Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMonkhouse, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorElliott, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorWhittaker-Axon, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorCollinson, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorChow, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorMoore, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorMuthumala, Aen_US
dc.contributor.authorHonarbakhsh, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorHunter, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorLambiase, Pen_US
dc.contributor.authorAhsan, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorSporton, Sen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-09T12:00:30Z
dc.date.available2023-11-28en_US
dc.date.issued2023-12-02en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/93645
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of implantable cardiac devices provides substantial and complex information, presenting new challenges such as detection of a patient's death. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe RM transmissions indicating death and propose a management strategy for services. METHODS: The study included consecutive ambulatory outpatients whose deaths were detected via RM. Clinical and device data were collected from electronic records, and ethical approval was obtained from the service's institutional review board. RESULTS: Over a 9-year period (2014-2023), 28 patients were detected. The deceased patients had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, pacemakers, and implantable loop recorders. In 54% of the cases, the patient's death had already been recognized. Alert transmissions indicating death were commonly related to ventricular arrhythmia events, but also due to lead measurements, and implantable loop recorder battery status. Several diagnostic features may indicate a patient's death. The most reliable was the presenting electrogram, demonstrating base rate pacing with no capture. Device diagnostics, lead parameters, and arrhythmia recordings may indicate death; however, not all cases present with recordings and diagnosis may not be conclusive. A majority (82%) had ventricular arrhythmia at the time of death. In cases where defibrillator shocks were delivered, the arrhythmia reinitiated shortly after successful cardioversion. Delayed therapy was observed, and some patients did not receive defibrillator shocks because of discriminators or because the arrhythmia rate fell below the shock zone. CONCLUSION: Detecting a patient death via RM presents unique challenges and considerations for services. Standard operational policies and legal consultation should be established to address the implications.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.relation.ispartofHeart Rhythmen_US
dc.subjectAmbulanceen_US
dc.subjectDeathen_US
dc.subjectICDen_US
dc.subjectPost-mortemen_US
dc.subjectRemote monitoringen_US
dc.subjectUndersensingen_US
dc.subjectVentricular fibrillationen_US
dc.subjectVentricular tachycardiaen_US
dc.titleDetecting deceased patients on cardiac device remote monitoring: A case series and management guide for cardiac device services.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.11.028en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38048935en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-11-28en_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record