Pulsed field ablation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: an ex vivo assessment of safety

被引:0
|
作者
Lennerz, Carsten [1 ,2 ]
O'Connor, Matthew [3 ]
Schaarschmidt, Claudia [1 ]
Reents, Tilko [1 ]
Bourier, Felix [1 ]
Telishevska, Marta [1 ]
Lengauer, Sarah [1 ]
Popa, Miruna [1 ]
Wimbauer, Katharina [1 ]
Holmgren, Ellen [1 ]
Thoma, Mara [1 ]
Spitzauer, Lovis [1 ]
Bahlke, Fabian [1 ]
Krafft, Hannah [1 ]
Englert, Florian [1 ]
Knoll, Katharina [1 ,2 ]
Friedrich, Lena [1 ]
Blazek, Patrick [1 ]
Hessling, Gabriele [1 ]
Kolb, Christof [1 ]
Deisenhofer, Isabel [1 ]
Kottmaier, Marc [1 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, German Heart Ctr Munich, Dept Electrophysiol, Lazarettstr 36, D-80636 Munich, Germany
[2] German Ctr Cardiovasc Res DZHK, Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
[3] Auckland City Hosp, Cardiol Dept, Auckland, New Zealand
关键词
Electromagnetic interference; Pulsed field ablation; Atrial fibrillation ablation; Pacemaker; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; ATRIAL-FIBRILLATION;
D O I
10.1007/s10840-024-01758-2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Pulse field ablation (PFA) is a novel catheter ablation technology with potential safety benefits due to its tissue selectivity. It has the potential to directly damage or interact with the functionality of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in the form of electromagnetic interference (EMI). The aim of our study was to assess the impact of PFA on CIEDs. Methods PFA lesions (45 per CIED) were applied from the Farapulse system to CIEDs (< 5 cm from the lead tip and < 15 cm from the generator). All devices were checked before and after PFA application for proper sensing and pacing functionality as well as for integrity of shock circuits in ICDs using a heart simulator. Moreover, devices were then interrogated for any spontaneous reprogramming, mode switching or other EMI effects. Results In total, 44 CIEDs were tested (16 pacemaker, 21 ICDs, 7 CRT-P/D) with 1980 PFA applications. There was no change in device settings, functionality and electrical parameters, and there was no macroscopic damage to the devices. The risk of damage to the electric components or leads on a patient-based analysis is 0/44 (95% CI 0-8%) and on a PFA pulse-based analysis is 0/1980 (95% CI 0-0.2%). Clinically relevant EMI appeared with oversensing and pacing inhibition but not tachycardia detection. Conclusions Bipolar PFA appears safe and does not result in damage to CIEDs or leads. Clinically relevant EMI does occur, but appropriate peri-procedural programming may mitigate this. In vivo studies are needed to confirm our findings.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Safety of electronic massagers in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
    Chia, Pow-Li
    Mok, Kwang-How
    Wong, Shiun Woei
    Foo, David
    [J]. PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2021, 44 (01): : 167 - 170
  • [2] Perioperative Assessment of Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices
    Castillo, Javier G.
    Silvay, George
    Viles-Gonzalez, Juan
    [J]. MOUNT SINAI JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 79 (01): : 25 - 33
  • [3] THE SAFETY OF MRI IN PATIENTS WITH HYBRID CARDIAC IMPLANTABLE ELECTRONIC DEVICES
    Liu, Michael
    Pannunzio, Sofia
    Minaskeian, Nareg
    Klooster, Lindsay
    Sorajja, Dan
    Scott, Luis
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2021, 77 (18) : 245 - 245
  • [4] Safety of smartwatches and their chargers in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
    Tzeis, Stylianos
    Asvestas, Dimitrios
    Moraitis, Nektarios
    Vardas, Emmanuel P.
    Mililis, Panagiotis
    Letsas, Konstantinos
    Kouvelas, Konstantinos
    Nikita, Konstantina S.
    Vardas, Panos
    [J]. EUROPACE, 2021, 23 (01): : 99 - 103
  • [5] Update on MRI Safety in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices
    Markman, Timothy M.
    Halperin, Henry R.
    Nazarian, Saman
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2018, 288 (03) : 656 - 657
  • [6] Zero-fluoroscopy ablation in patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices
    Shimamoto, Keiko
    Yamagata, Kenichiro
    Wakamiya, Akinori
    Ueda, Nobuhiko
    Kamakura, Tsukasa
    Wada, Mitsuru
    Inoue-Yamada, Yuko
    Miyamoto, Koji
    Nagase, Satoshi
    Kusano, Kengo F.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2022, 33 (03) : 423 - 429
  • [7] Magnetic resonance imaging safety in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
    Yang, Eunice
    Suzuki, Masahito
    Nazarian, Saman
    Halperin, Henry R.
    [J]. TRENDS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2022, 32 (07) : 440 - 447
  • [8] Safety and outcomes of noncardiac surgery in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
    Akhondi, Bahman
    Ansari-Ramandi, Mohammadmostafa
    Heidarali, Mona
    Kamali, Farzad
    Haghjoo, Majid
    [J]. RESEARCH IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2019, 8 (03) : 76 - 78
  • [9] Safety of repetitive nerve stimulation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices
    Cronin, Edmond M.
    Gray, Jennifer
    Abi-Saleh, Bernard
    Wilkoff, Bruce L.
    Levin, Kerry H.
    [J]. MUSCLE & NERVE, 2013, 47 (06) : 840 - 844
  • [10] The Safety of Cardiac and Thoracic Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices
    Dandamudi, Sanjay
    Collins, Jeremy D.
    Carr, James C.
    Mongkolwat, Pat
    Rahsepar, Amir A.
    Tomson, Todd T.
    Verma, Nishant
    Arora, Rishi
    Chicos, Alex B.
    Kim, Susan S.
    Lin, Albert C.
    Passman, Rod S.
    Knight, Bradley P.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2016, 23 (12) : 1498 - 1505