differences in the primary outcome of mortality or cardiovascular admissions, nor in any of the secondary endpoints (although there was a trend in reduced mortality). This study is remarkable in that it is -as yet -the largest study in this field, with the longest follow-up, few exclusion criteria (e.g. AF was admissible and there was no age limit), and included devices from three major manufacturers. The results were disappointing: there were no differences in the primary endpoint of total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalisation, nor in any of the secondary endpoints. However, there are a number of points that need to be discussed.First, the study was performed in tertiary expert centres where specialised heart failure clinics already manage these complex patients to a high level of quality of care. Therefore, incremental benefit of any intervention is likely to be more difficult to achieve, and results may not be extrapolated to other less specialised settings.Second, this was not a study randomising remote device management with standard in-office care, as patients in the control group could be remotely monitored (except to manage heart failure). Third, the active group required weekly transmissions to be actively performed by the patients, with almost 40 % of patients transmitting <75 % of the time at 2 years. This is in contrast to automatic pre-defined alerts, which are the usual form of remote management, and that achieve successful transmissions in >90 % of the time. In any process aiming to improve patient outcome, three fundamental factors are implicated: 1) availability of good data, 2) proper interpretation of these data and 3) generation of meaningful action.In the case of REM-HF, there was most probably data overload, with parameters that are sometimes difficult to interpret individually (e.g. transthoracic impedance, heart rate variability etc.). This is probably one of the reasons why so little action was taken. For the reasons detailed above, it is not surprising that the study was negative.The key to improving ...

show abstract

2013 Esc Guidelines on Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cited by 144 publications

References 75 publications

Venous Obstruction in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing First Implantation or Revision of a Cardiac Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis

Venous Obstruction in Asymptomatic Patients Undergoing First Implantation or Revision of a Cardiac Pacemaker or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Retrospective Single Center Analysis

Echocardiographic evaluation of mechanical dyssynchrony in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Is There a Future for Remote Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Management?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About