Citations

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.

The diagnosis and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in competitive athletes represent a fundamental responsibility of the sports medicine community. Following the diagnosis of a CVD in a competitive athlete, it is the responsibility of the sports medicine team to delineate an effective treatment and management strategy that places the health and wellness of the athlete as the primary objective. An essential and often challenging aspect of this process is determining the appropriateness of continued participation ( i.e., “return-to-play”) in competitive athletics. Recently, a joint American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Scientific Statement delineating sports eligibility supports a more patient-centered care model that supports shared decision making for clinicians and their patients/families. The present document was written to summarize the changing sports cardiology landscape with an aim of providing the cardiology and sports medicine communities with some practical approaches to eligibility decision making for competitive athletes with heart disease.

Background: Despite safety concerns, many young patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) participate in sports. We undertook a prospective, multinational registry to determine the incidence of serious adverse events because of sports participation. The primary end points were death or resuscitated arrest during sports or injury during sports because of arrhythmia or shock. Secondary end points included system malfunction and incidence of ventricular arrhythmias requiring multiple shocks for termination. Methods: Athletes with ICDs aged ≤21 years were included in this post hoc subanalysis of the ICD Sports Registry. Data on sports and clinical outcomes were obtained by phone interview and medical records review. ICD shocks and clinical details of lead malfunction were classified by 2 electrophysiologists. Results: A total of 129 young athletes participating in competitive (n=117) or dangerous (n=12) sports were enrolled. The mean age was 16 years (range, 10–21; 40% female; 92% white). The most common diagnoses were long QT syndrome (n=49), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n=30), and congenital heart disease (n=16). The most common sports were basketball and soccer, including 79 varsity/junior varsity high school and college athletes. During a median follow-up of 42 months, 35 athletes (27%) received 38 shocks. There were no occurrences of death, arrest, or injury related to arrhythmia, during sports. There was 1 ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation storm during competition. Freedom from lead malfunction was 92.3% at 5 years and 79.6% at 10 years. Conclusions: Although shocks related to competition/practice are not uncommon, there were no serious adverse sequelae. Lead malfunction rates were similar to previously reported in unselected pediatric ICD populations. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00637754.

Background— The ICD Registry was established in 2006 in part to measure quality of care in patients undergoing implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs); however, whether outcomes have improved since initiation of the registry is unknown. Our objective was to examine changes over time in 3 quality metrics available from the registry. Methods and Results— We performed an observational study of 367 153 patients who received new ICD implants from April 2006 to March 2010. Three quality metrics were selected: Adverse events (in-hospital complications or mortality), optimal medical therapy (OMT), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OMT was defined as prescription of β-blocker and either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in eligible patients. CRT eligibility was determined by QRS ≥120 ms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and New York Heart Association class III/IV. Observation periods were divided into four 12-month intervals. We analyzed changes over time and used hierarchical logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. Adverse events decreased over time (3.7% to 2.8%, P <0.001). Among eligible patients, rates of OMT and CRT increased over time (OMT: 69.0% to 74.3%, P <0.001; CRT: 80.5% to 84.2%, P <0.001). After adjustment for potential confounders, patients were significantly less likely to experience adverse events in year 4 than in year 1 (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–0.79) and significantly more likely to receive OMT (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.26–1.32) and CRT (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.35–1.49). Conclusions— Since initiation of the ICD Registry, adverse events have been decreasing, and rates of OMT and CRT among eligible patients have been increasing, although there is still significant room for improvement.

Background— The risks of sports participation for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) patients are unknown. Methods and Results— Athletes with ICDs (age, 10–60 years) participating in organized (n=328) or high-risk (n=44) sports were recruited. Sports-related and clinical data were obtained by phone interview and medical records. Follow-up occurred every 6 months. ICD shock data and clinical outcomes were adjudicated by 2 electrophysiologists. Median age was 33 years (89 subjects <20 years of age); 33% were female. Sixty were competitive athletes (varsity/junior varsity/traveling team). A pre-ICD history of ventricular arrhythmia was present in 42%. Running, basketball, and soccer were the most common sports. Over a median 31-month (interquartile range, 21–46 months) follow-up, there were no occurrences of either primary end point—death or resuscitated arrest or arrhythmia- or shock-related injury—during sports. There were 49 shocks in 37 participants (10% of study population) during competition/practice, 39 shocks in 29 participants (8%) during other physical activity, and 33 shocks in 24 participants (6%) at rest. In 8 ventricular arrhythmia episodes (device defined), multiple shocks were received: 1 at rest, 4 during competition/practice, and 3 during other physical activity. Ultimately, the ICD terminated all episodes. Freedom from lead malfunction was 97% at 5 years (from implantation) and 90% at 10 years. Conclusions— Many athletes with ICDs can engage in vigorous and competitive sports without physical injury or failure to terminate the arrhythmia despite the occurrence of both inappropriate and appropriate shocks. These data provide a basis for more informed physician and patient decision making in terms of sports participation for athletes with ICDs.

Abstract The purpose of this Consensus Statement is to focus on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) deactivation in patients with irreversible or terminal illness. This statement summarizes the opinions of the Task Force members, convened by the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), based on ethical and legal principles, as well as their own clinical, scientific, and technical experience. It is directed to all healthcare professionals who treat patients with implanted ICDs, nearing end of life, in order to improve the patient dying process. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote device deactivation. Rather, the ultimate judgement regarding this procedure must be made by the patient (or in special conditions by his/her legal representative) after careful communication about the deactivation's consequences, respecting his/her autonomy and clarifying that he/she has a legal and ethical right to refuse it. Obviously, the physician asked to deactivate the ICD and the industry representative asked to assist can conscientiously object to and refuse to perform device deactivation.