Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Existing cardiac disease contributes to poor outcome in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Little information exists regarding COVID-19 infection in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED).

Objectives: To assess the association between CIEDs and severity of COVID-19 infection.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis including 13,000 patients > 18 years old with COVID-19 infection between January and December 2020. Patients with COVID-19 who had a permanent pacemaker or defibrillator were matched 1:4 based on age and sex followed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results: Forty patients with CIED and 160 patients without CIED were included in the current analysis. Mean age was 72.6 ± 13 years, and approximately 50% were females. Majority of the patients in the study arm had a pacemaker (63%), whereas only 15 patients (37%) had a defibrillator. Patients with COVID-19 and CIED presented more often with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. They were more likely to be hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) and required more ventilatory support (35% vs. 18.3%). Thirty-day mortality (22.5% vs. 13.8%) and 1-year mortality (25% vs. 15%) were higher among patients with COVID-19 and CIED.

Conclusions: Patients with COVID-19 and CIED had a significantly higher prevalence of co-morbidities that were associated with increased mortality. Although,CIED by itself was not found as an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, it may serve as a warning for severe illness with COVID-19.

Background: Endocardial leads of permanent pacemakers (PPM) and implantable defibrillators (ICD) across the tricuspid valve (TV) can lead to tricuspid regurgitation (TR) or can worsen existing TR with subsequent severe morbidity and mortality.

Objectives: To evaluate prospectively the efficacy of intraprocedural 2-dimentional-transthoracic echocardiography (2DTTE) in reducing/preventing lead-associated TR.

Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled study comparing echocardiographic results in patients undergoing de-novo PPM/ICD implantation with intraprocedural echo-guided right ventricular (RV) lead placement (Group 1, n=56) versus non-echo guided implantation (Group 2, n=55). Lead position was changed if TR grade was more than baseline in Group 1. Cohort patients underwent 2DTTE at baseline and 3 and/or 6 months after implantation. Excluded were patients with baseline TR > moderate or baseline ≥ moderate RV dysfunction.

Results: The study comprised 111 patients (74.14 ± 11 years of age, 58.6% male, 19% ICD, 42% active leads). In 98 patients there was at least one follow-up echo. Two patients from Group 1 (3.6%) needed intraprocedural RV electrode repositioning. Four patients (3.5%, 2 from each group, all dual chamber PPM, 3 atrial fibrillation, 2 RV pacing > 40%, none with intraprocedural reposition) had TR deterioration during 6 months follow-up. One patient from Group 2 with baseline mild-moderate aortic regurgitation (AR) had worsening TR and AR within 3 months and underwent aortic valve replacement and TV repair.

Conclusions: The rate of mechanically induced lead-associated TR is low; thus, a routine intraprocedural 2DTTE does not have a significant role in reducing/preventing it

Background: Patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at high risk for immediate post-procedural heart block and long-term mortality when discharged without a pacemaker.

Objectives: To test whether prophylactic permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) is beneficial.

Methods: Of 795 consecutive patients who underwent TAVI, 90 patients had baseline RBBB. We compared characteristics and outcomes of the prophylactic PPI with post-TAVI PPI. Need for pacing was defined as  greater than 1% ventricular pacing.

Results: Forty patients with RBBB received a prophylactic PPI (group 1), and in 50 the decision was based on standard post-procedural indications (group 2). There were no significant differences in clinical baseline characteristics. One patient developed a tamponade after a PPI post-TAVI. A trend toward shorter hospitalization duration in group 1 patients was observed (P = 0.06). On long-term follow-up of 848 ± 56 days, no differences were found in overall survival (P = 0.77), the composite event-free survival of both mortality and hospitalizations (P = 0.66), or mortality and syncope (P = 0.65). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of the need for pacing included baseline PR interval increase of 10ms (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 per 10 ms increment 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 1.02–1.44, P = 0.028), and the use of new generation valves (OR 3.92, 95%CI 1.23–12.46, P = 0.023).

Conclusions: In patients with baseline pre-TAVI RBBB, no outcome differences were found with prophylactic PPI. On multivariate analysis, predictors of the need for pacing included baseline long PR interval, and the use of newer generation valves.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging is a diagnostic tool of growing importance. Since its introduction, certain medical implants, e.g., pacemakers, were considered an absolute contraindication, mainly due to the presence of ferromagnetic components and the potential for electromagnetic interference. Patients with such implants were therefore prevented from entering MRI systems and not studied by this modality. These devices are now smaller and have improved electromechanical interference protection. Recently in vitro and in vivo data showed that these devices may be scanned safely in the MRI.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with three patients with pacemakers who underwent cerebral MRI studies.

Methods: The study included patients with clear clinical indications for MRI examination and who had implanted devices shown to be safe by in vitro and in vivo animal testing. In each patient the pacemaker was programmed to pacing-off. During the scan, continuous electrocardiographic telemetry, breathing rate, pulse oximetry and symptoms were monitored. Specific absorption rate was limited to 4.0 W/kg for all sequences. Device parameters were assessed before, immediately after MRI, and 1 week later.

Results: None of the patients was pacemaker dependent. During the MRI study, no device movement was felt by the patients and no episodes of inappropriate inhibition or rapid activation of pacing were observed during the scan. At device interrogation here were no significant differences in device parameters pre-, post-, and 1 week after MRI. Image quality was unremarkable in all imaging sequences used and was not influenced by the presence of the pacemaker.

Conclusion: Given appropriate precautions, MRI can be safely performed in patients with a selected permanent pacemaker. This may have significant implications for current MRI contraindications.