Butyrate induces sLex synthesis by stimulation of selective glycosyltransferase genes.

P. Radhakrishnan,P. V. Beum,Shuhua Tan,P. Cheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BBRC.2007.05.165

2007-08-03

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Clinical evaluation of pacemaker automatic capture management and atrioventricular interval extension algorithm.

Chen Ke-ping,Xu Geng,Wu Shulin,Tang Baopeng,Wang Li,Zhang Shu,null null

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eus309

2013-01-01

Abstract:Aims The present study was to assess the accuracy of automatic atrial and ventricular capture management (ACM and VCM) in determining pacing threshold and the performance of a second-generation automatic atrioventricular (AV) interval extension algorithm for reducing unnecessary ventricular pacing. Methods and results A total of 398 patients at 32 centres who received an En Pulse dual-chamber pacing/dual-chamber adaptive rate pacing pacemaker (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) were enrolled. The last amplitude thresholds as measured by ACM and VCM prior to the 6-month follow-up were compared with manually measured thresholds. Device diagnostics were used to evaluate ACM and VCM and the percentage of ventricular pacing with and without the AV extension algorithm. Modelling was performed to assess longevity gains relating to the use of automaticity features. Atrial and ventricular capture management performed accurately and reliably provided complete capture management in 97% of studied patients. The AV interval extension algorithm reduced the median per cent of right ventricular pacing in patients with sinus node dysfunction from 99.7 to 1.5% at 6-month follow-up and in patients with intermittent AV block (excluding persistent 3 degrees AV block) from 99.9 to 50.2%. On the basis of validated modelling, estimated device longevity could potentially be extended by 1.9 years through the use of the capture management and AV interval extension features. Conclusion Both ACM and VCM features reliably measured thresholds in nearly all patients; the AV extension algorithm significantly reduced ventricular pacing; and the use of pacemaker automaticity features potentially extends device longevity.
Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017

Jonathan R. Dubin,Stephen D. Simon,Kirsten Norrell,Jacob Perera,Jacob Gowen,Akin Cil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7274

2021-05-06

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 510(k) clearance and premarket approval (PMA) pathways to ensure device safety before marketing. Premarket approval evaluates high-risk medical devices and requires clinical trials, whereas 510(k) clearance evaluates moderate-risk devices and relies on benchtop (nonclinical and biomechanical) and descriptive data. Existing literature suggests that the clinical trials required by PMA are associated with reduced risk of recall compared with devices granted 510(k) clearance. Several investigators have found weaknesses in pivotal PMA trials, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, methodological factors may have led to a previous underestimation of recall risk for devices with PMA.Objectives: To compare risk of recall and high-risk recall between devices that received 510(k) clearance and those that received PMA and to compare the risk of recall between devices for medical specialties.Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared devices with 510(k) clearance vs those with PMA that reached the market between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Two- to 12-year follow-up was obtained from the FDA's 510(k) and PMA medical device database. Orthopedic surgery was chosen arbitrarily as the reference category for analysis between specialties because no baseline exists. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to November 1, 2020.Main Outcomes and Measures: The FDA issues recalls for safety concerns. These recalls are stratified into class I, II, and III, with class I representing high-risk issues for serious harm or death. The main outcome was the hazard ratio of any recall and class I recall between devices with PMA and those with 510(k) clearance. The secondary outcome was the recall hazard ratio between specialties with respect to the reference category. A single Cox proportional hazards regression model evaluating the association of medical specialty and FDA approval pathway with the risk of recall was performed.Results: During the study period, 28 246 devices received 510(k) clearance and 310 devices (10.7%) received PMA; 3012 devices (10.7%) with 510(k) clearance and 84 devices (27.1%) with PMA were recalled. A total of 216 devices (0.8%) with 510(k) clearance and 16 devices (5.2%) with PMA had class I recalls. Devices with PMA compared with those with 510(k) clearance had a hazard ratio for recall of 2.74 (95% CI, 2.19-3.44; P < .001) and a hazard ratio for high-risk recall of 7.30 (95% CI, 4.39-12.13; P < .001). Only radiologic devices were associated with an increased risk of recall (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.32-1.87; P < .001), whereas 6 specialties were assocated with a decreased risk compared with the orthopedic reference category: general and plastic surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, physical medicine, hematology, and general hospital.Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that high-risk medical devices approved via PMA are associated with a greater risk of recall than previously reported. Most recalls are for devices with 510(k) clearance, also raising safety concerns. Strengthening postmarketing surveillance strategies and pivotal trials may improve device safety.

medicine, general & internal
Class I Recalls of Cardiovascular Devices Between 2013 and 2022 : A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Claudia See,Maryam Mooghali,Sanket S Dhruva,Joseph S Ross,Harlan M Krumholz,Kushal T Kadakia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-00724

2024-09-17

Abstract:Background: Cardiovascular devices account for one third of all Class I recalls, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) most severe designation, indicating a reasonable probability of "serious adverse health consequences or death." Understanding recalls and their causes is important for patient safety. Objective: To characterize Class I recalls of cardiovascular devices and the clinical evidence supporting authorization. Design: In this cross-sectional study, cardiovascular device recalls from 1 January 2013 through 31 December 2022 were identified using the FDA's annual log. Information about devices was extracted from publicly available FDA decision summaries. Setting: The FDA Medical Device Recalls database. Participants: Cardiovascular devices with Class I recalls. Measurements: Recalls were characterized by their causes and scope. Devices were characterized by their regulatory history (product code, special designations) and clinical evidence (premarket testing, postmarket surveillance). Clinical studies were analyzed for quality, including end point selection (clinical vs. surrogate, use of composites). Results: From 2013 to 2022, there were 137 Class I recall events affecting 157 unique cardiovascular devices, of which 112 (71.3%) were moderate-risk 510(k) devices and 45 (28.7%) were high-risk premarket approval (PMA) devices. Recalls affected a median of 7649 units (IQR, 953 to 28 446) and were most commonly attributed to device design (43 [31.4%]). Forty-two (26.8%) devices had multiple Class I recalls. Thirty (19.1%) devices underwent premarket clinical testing (7 [6.2%] 510(k) devices, 17 [85.0%] PMA devices, and 6 [24.0%] PMA supplement devices). Most studies used surrogate (27 [79.4%]) and composite (24 [70.6%]) measures as primary end points. Twenty-two (48.9%) PMA devices had required postapproval studies, with 14 reporting delays. No 510(k) devices were subject to postmarket surveillance. Limitation: Details about clinical testing may be missing from FDA summaries. Conclusion: Cardiovascular devices with Class I recalls were infrequently subjected to premarket or postmarket testing, with recalls affecting thousands of patients annually. Primary funding source: None.
What Electrophysiologists Should Know about Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Recalls

Robert G. Hauser,Charles D. Swerdlow

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.02.039

IF: 6.779

2024-02-25

Heart Rhythm

Abstract:From 2003-2023, manufacturers recalled 500 cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) products, including pulse generators, leads, and programmers. 1 Manufacturers of CIEDs have a legal responsibility to protect the public health under laws administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2 . A CIED recall is a method of removing or correcting marketed products that violate these laws because the products either are defective or present a risk of death or injury. 3 Because recalled CIEDs present a risk to patients implanted with these devices, treating physicians have an ethical responsibility to ensure that their patients are both fully informed and assessed for risk. Yet few physicians receive training in responding to recalls. This viewpoint provides an overview of recalls and summarizes our approach. Whenever possible, our suggestions are based on evidence or consensus, but some necessarily reflect the authors' perspective.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Navigating the Landscape of Medical Device Advisories: A Special Report from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee

Jason G. Andrade,Alice Virani,Amelia Staunton,Marc Bains,Derek S. Chew,Nathaniel M. Hawkins,Jacqueline Joza,Clarence Khoo,Jaimie Manlucu,Francois Philippon,Calum Redpath,Laurence Sterns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2024.04.009

IF: 6.614

2024-04-20

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are often important for regulating cardiac rate and rhythm. Pacemakers and defibrillators are among the top 10 most-implanted medical devices, with >1.5 million devices implanted annually. While millions of patients have benefited with improved quality of life and survival, CIED-systems are increasingly complex and do not always perform according to expectations. Advisory notices communicate important information about the safety and performance of a medical device to healthcare providers and patients. Medical device recalls are common, with >35 unique device recalls in the past five years. From an ethical standpoint, CIED recalls highlight a range of considerations including the consent process, duty to report, how best to promote autonomous decision-making, trust in the healthcare system, as well as disproportionate impact of these considerations on equity-deserving groups. The purpose of the current article is to review and advise regarding the process around medical device advisory and recall, with a specific focus on clinicians caring for patients affected by these devices. We have sought the input of a lawyer, a patient advocacy group, and an ethicist to guide the clinical management of, and communications regarding, device recalls and advisories. Diligent surveillance and a clear, transparent patient consent process regarding these small but potentially serious device-anomalies is paramount in ensuring patients feel safe and informed. Meaningful patient engagement helps to ensure optimal communication and disclosure mechanisms before implant and throughout follow-up, accessibility of information both in the initial implant and recall action process, and trust in healthcare systems and providers.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
A worldwide experience of the management of battery failures and chronic device retrieval of the Nanostim leadless pacemaker

Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy,Reinoud Knops,Brett Atwater,Petr Neuzil,John Ip,Elkin Gonzalez,Paul Friedman,Pascal Defaye,Derek Exner,Kazutaka Aonuma,Rahul Doshi,Johannes Sperzel,Vivek Reddy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.07.004

IF: 6.779

2017-12-01

Heart Rhythm

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The Nanostim leadless pacemaker (LP) met the primary endpoints in an investigational device exemption trial, and was shown to be fully retrievable percutaneously. In October 2016, St Jude Medical issued a worldwide alert of a battery malfunction that caused lost pacing output and LP communication.OBJECTIVE: To report the battery failure mechanism and incidence and the worldwide patient management, including device retrieval experiences.METHODS: The affected LP battery is a custom lithium-carbon monofluoride cell. These were returned after failure and underwent analysis assessing electronics and battery performance. Data were collected in ongoing clinical studies when LPs were abandoned or retrieved.RESULTS: Of 1423 LPs implanted worldwide, there were 34 battery failures, occurring at 2.9 ± 0.4 years with no instances of associated patient injury. Analysis of returned batteries revealed an increase in battery resistance caused by insufficient electrolyte availability at the cathode/anode interface. A total of 66 of 73 retrieval attempts were successful (90.4%; implant duration range: 0.2-4.0 years). The LP docking button was inaccessible in 6 patients, and the docking button detached from the LP during retrieval in 1 patient. There was 1 case of arteriovenous fistula and another case of the LP docking button migrating into the pulmonary artery. There were also 115 non-LP retrieval patients after the advisory who received an additional pacemaker, with no adverse device-to-device interactions reported.CONCLUSION: As with standard pacers, LPs can have critical battery failures. Chronic retrieval of LPs is safe and efficacious.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process

Diana M. Zuckerman,Paul Brown,Steven E. Nissen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30

2011-06-13

Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Unlike prescription drugs, medical devices are reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using 2 alternative regulatory standards: (1) premarket approval (PMA), which requires clinical testing and inspections; or (2) the 510(k) process, which requires that the device be similar to a device already marketed (predicate device). The second standard is intended for devices that the FDA deems to involve low or moderate risk.METHODS: We analyzed the FDA's high-risk List of Device Recalls from 2005 through 2009. Using FDA data, we determined whether the recalled devices were approved by the more rigorous (PMA) process, the 510(k) process, or were exempt from FDA review.RESULTS: There were 113 recalls from 2005 through 2009 that the FDA determined could cause serious health problems or death. Only 21 of the 113 devices had been approved through the PMA process (19%). Eighty were cleared through the 510(k) process (71%), and an additional 8 were exempt from any FDA regulation (7%). Cardiovascular devices comprised the largest recall category, with 35 of the high-risk recalls (31%); two-thirds were cleared by the 510(k) process (66%; n = 23). Fifty-one percent of the high-risk recalls were in 5 other device categories: general hospital, anesthesiology, clinical chemistry, neurology, or ophthalmology.CONCLUSIONS: Most medical devices recalled for life-threatening or very serious hazards were originally cleared for market using the less stringent 510(k) process or were considered so low risk that they were exempt from review (78%). These findings suggest that reform of the regulatory process is needed to ensure the safety of medical devices.

English Else
Analysis of FDA Neuromodulation Device Recall in 2006-2015

Wei-ming WANG,Lu-ming LI,Hong-wei HAO,Chun-hua HU,Fang-jun LIU,Bo-zhi MA,Xiong-wei WEN

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15971/j.cnki.cmdi.2015.05.006

2015-01-01

Abstract:Objectives:Analyze FDA neuromodulation device recal information, especial y DBS and SCS. Method:For each recal event, the recal class and reason for recal were classiifed for analysis. Results:The total number of DBS and SCS recal events from October 20th, 2006 to January 12th, 2015 is 23, 21.9%of the total recal s by Medtronic neuromodulation division. The reasons for recal s are manufacturing, design, package and label, as wel as the auxiliary parts. The number of auxiliary parts recal events is 7, 30.4%of the total recal s by Medtronic neuromodulation division. The number of package and label recal events is 6, 26.1%of the total recal s by Medtronic neuromodulation division. The number of design recal events is 6, 26.1% of the total recal s by Medtronic neuromodulation division. The number of manufacturing recal events is 4, 17.4%of the total recal s by Medtronic neuromodulation division. DBS and SCS productions are rarely involved in FDA recal events in conclusion. The recal events for St. Jude Medical mainly focus on new rechargeable neuromodulation device and overheat is a mat er of concern, manufacturing is also slightly prominent. Recharging overheat and component failure is a mat er of concern. The recal events for implantable software are rarely observed, but correspondingly, non-implantable software needs to be considered. Conclusion:Usage of FDA medical device recal events should be strengthened in order to provide reference for review, supervision, related research and production.
Anti-inflammatory activity of animal oils from the Peruvian Amazon.

G. Schmeda-Hirschmann,C. Delporte,Gabriela Valenzuela-Barra,X. Silva,Gabriel Vargas-Arana,B. Lima,G. Feresin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2014.08.010

IF: 5.195

2014-10-28

Journal of Ethnopharmacology

Abstract:
Lost bits: particle shedding with polyvinyl chloride intravenous administration sets

P. Subramanian,P. Ainsworth,J. Cassey,D. Phelan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-002-0753-z

2002-09-12

Abstract:
Cardiac device creativity and innovation under constraints: Exploring trends from the food and drug administration's device clearances and recalls

Tess Cremers,Abul Kashem,Huaqing Zhao,Yoshiya Toyoda,Suyog Mokashi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102781

2024-08-08

Abstract:Background: Medical device expenditures have increased in the 21st century, with cardiac devices comprising an outsized portion of the market. Meanwhile, the disproportionate share of FDA recalls of cardiac devices is often overshadowed. Using the FDA 510(k) premarket notification pathway and FDA recalls issued from 2000 to 2020, this project seeks to engage our understanding of innovation and recalls in the cardiac device space. Methods: 510(k) premarket notification submission dates, outcomes, and recalls from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2019 were obtained from publicly available FDA data as a function of cardiac device innovation. We compared the annual number of 510(k) premarket clearances and FDA recalls from 1/1/2000 to 12/31/2009 to 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2019. Results: We found 343 moderate risk cardiac medical devices cleared for sale between the years 2000 and 2020. Comparing the last 10 years of the study period to the first, the yearly number of cleared devices decreased 39.7 %, from 21.4 to just 12.9 (p = 0.0019), defying positive trends in U.S. GDP and healthcare expenditures. Meanwhile, the number of FDA recalls issued for these devices increased 94.5 % from 7.3 to 14.2 recalls per year (p = 0.031). 215 device recalls were issued; 78 % Class II and 16 % Class I which constitute serious, potentially fatal recalls. Conclusions: While United States healthcare spending continues to trend upward, there was a distinct decrease in the number of new and updated cardiac devices entering the market between 2000 and 2020. Meanwhile, recalls of these devices have uncomfortably increased. Together, these trends suggest cardiac device innovation has become risk averse.
Age-Stratified Clinical Outcome in Patients with Known Heart Failure Who Receive Pacemaker, Resynchronization Therapy, or Defibrillator Implants

Cecilia Rorsman,Maiwand Farouq,Sofia Marinko,Pyotr G. Platonov,Rasmus Borgquist

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000538529

IF: 1.9

2024-03-30

Cardiology

Abstract:Introduction: Patients with heart failure (HF) and bradycardia may be eligible for different types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), depending on the presence of atrioventricular conduction disease, age, and comorbidities. We aimed to assess the prognosis for these patients, after CIED implantation, stratified for the type of CIED device. Methods: All patients with preexisting HF diagnosis who received a CIED with a right ventricular lead during the period 2005–2018 in Sweden were identified via the pacemaker registry. Data were crossmatched with the population registry and national disease registries. The outcome was 5-year risk of HF hospitalization and mortality. Results: A total of 37,745 patients were included in the study. Comparing demographics for implantable cardioverter defibrillator versus pacemaker implants, median age was 66 years versus 83 years, 20% versus 41% were female, 64% versus 50% had ischemic heart disease, and 35% versus 67% had atrial fibrillation (all p < 0.001). Five-year mortality was highest in single-chamber pacemaker recipients (61% compared to average 40%, p < 0.001), but the proportion of cardiovascular mortality was highest for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients (68% vs. 63% p < 0.001). Adjusted mortality was higher for pacemaker patients in all age decile groups (ranging from <60 to >90 years old, all p < 0.001), HF hospitalization occurred in 28% (dual-chamber pacemaker) to 39% (CRT-P) of patients, and cause of death was HF in 15% (dual-chamber pacemaker) to 25% (CRT-D), all p < 0.001. Conclusion: In this large real-world cohort of CIED-treated patients with prior HF, demography and mortality data indicate that clinicians chose devices according to the overall status of the patient. HF-related events occurred in all groups but were more common in CRT-treated patients.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Cardiac implantable electronic devices in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

Alexander C Egbe,William R Miranda,Malini Madhavan,Naser M Ammash,Venkata R Missula,Mohammed Al-Otaibi,Ayotola Fatola,Srikanth Kothapalli,Heidi M Connolly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314072

IF: 5.7

2018-10-30

Heart

Abstract:Background Tachyarrhythmias and bradyarrhythmias affect 20%–50% of adult patients with tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) and some of these patients will require cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) such as pacemaker and/or internal cardioverter defibrillator. Methods The Mayo Adult Congenital Heart Disease database was queried for patients with repaired TOF and history of CIED implantation, 1990–2017. The study objectives were: (1) determine the occurrence of device-related complications defined as lead failure, lead recall, device infection and lead thrombus; and (2) determine the occurrence and risk factors for defibrillator shock. Results There were 99 patients (age 46±14 years and 66 (66%) men) with CIED, and the CIEDs were 41 (41%) pacemakers and 73 (73%) defibrillators. Indication for defibrillator implantation was for primary prevention in 28 (38%) and secondary prevention in 45 (62%). Device-related complications occurred in 20 (20%) patients (lead failure 17, lead recall 4, device infection 12 and thrombus 3). Twenty-five per cent of all device infections occurred within 30 days from the time of device generator change. Annualised rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks were 5.7% and 6.2%, respectively. The use of class III antiarrhythmic drug was protective against defibrillator shock. Conclusion The current study provides useful outcome data to aid patient counselling and clinical decision-making. Further studies are required to explore ways to decrease the risk of postprocedural infection after device generator change, and to determine which patients will benefit from empirical antiarrhythmic therapy as a strategy to decrease incidence of inappropriate defibrillator shock.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Taylor Evaluation of forage soybean yield and quality characteristics and potential as a feed resource for developing replacement beef heifers Master of Science

E. Taylor

Abstract:Taylor, Emily G. M.S., Purdue University, May 2014. Evaluation of Forage Soybean Yield and Quality Characteristics and Potential as a Feed Resource for Developing Replacement Beef Heifers. Major Professor: Ronald P. Lemenager. Two agronomic studies were conducted to evaluate the yield and quality potentials of forage soybean (Glycine max (L.)) grown with and without pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.)). Results indicate that there were no differences between row spacings of 18 cm or 36 cm and targeted populations of 469,500 seeds ha-1 or 234,750 seeds ha-1 on dry matter yield or overall quality of the forage soybean. While harvest date had significant effects on quality as the crop matured, forage soybean as a monoculture proved to be a very forgiving crop, and recovered in quality as maturity advanced into the later reproductive stages of plant development. When forage soybean was intercropped with pearl millet as a mixture or in alternating rows, there were no significant differences in DM yield. In general, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber increased across harvest dates, while crude protein and in-vitro digestibility decreased. Collectively these studies suggest that, depending on equipment availability, row spacings of either 18 cm or 36 cm, and lower seeding rates of 234,750 seeds ha-1 would be most cost effective. These results also indicate that one late season harvest of soybean monoculture should reduce harvest cost and maximize both forage yield and quality, while an early season
Long‑term Outcomes of Non‑systematic Device Reimplantation Following Lead Extraction in Selected Patients

Wencheng Zheng,Feng Ze,Dandan Yang,Ding Li,Xu Zhou,Cuizhen Yuan,Xuebin Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/mi.2021.11

2021-01-01

Medicine International

Abstract:Following the removal of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), reassessment of the need for a new device is vital. Some patients may have exhibited an improvement in rhythm or cardiac function and may thus no longer meet the guideline requirements for reimplantation. However, the long-term outcomes of non-systematic device reimplantation remain unknown. In the present study, it was hypothesized that the implantation of pacing systems in selected patients following lead extraction is safe. In order to confirm this hypothesis, a total of 854 patients (aged between 28 and 82 years) who underwent the removal of a CIED were enrolled in the present study and they were all reassessed to determine whether a new device following lead extraction was necessary. In order to determine which patients would undergo non-systematic device reimplantation, the standard guidelines, the criteria and the wishes of the patient were all taken into consideration. Patients remained device-free unless an adverse clinical event occurred that required reimplantation. The primary study endpoint was the rate of sudden death or reimplantation. Between January, 2014 and December, 2019, 854 consecutive patients underwent pacing system extraction, of whom 210 patients (24.6%) underwent non-systematic device reimplantation following careful reassessment (the non-reimplantation group). Among the 210 patients, 162 (77.1%) were fitted with pacemakers, 26 (12.4%) underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator and 22 (10.5%) were implanted with a cardioverter-deﬁbrillator. During a mean follow-up period of 40.4 months, 86 patients reached the primary endpoint of the study, including 54 out of 210 patients (25.7%) who experienced an adverse clinical event that required reimplantation and 32 out of 210 patients (15.2%) who experienced sudden death. Reimplantation of a new device was not required in ~25% of the patients. On the whole, the present study demonstrates that following pacing system removal, non-systematic device reimplantation associated with close surveillance is safe for selected patients.
Impact of pacemaker longevity on expected device replacement rates: Results from computer simulations based on a multicenter registry (ESSENTIAL)

Giuseppe Boriani,Matteo Bertini,Davide Saporito,Giuseppina Belotti,Fabio Quartieri,Corrado Tomasi,Angelo Pucci,Giulio Boggian,Gian Franco Mazzocca,Davide Giorgi,Paolo Diotallevi,Biagio Sassone,Diego Grassini,Alessio Gargaro,Mauro Biffi,on the behalf of ESSENTIAL Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23003

Abstract:Background: The rate of device replacement in pacemaker recipients has not been investigated in detail. Hypothesis: Current pacemakers with automatic management of atrial and ventricular pacing output provide sufficient longevity to minimize replacement rate. Methods: We considered a cohort of 542 pacemaker patients (age 78 ± 9 years, 60% male, 71% de-novo implants) and combined 1-month projected device longevity with survival data and late complication rate in a 3-state Markov model tested in several Monte Carlo computer simulations. Predetermined subgroups were: age < or ≥ 70; gender; primary indication to cardiac pacing. Results: At the 1-month follow-up the reported projected device longevity was 153 ± 45 months. With these values the proportion of patients expected to undergo a device replacement due to battery depletion was higher in patients aged <70 (49.9%, range 32.1%-61.9%) than in age ≥70 (24.5%, range 19.9%-28.8%); in women (39.9%, range 30.8%-48.1%) than in men (32.0%, range 24.7%-37.5%); in sinus node dysfunction (41.5%, range 30.2%-53.0%) than in atrio-ventricular block (33.5%, range 27.1-38.8%) or atrial fibrillation with bradycardia (27.9%, range 18.5%-37.0%). The expected replacement rate was inversely related to the assumed device longevity and depended on age class: a 50% increase in battery longevity implied a 5% reduction of replacement rates in patients aged ≥80. Conclusions: With current device technology 1/4 of pacemaker recipients aged ≥70 are expected to receive a second device in their life. Replacement rate depends on age, gender, and primary indication owing to differences in patients' survival expectancy. Additional improvements in device service time may modestly impact expected replacement rates especially in patients ≥80 years.
Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker

Jonathan P. Piccini,Mikhael El-Chami,Kael Wherry,George H. Crossley,Robert C. Kowal,Kurt Stromberg,Colleen Longacre,Jennifer Hinnenthal,Lindsay Bockstedt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2621

2021-10-01

JAMA Cardiology

Abstract:ImportanceThe safety and efficacy of leadless VVI pacemakers have been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, but the comparative performance of the device in a large, real-world population has not been examined.ObjectiveTo compare patient characteristics and complications among patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers.Design, Setting, ParticipantsThe Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers (Micra CED) is a continuously enrolling observational cohort study evaluating complications, utilization, and outcomes of leadless VVI pacemakers in the US Medicare fee-for-service population. Patients implanted between March 9, 2017, and December 1, 2018, were identified and included. All Medicare patients implanted with leadless VVI and transvenous VVI pacemakers during the study period were enrolled. Patients with less than 12 months of continuous enrollment in Medicare prior to leadless VVI or transvenous VVI implant and with evidence of a prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device were excluded, leaving 5746 patients with leadless VVI pacemakers and 9662 patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers. Data were analyzed from May 2018 to April 2021.ExposuresMedicare patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers or transvenous VVI pacemakers.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were acute (30-day) complications and 6-month complications.ResultsOf 15 408 patients, 6701 (43.5%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 81.0 (8.7) years. Compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers, patients with leadless VVI pacemakers were more likely to have end-stage kidney disease (690 [12.0%] vs 226 [2.3%];P < .001) and a higher mean (SD) Charlson Comorbidity Index score (5.1 [3.4] vs 4.6 [3.0];P < .001). The unadjusted acute complication rate was higher in patients with leadless VVI pacemakers relative to transvenous VVI pacemakers (484 of 5746 [8.4%] vs 707 of 9662 [7.3%];P = .02). However, there was no significant difference in overall acute complication rates following adjustment for patient characteristics (7.7% vs 7.4%; risk difference, 0.3; 95% CI, −0.6 to 1.3;P = .49). Pericardial effusion and/or perforation within 30 days was significantly higher among patients with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with patients with transvenous VVI pacemakers in both unadjusted and adjusted models (unadjusted, 47 of 5746 [0.8%] vs 38 of 9662 [0.4%];P < .001; adjusted, 0.8% vs 0.4%; risk difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7;P = .004). Patients implanted with leadless VVI pacemakers had a lower rate of 6-month complications compared with patients implanted with transvenous VVI pacemakers (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03;P = .10; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96;P = .02).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, despite significant differences in patient characteristics, patients in whom a leadless pacemaker was implanted were observed to have higher rates of pericardial effusion and/or perforation but lower rates of other device-related complications and requirements for device revision at 6 months. Understanding the benefits and risks associated with leadless VVI pacemakers compared with transvenous VVI pacemakers can help clinicians and patients make informed treatment decisions.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Eight year Follow-Up Data on a Leadless Pacing System Real life experience in comparison to data of the prospective trial

S Winter,Q Nguyen,T Tuscher,S Fischer,J M Sinning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.421

IF: 39.3

2024-10-30

European Heart Journal

Abstract:Introduction The Micra leadless intracardiac pacing system has been introduced and implemented into clinical routine in 2015, with its next generation MICRA AV in 2020. Feasibility, implantation safety, and acute success have been proven in the setting of controlled studies. Even apart from controlled studies, this new technology was beneficial for the individual patient. We aimed to report our single center follow-up (FU) data with a follow-up of up to six years. Methods In 292 patients (146 men; age: 81±5,7 y), Micra implantation was performed. Pacemaker interrogation was performed one to seven days after implantation and during FU (1; 3; 6, then every 6 month) up to 84 months. Data were assessed in a real-life setting and compared with existing data of a controlled prospective trial. Results The implantation was successful in all 292 attempts with only one pericardial effusion as major complication. During follow up there were two patients developing severe heart failure symptoms resulting in an implantation of a CRT-device and switching of the leadless pacemaker system. The average acute thresholds, sensing and impedance after system release were: 0.57±0.34V@0.24ms; 10,02±3,96mV and 752±1201Ohm. During follow up of up to 8 years neither, pacemaker failure, nor infections were reported. Measurements were reevaluated for long-term thresholds, sensing and impedance: 0.75 ± 0.38V @ 0.24 ms; 18,38 ±2,75 mV and 525 ± 102 Ohm. During eight years, no significant changes from acute to long-term measurements were detectable. In comparison to the controlled trial, our measurements of this real-life cohort were very similar. Conclusion In a real-life setting, the implantation of the leadless Micra system demonstrates a high rate of implantation success without major complications. We were also able to show stable long-term system parameters in the clinical setting of up to seven years of follow up with a very good battery longevity of about 12,3 years.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Lead Safety: Harnessing Real-World Remote Monitoring Data for Medical Device Evaluation

Hope Caughron,Hilary Bowman,Gary Tarasovsky,Hui Shen,Li Wang,Hetal Odobasic,Merritt H. Raitt,Mary A. Whooley,Michael E. Matheny,Kimberly A. Selzman,Jacqueline Puigbo,Sanket S. Dhruva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.12.033

IF: 6.779

2022-12-29

Heart Rhythm

Abstract:Background Current methods to identify cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) lead failure include post-approval studies, which may be limited in scope, participant numbers, and attrition; studies relying on administrative codes, which lack specificity; and voluntary adverse event reporting, which cannot determine incidence or attribution to the lead. Objective To determine whether adjudicated remote monitoring (RM) data can address these limitations and augment lead safety evaluation. Methods Among 48,191 actively monitored patients with CIEDs, we identified RM transmissions signifying incident lead abnormalities and, separately, identified all leads abandoned or extracted between 4/1/19-4/1/21. We queried electronic health record (EHR) and Medicare fee-for-service claims data to determine if patients had administrative codes for lead failure. We verified lead failure through manual EHR review. Results Of 48,191 patients, 1170 (2.4%) had incident lead abnormalities detected on RM. Of these, 409 patients had administrative codes for lead failure, and 233 (57.0%) of these patients had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Among the 761 patients without administrative codes, 167 (21.9%) had structural lead failure verified through chart review. Thus, 400 (66.7%) total patients with RM transmissions suggestive of lead abnormalities had structural lead failure. In addition, 200 patients without preceding abnormal remote transmissions had leads abandoned or extracted for structural failure. Patients with isolated right atrial or left ventricular lead failure were less likely to have lead replacement and administrative codes reflective of lead failure. Conclusion Remote monitoring may strengthen real-world assessment of lead failure, particularly for leads where patients do not undergo replacement.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
A Change of Pace: Modifying Pacemaker Settings in the Emergency Department as Emergency Medicine Physicians, A Case Report

Maritza Kelesis,Martin Huecker,Robert Whitford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.10.012

IF: 1.473

2024-11-04

Journal of Emergency Medicine

Abstract:Background: Pacemakers are implantable or external devices that send electrical impulses allowing the heart to contract. Some common indications for permanent pacemaker placement include symptomatic bradycardia due to high grade atrioventricular (AV) block, sick sinus syndrome, chronic bifascicular block, and post-cardiac transplantation. Like all devices pacemakers can malfunction or stop working entirely. We present a patient with an implantable pacemaker/cardioverter and defibrillator (ICD) displaying symptomatic failure to capture and settings were adjusted in the emergency department. Adjustment in the emergency department (ED) resolved the patient's symptoms and required no further interventions. Case Report: An 82-year-old female with atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and a Medtronic dual chamber pacer/ICD presented to the emergency department for complaints of weakness and lightheadedness. Emergency medical services (EMS) noted intermittent bradycardia, hypotension, and decreased responsiveness. Electrocardiogram (ECG) revealed failure to capture. The Medtronic application was used to interrogate and reprogram the device. The settings were DDD at a rate of 60 beats per minute (BPM) with ventricular output of 4.5 millivolts (mV) and atrial output of 4.5 mV which were changed ventricular lead outputs from 4.5 mV to 8.0 mV and rate from 60 to 80 for additional cardiac output. After this adjustment, the bradycardia resolved, and ECG showed a successful AV-paced rhythm. Transcutaneous pacing was never required. Why should an emergency physician be aware of this? Adjustment of pacer settings in the ED in order to stabilize the critically ill patient is within the scope of the emergency physician. We can reduce stress to the patient and prevent hospitalizations. Pacemakers can become a tool to optimize treatment plans for an aging population where pacemakers are becoming more common.

emergency medicine

Butyrate induces sLex synthesis by stimulation of selective glycosyltransferase genes.

Clinical evaluation of pacemaker automatic capture management and atrioventricular interval extension algorithm.

Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017

Class I Recalls of Cardiovascular Devices Between 2013 and 2022 : A Cross-Sectional Analysis

What Electrophysiologists Should Know about Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Recalls

Navigating the Landscape of Medical Device Advisories: A Special Report from the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society Device Advisory Committee

A worldwide experience of the management of battery failures and chronic device retrieval of the Nanostim leadless pacemaker

Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process

Analysis of FDA Neuromodulation Device Recall in 2006-2015

Anti-inflammatory activity of animal oils from the Peruvian Amazon.

Lost bits: particle shedding with polyvinyl chloride intravenous administration sets

Cardiac device creativity and innovation under constraints: Exploring trends from the food and drug administration's device clearances and recalls

Age-Stratified Clinical Outcome in Patients with Known Heart Failure Who Receive Pacemaker, Resynchronization Therapy, or Defibrillator Implants

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in adults with tetralogy of Fallot

Taylor Evaluation of forage soybean yield and quality characteristics and potential as a feed resource for developing replacement beef heifers Master of Science

Long‑term Outcomes of Non‑systematic Device Reimplantation Following Lead Extraction in Selected Patients

Impact of pacemaker longevity on expected device replacement rates: Results from computer simulations based on a multicenter registry (ESSENTIAL)

Contemporaneous Comparison of Outcomes Among Patients Implanted With a Leadless vs Transvenous Single-Chamber Ventricular Pacemaker

Eight year Follow-Up Data on a Leadless Pacing System Real life experience in comparison to data of the prospective trial

Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device Lead Safety: Harnessing Real-World Remote Monitoring Data for Medical Device Evaluation

A Change of Pace: Modifying Pacemaker Settings in the Emergency Department as Emergency Medicine Physicians, A Case Report