Cargando…
Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study
OBJECTIVE: Remote cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogators, originally developed for home use, have been proven to be efficacious in clinical settings, especially emergency departments. Concern exists that attempting to interrogate a CIED with the remote interrogator of a different...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995514/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35354231 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.21.065 |
_version_ | 1784684315312914432 |
---|---|
author | Le, Tinh Neuenschwander, James Cordial, Parker Sankoe, Mackenzie Parekh, Ankur Hiestand, Brian Peacock, WF |
author_facet | Le, Tinh Neuenschwander, James Cordial, Parker Sankoe, Mackenzie Parekh, Ankur Hiestand, Brian Peacock, WF |
author_sort | Le, Tinh |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Remote cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogators, originally developed for home use, have been proven to be efficacious in clinical settings, especially emergency departments. Concern exists that attempting to interrogate a CIED with the remote interrogator of a different brand, i.e., a brand-mismatched interrogator, may cause device malfunction. The aim of this study was to determine if intentionally attempting to interrogate a CIED with a brand-mismatched remote interrogator resulted in device malfunction. METHODS: A total of 75 ex vivo CIEDs manufactured by various companies underwent attempted interrogation by a brand-mismatched remote interrogator. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. A total of 30 in vivo CIEDs were then randomized for an attempted 2-minute mismatched remote interrogation by one of the two possible mismatched remote interrogators. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. RESULTS: Of 150 ex vivo brand-mismatched interrogations, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices were turned off. In the 30 patients undergoing brand-mismatched interrogations, the mean (standard deviation) age was 71.6 ( ± 14.7) years, 16 (53%) were male, with 24 pacemakers (80%), four pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillators (13%), and two implantable cardioverter defibrillators (7%). Of the 30 mismatched interrogations performed, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices turned off. CONCLUSION: In a total 180 attempted brand-mismatched CIED interrogations, no CIED malfunctions occurred. This suggests that the use of remote CIED interrogators when device manufacturer is unknown is unlikely to result in adverse CIED-related events. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8995514 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89955142022-04-20 Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study Le, Tinh Neuenschwander, James Cordial, Parker Sankoe, Mackenzie Parekh, Ankur Hiestand, Brian Peacock, WF Clin Exp Emerg Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: Remote cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogators, originally developed for home use, have been proven to be efficacious in clinical settings, especially emergency departments. Concern exists that attempting to interrogate a CIED with the remote interrogator of a different brand, i.e., a brand-mismatched interrogator, may cause device malfunction. The aim of this study was to determine if intentionally attempting to interrogate a CIED with a brand-mismatched remote interrogator resulted in device malfunction. METHODS: A total of 75 ex vivo CIEDs manufactured by various companies underwent attempted interrogation by a brand-mismatched remote interrogator. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. A total of 30 in vivo CIEDs were then randomized for an attempted 2-minute mismatched remote interrogation by one of the two possible mismatched remote interrogators. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. RESULTS: Of 150 ex vivo brand-mismatched interrogations, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices were turned off. In the 30 patients undergoing brand-mismatched interrogations, the mean (standard deviation) age was 71.6 ( ± 14.7) years, 16 (53%) were male, with 24 pacemakers (80%), four pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillators (13%), and two implantable cardioverter defibrillators (7%). Of the 30 mismatched interrogations performed, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices turned off. CONCLUSION: In a total 180 attempted brand-mismatched CIED interrogations, no CIED malfunctions occurred. This suggests that the use of remote CIED interrogators when device manufacturer is unknown is unlikely to result in adverse CIED-related events. The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8995514/ /pubmed/35354231 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.21.065 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Korean Society of Emergency Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Le, Tinh Neuenschwander, James Cordial, Parker Sankoe, Mackenzie Parekh, Ankur Hiestand, Brian Peacock, WF Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
title | Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
title_full | Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
title_fullStr | Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
title_short | Assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
title_sort | assessing the safety of interrogating cardiac-implantable electronic devices with brand-mismatched remote interrogators: a pilot study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8995514/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35354231 http://dx.doi.org/10.15441/ceem.21.065 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT letinh assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy AT neuenschwanderjames assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy AT cordialparker assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy AT sankoemackenzie assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy AT parekhankur assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy AT hiestandbrian assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy AT peacockwf assessingthesafetyofinterrogatingcardiacimplantableelectronicdeviceswithbrandmismatchedremoteinterrogatorsapilotstudy |