Long-term risk of cardiovascular implantable electronic device reinterventions following external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter: A nationwide cohort study

Anders Fyhn Elgaard*, Pia Thisted Dinesen, Sam Riahi, John Hansen, Søren Lundbye-Christensen, Jens Brock Johansen, Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Gregory Y. H. Lip, Jacob Moesgaard Larsen

*Kontaktforfatter

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

2 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: External cardioversion (ECV) is an essential part of rhythm control of atrial fibrillation and flutter in patients with and without cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Long-term follow-up data on ECV-related CIED dysfunctions are limited.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the risk of CIED reintervention following ECV in a nationwide cohort.

Methods: We identified CIED implants and surgical reinterventions from 2005 to 2021 in the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. We included CIED patients undergoing ECV from 2010 to 2019 from the Danish National Patient Registry. For each ECV-exposed generator, 5 matched generators without ECV were identified, and for each ECV-exposed lead, 3 matched leads were identified. The primary endpoints were generator replacement and lead reintervention.

Results: We compared 2582 ECV-exposed patients with 12,910 matched patients with a pacemaker (47%), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (29%), cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (6%), or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (18%). During 2 years of follow-up, 210 ECV-exposed generators (8.1%) vs 670 matched generators (5.2%) underwent replacements, and 247 ECV-exposed leads (5.6%) vs 306 matched leads (2.3%) underwent reintervention. Unadjusted hazard ratios were 1.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.91; P <.001) for generator replacement and 2.39 (95% CI 2.01-2.85; P <.001) for lead reintervention. One-year relative risks were 1.73 (95% CI 1.41-2.12; P <.001) for generator replacement and 2.85 (95% CI 2.32-3.51; P <.001) for lead reintervention, and 2-year relative risks were 1.39 (95% CI 1.19-1.63; P <.001) and 2.18 (95% CI 1.84-2.57; P <.001), respectively.

Conclusion: ECV in patients with a CIED is associated with a higher risk of generator replacement and lead reintervention. The risks of reinterventions were more pronounced within the first year after cardioversion.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftHeart Rhythm
Vol/bind20
Udgave nummer9
Sider (fra-til)1227-1235
Antal sider9
ISSN1547-5271
DOI
StatusUdgivet - sep. 2023

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2023 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Long-term risk of cardiovascular implantable electronic device reinterventions following external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and flutter: A nationwide cohort study'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater