Comment on “Particle therapy using protons or carbon ions for cancer patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED): a retrospective multi-institutional study”

Author(s):  
Hiroaki Matsubara
Author(s):  
Takayuki Hashimoto ◽  
Yusuke Demizu ◽  
Haruko Numajiri ◽  
Tomonori Isobe ◽  
Shigekazu Fukuda ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the outcomes of particle therapy in cancer patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Materials and methods From April 2001 to March 2013, 19,585 patients were treated with proton beam therapy (PBT) or carbon ion therapy (CIT) at 8 institutions. Of these, 69 patients (0.4%, PBT 46, CIT 22, and PBT + CIT 1) with CIEDs (64 pacemakers, 4 implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and 1 with a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator) were retrospectively reviewed. All the patients with CIEDs in this study were treated with the passive scattering type of particle beam therapy. Results Six (13%) of the 47 PBT patients, and none of the 23 CIT patients experienced CIED malfunctions (p = 0.105). Electrical resets (7) and over-sensing (3) occurred transiently in 6 patients. The distance between the edge of the irradiation field and the CIED was not associated with the incidence of malfunctions in 20 patients with lung cancer. A larger field size had a higher event rate but the test to evaluate trends as not statistically significant (p = 0.196). Conclusion Differences in the frequency of occurrence of device malfunctions for patients treated with PBT and patients treated with CIT did not reach statistical significance. The present study can be regarded as a benchmark study about the incidence of malfunctioning of CIED in passive scattering particle beam therapy and can be used as a reference for active scanning particle beam therapy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 967-973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo L. Malavasi ◽  
Giuseppina De Marco ◽  
Jacopo F. Imberti ◽  
Filippo Placentino ◽  
Marco Vitolo ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 74
Author(s):  
Kathy L Lee ◽  

Cardiac pacemakers have been the standard therapy for patients with bradyarrhythmias for several decades. The pacing lead is an integral part of the system, serving as a conduit for the delivery of energy pulses to stimulate the myocardium. However, it is also the Achilles’ heel of pacemakers, being the direct cause of most device complications both acutely during implant and chronically years afterwards. Leadless pacing with ultrasound-mediated energy has been demonstrated in animals and humans to be safe and feasible in acute studies. Implantable defibrillators revolutionised the treatment and prevention of sudden cardiac death. Subcutaneous implantable defibrillators have been under development for more than 10 years. A permanent implantable system has been shown to be feasible in treating induced and spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias. These developments and recent advances in pacing and defibrillation will arouse further interest in the research and development of leadless cardiac implantable electronic devices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document