Paratz Elizabeth D, Block Tomasz J, Stub Dion A, La Gerche Andre, Kistler Peter M, Kalman Jonathan M, Strathmore Neil, Mond Harry, Woodford Noel W F, Burke Michael, Voskoboinik Aleksandr
Department of Cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Victoria, Australia; Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Prahran, Victoria, Australia; St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia.
Department of General Medicine, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Department of Diabetes, Central Clinical School, Monash University, the Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Mar;8(3):356-366. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.10.011. Epub 2021 Dec 22.
This study sought to define the feasibility and utility of postmortem cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogation.
The diagnostic yield of routine postmortem interrogation of CIEDs including pacemakers, defibrillators, and implantable loop recorders has not been established.
The study reviewed all CIED interrogations in deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden or unexplained death by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.
A total of 260 patients (68.8% male, median age 72.8 years [interquartile range: 62.7-82.2 years]) underwent CIED interrogation (202 pacemakers, 56 defibrillators, and 2 loop recorders) for investigation of sudden (n = 162) or unexplained (n = 98) death. CIEDs were implanted for median of 2.0 years (interquartile range: 0.7-5.0 years), with 19 devices at elective replacement indicator and 5 at end of life. Interrogation was successful in 256 (98.5%) cases. Potential CIED malfunction was identified in 20 (7.7%) cases, including untreated ventricular arrhythmias (n = 13) and lead failures (n = 3, 2 resulting in untreated ventricular arrhythmia). Interrogation directly informed cause of death in 131 (50.4%) cases. A total of 72 (27.7%) patients had abnormalities recorded in 30 days preceding death: nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 26), rapid atrial fibrillation (n = 17), elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status (n = 22), intrathoracic impedance alarms (n = 3), lead issues (n = 3), or therapy delivered (n = 1). In 6 cases in which the patient was found deceased after a prolonged period, interrogation determined time of death. In 1 case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of patient identification.
Postmortem CIED interrogation frequently contributes important information regarding critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, mechanism, and time of death or patient identity. Device interrogation should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy.
本研究旨在确定尸检时心脏植入式电子设备(CIED)问询的可行性和实用性。
包括起搏器、除颤器和植入式环路记录器在内的CIED常规尸检问询的诊断价值尚未明确。
本研究回顾了2005年至2020年间,维多利亚法医研究所对因突然或不明原因死亡接受法医学调查的死者进行的所有CIED问询。
共有260例患者(68.8%为男性,中位年龄72.8岁[四分位间距:62.7 - 82.2岁])接受了CIED问询(202台起搏器、56台除颤器和2台环路记录器),以调查突然死亡(n = 162)或不明原因死亡(n = 98)。CIED植入的中位时间为2.0年(四分位间距:0.7 - 5.0年),19台设备处于择期更换指标状态,5台处于使用寿命末期。256例(98.5%)问询成功。在20例(7.7%)病例中发现了潜在的CIED故障,包括未治疗的室性心律失常(n = 13)和导线故障(n = 3,其中2例导致未治疗的室性心律失常)。问询直接明确了131例(50.4%)病例的死亡原因。共有72例(27.7%)患者在死亡前30天内记录到异常:非持续性室性心动过速(n = 26)、快速房颤(n = 17)、择期更换指标或使用寿命末期状态(n = 22)、胸内阻抗警报(n = 3)、导线问题(n = 3)或已进行的治疗(n = 1)。在6例患者长时间后被发现死亡的病例中,问询确定了死亡时间。在1例病例中,CIED问询是识别患者身份的主要手段。
尸检时CIED问询经常能提供有关关键设备故障、死前异常、机制以及死亡时间或患者身份的重要信息。对于接受尸检的有CIED的特定患者,应考虑进行设备问询。