Objective: Remote cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) interrogators, originally developed for home use, have been proven to be efficacious in clinical settings, especially emergency departments. Concern exists that attempting to interrogate a CIED with the remote interrogator of a different brand, i.e., a brand-mismatched interrogator, may cause device malfunction. The aim of this study was to determine if intentionally attempting to interrogate a CIED with a brand-mismatched remote interrogator resulted in device malfunction. Methods: A total of 75 ex vivo CIEDs manufactured by various companies underwent attempted interrogation by a brand-mismatched remote interrogator. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. A total of 30 in vivo CIEDs were then randomized for an attempted 2-minute mismatched remote interrogation by one of the two possible mismatched remote interrogators. CIED settings were compared before and after attempted mismatch interrogation. Results: Of 150 ex vivo brand-mismatched interrogations, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices were turned off. In the 30 patients undergoing brand-mismatched interrogations, the mean (standard deviation) age was 71.6 ( ± 14.7) years, 16 (53%) were male, with 24 pacemakers (80%), four pacemaker/implantable cardioverter defibrillators (13%), and two implantable cardioverter defibrillators (7%). Of the 30 mismatched interrogations performed, no device setting changes or malfunctions occurred; no remote interrogators connected to a mismatched CIED, and no devices turned off. Conclusion In a total 180 attempted brand-mismatched CIED interrogations, no CIED malfunctions occurred. This suggests that the use of remote CIED interrogators when device manufacturer is unknown is unlikely to result in adverse CIED-related events.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with implanted cardiac devices may wait extended periods for interrogation in emergency departments (EDs). Our purpose was to determine if device interrogation could be done safely and faster by ED staff. METHODS: Prospective randomized, standard therapy controlled, trial of ED staff device interrogation vs. standard process (SP), with 30-day follow-up. Eligibility criteria: ED presentation with a self-report of a potential device related complaint, with signed informed consent. SP interrogation was by company representative or hospital employee. RESULTS: Of 60 patients, 42 (70%) were male, all were white, with a median (interquartile range) age of 71 (64 to 82) years. No patient was lost to follow up. Of all patients, 32 (53%) were enrolled during business hours. The overall median (interquartile range) ED vs. SP time to interrogation was 98.5 (40 to 260) vs. 166.5 (64 to 412) minutes (P=0.013). While ED and SP interrogation times were similar during business hours, 102 (59 to 138) vs. 105 (64 to 172) minutes (P=0.62), ED interrogation times were shorter vs. SP during non-business hours; 97 (60 to 126) vs. 225 (144 to 412) minutes, P=0.002, respectively. There was no difference in ED length of stay between the ED and SP interrogation, 249 (153 to 390) vs. 246 (143 to 333) minutes (P=0.71), regardless of time of presentation. No patient in any cohort suffered an unplanned medical contact or post-discharge adverse device related event. CONCLUSION: ED staff cardiac device interrogations are faster, and with similar 30-day outcomes, as compared to SP.
Cohort Studies ; Commerce ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Emergencies* ; Emergency Medicine ; Emergency Service, Hospital* ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Informed Consent ; Length of Stay ; Lost to Follow-Up ; Male ; Prospective Studies

Objective: To determine the utility of a highly sensitive troponin assay when utilized in the emergency department. Methods The FAST-TRAC study prospectively enrolled >1,500 emergency department patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome within 6 hours of symptom onset and 2 hours of emergency department presentation. It has several unique features that are not found in the majority of studies evaluating troponin. These include a very early presenting population in whom prospective data collection of risk score parameters and the physician’s clinical impression of the probability of acute coronary syndrome before any troponin data were available. Furthermore, two gold standard diagnostic definitions were determined by a pair of cardiologists reviewing two separate data sets; one that included all local troponin testing results and a second that excluded troponin testing so that diagnosis was based solely on clinical grounds. By this method, a statistically valid head-to-head comparison of contemporary and high sensitivity troponin testing is obtainable. Finally, because of a significant delay in sample processing, a unique ability to define the molecular stability of various troponin assays is possible.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00880802