scholarly journals Safety Profile of Liver FibroScan in Patients with Cardiac Pacemakers or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yin Chan ◽  
Stephanie Pranke ◽  
Farid Rashidi ◽  
Shravan Nosib ◽  
Lawrence Worobetz
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Liver Stiffness ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Liver Imaging ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Cardiac Pacemakers ◽  
Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Background. Emerging evidence suggests that nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is associated with coronary artery diseases and arrhythmias. The FibroScan (Echosens, France), a widely available, noninvasive device, is able to detect liver fibrosis and steatosis within this patient population. However, the FibroScan is currently contraindicated in patients with cardiac pacemakers (PM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD).Objective. To determine the safety profile of FibroScan testing in patients with PM or ICD.Methods. Consecutive outpatients undergoing routine device interrogations at a tertiary level teaching hospital underwent simultaneous liver stiffness measurements. PM or ICD performance data, device types, patient demographics, medical history, and previous laboratory and conventional liver imaging results were collected.Results. Analysis of 107 subjects with 33 different types of implanted cardiac devices, from 5 different companies (Medtronic, Sorin, ELA Medical, Boston Scientific, and St. Jude), did not demonstrate any adverse events as defined by abnormal device sensing/pacing or ICD firing. This population included high risk subjects undergoing active pacing (n=53) and with right pectoral PM placement (n=1). None of the subjects had any clinical signs of decompensated congestive heart failure or cirrhosis during the exam.Conclusion. TE with FibroScan can be safely performed in patients with PM or ICD.

scholarly journals Capsule Endoscopy in Patients with Cardiac Pacemakers, Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators, and Left Heart Devices: A Review of the Current Literature

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Bandorski ◽  
Martin Keuchel ◽  
Martin Brück ◽  
Reinhard Hoeltgen ◽  
Marcus Wieczorek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
In Vivo Studies ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Left Heart ◽  
Cardiac Pacemakers ◽  
Technical Data ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Background and Study Aims. Capsule endoscopy is an established tool for investigation of the small intestine. Because of limited clinical experience in patients with cardiac devices, the Food and Drug Administration and the manufacturer recommended not to use capsule endoscopy in these patients. The vast majority of investigations did not reveal any interference between capsule endoscopy and cardiac devices. Methods. Studies investigating interference between CE and cardiac devices were analysed. For the review we considered studies published in English or German and indexed in Medline, as well as highly relevant abstracts. Results. In vitro and in vivo studies mainly revealed no interference between capsule endoscopy and cardiac devices. Technical data of capsule endoscopy (Given Imaging) reveal that interference with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillator is impossible. Telemetry can interfere with CE video. Conclusion. The clinical use of capsule endoscopy (Given Imaging) is unproblematic in patients with cardiac pacemakers.

Economics of new therapies in electrophysiology

ESC CardioMed ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 3133-3135
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Boriani ◽  
Lucia D’Angiolella ◽  
Fabiana Madotto
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Typical Case ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Resynchronization Therapy ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Implantable Cardiac Devices ◽  
Effective Assessment ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

Diagnostic and prognostic improvements in electrophysiology have been spectacular and mainly been attributable to the development of implantable cardiac devices, such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (CRT-Ps), and resynchronization therapy pacemakers with defibrillation therapy (CRT-D). These therapies are expensive because of both up-front initial implant costs and for subsequent check-up, device replacement, and possible complications. As this is a typical case in which a therapy is both costly and effective, assessment of cost-effectiveness of these device therapies becomes of paramount importance. According to recent studies, these treatments are broadly cost-effective when applied adequately and correctly analysed over a long-term period. The up-front initial cost of the devices and their implant are sometimes short-term barriers to the implementation of cost-effective therapeutic strategies.

Virtual clinics for follow-up of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (10) ◽  
pp. 1243-1247
Author(s):  
Georgia Spentzou ◽  
Kaitlin Mayne ◽  
Helen Fulton ◽  
Karen McLeod
Keyword(s):  
Parent Satisfaction ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Digital Medicine ◽  
Implantable Cardiac Devices ◽  
System Data ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Virtual Clinic

AbstractThere is growing interest in the use of digital medicine to reduce the need for traditional outpatient follow-up. Remote interrogation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators is now possible with most devices. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of virtual pacing clinics in following up children with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, including epicardial systems.Methods:The study was retrospective over 8 years (2010–2017), with review of patient records and analysis of downloads from the implantable cardiac devices to the virtual clinics.Results:A total of 75 patients were set up for virtual clinic follow-up during the study period, 94.5% with a pacemaker and 5.5% an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. The majority (76.8%) had an epicardial system. Data on lead impedance, battery longevity, programmed parameters, detected arrhythmias, percentage pacing and delivered defibrillator therapies were obtainable by download. Lead threshold measurements were obtainable via download in 83.7% of the devices, including epicardial systems. No concerning device issue was missed. In 15% of patients a major issue was detected remotely, including three patients with lead fractures. The virtual clinics resulted in fewer hospital attendances while enhancing monitoring and enabling more frequent device checks. The vast majority (91.4%) of families who responded to a questionnaire were satisfied with the virtual clinic follow-up.Conclusions:Virtual clinics allow safe and effective follow-up of children with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators, including those with epicardial systems and are associated with high levels of parent satisfaction.

Cardiac device therapy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Rajappan
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Resynchronization ◽  
Steady Increase ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators ◽  
Device Therapy ◽  
Cardiac Device ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillators

The term ‘device therapy’ is used in cardiology to refer to three different types of implantable cardiac-rhythm-management devices: pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (also known as ICDs), and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices (also known as CRT devices). There has been a steady increase in the number of patients receiving these cardiac devices; in relation to CRT devices, the increase has been almost exponential.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document