Nachsorge und MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit implantierten kardialen Aggregaten

Zusammenfassung

In den 2021 publizierten ESC-Leitlinien wird im Rahmen des Kapitels über die Aggregatnachsorge insbesondere die Bedeutung der Telemetrie hervorgehoben. Durch eine telemetrische Nachsorge sind wesentlich seltener Präsenznachsorgen notwendig bei gleichwertiger oder sogar verbesserter Sicherheit. Eine telemetrische Überwachung sollte daher bei allen Patienten mit CIED erwogen werden.

Die Leitlinien beschreiben detailliert die Möglichkeiten und Einschränkungen von MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit CIED. Programmierempfehlungen für die verschiedenen Hersteller werden dargestellt. Unter Einhaltung entsprechender Sicherheitsstandards kann eine MRT auch ohne größeres Risiko bei Patienten mit nicht MRT-kompatiblen Systemen erfolgen.

Abstract

The chapter on device follow-up of the 2021 ESC Guidelines has a special focus on the role of telemetric management of CIED. Telemetric management decreases the number of in-office visits with similar or even improved patient security. Remote monitoring should therefore be considered in all patients with CIED.

The guidelines describe in detail possibilities and limitations of MRI studies in patients with CIED. Programming recommendations for different manufacturers are provided. MRT scans are possible with reasonable security in patients with non-MRI conditional systems, as long as safety precautions are adhered as well.

Schlüsselwörter

Schrittmachertherapie - Nachsorge - Telemetrie - kardiale Resynchronisationstherapie - Magnetresonanztomografie

Keywords

pacing - cardiac resynchronization therapy - follow up - telemetry - magnet resonance imaging

• Literatur

• 1 Butter C, Burger H, Steven D. et al. Empfehlungen zur Strukturierung der Herzschrittmacher- und Defibrillatortherapie – Update 2022. Kardiologe 2022 (in press).
• 2 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, GKV-Spitzenverband. Vereinbarung von Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen nach § 135 Abs. 2 SGB V zur Kontrolle von aktiven kardialen Rhythmusimplantaten (Qualitätssicherungsvereinbarung Rhythmusimplantat-Kontrolle). Accessed March 18, 2022 at: https://www.kbv.de/media/sp/Rhythmusimplantat-Kontrolle.pdf
• 3 Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB. et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: Developed by the Task Force on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Eur Heart J 2021; 42: 3427-3520
• 4 Parthiban N, Esterman A, Mahajan R. et al. Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65: 2591-2600
• 5 García-Fernández FJ, Osca Asensi J, Romero R. et al. Safety and efficiency of a common and simplified protocol for pacemaker and defibrillator surveillance based on remote monitoring only: a long-term randomized trial (RM-ALONE). Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 1837-1846
• 6 Mabo P, Victor F, Bazin P. et al. A randomized trial of long-term remote monitoring of pacemaker recipients (the COMPAS trial). Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 1105-1111
• 7 Lakkireddy DR, Chung MK, Deering TF. et al. Guidance for Rebooting Electrophysiology Through the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Heart Rhythm Society and the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology: Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2020; 6: 1053-1066
• 8 De Larochellière H, Champagne J, Sarrazin JF. et al. Findings of remote monitoring of implantable cardioverter defibrillators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2020; 43: 1366-1372
• 9 Nielsen JC, Kautzner J, Casado-Arroyo R. et al. Remote monitoring of cardiac implanted electronic devices: legal requirements and ethical principles – ESC Regulatory Affairs Committee/EHRA joint task force report. Europace 2020; 22: 1742-1758
• 10 von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff F, Bauer WR, Deneke T. et al. Empfehlungen zu kardialen MRT-Untersuchungen bei Patienten mit Herzschrittmachern und implantierbaren Kardioverter-Defibrillatoren. Kardiologe 2019; 13: 75-86
• 11 Indik JH, Gimbel JR, Abe H. et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on magnetic resonance imaging and radiation exposure in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 2017; 14: e97-e153
• 12 Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD. et al. Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 755-764
• 13 Nazarian S, Hansford R, Rahsepar AA. et al. Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cardiac Devices. N Engl J Med 2017; 377: 2555-2564
• 14 Balmer C, Gass M, Dave H. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of patients with epicardial leads: in vitro evaluation of temperature changes at the lead tip. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2019; 56: 321-326
• 15 Higgins JV, Gard JJ, Sheldon SH. et al. Safety and outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with abandoned pacemaker and defibrillator leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2014; 37: 1284-1290
• 16 Horwood L, Attili A, Luba F. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac implanted electronic devices: focus on contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging protocols. Europace 2017; 19: 812-817
• 17 Padmanabhan D, Kella DK, Mehta R. et al. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with legacy pacemakers and defibrillators and abandoned leads. Heart Rhythm 2018; 15: 228-233
• 18 Vuorinen AM, Pakarinen S, Jaakkola I. et al. Clinical experience of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacing devices: unrestricted patient population. Acta Radiol 2019; 60: 1414-1421
• 19 Schaller RD, Brunker T, Riley MP. et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices With Abandoned Leads. JAMA Cardiol 2021; 6: 549-556