Managing Pacemaker-Related Complications And Malfunctions In The Emergency Department (Cardiovascular CME)

Managing Pacemaker-Related Complications And Malfunctions In The Emergency Department (Cardiovascular CME)

Below is a free preview. Log in or subscribe for full access. Or, get a free sample article Emergency Department Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in the Nonpregnant Patient:
Please provide a valid email address.

*NEW* Quick Search this issue!

Table of Contents
Table of Contents
  1. Abstract
  2. Case Presentations
  3. Introduction
  4. Epidemiology
  5. Critical Appraisal Of The Literature
  6. Review Of Normal Pacemaker Function
    1. Components And Lead Placement
    2. Pacemaker Modes
    3. Pacemaker Indications
      1. Sinus Node Dysfunction
      2. Acquired Atrioventricular Block
      3. Chronic Bifascicular Or Trifascicular Block
      4. After Acute Myocardial Infarction
      5. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
      6. Neurocardiogenic Syncope And Carotid Sinus Syndrome
  7. Emergency Department Evaluation
    1. History
    2. Physical Examination
  8. Diagnostic Studies
    1. Electrocardiogram
      1. Hyperkalemia
      2. Acute Myocardial Infarction
    2. Radiology
    3. Device Interrogation
  9. Implant-Related Complications
    1. Hematoma
    2. Infection
    3. Lead Dislodgement
    4. Twiddler Syndrome
    5. Venous Thrombosis
    6. Pneumothorax
    7. Tricuspid Regurgitation
    8. Pacemaker Syndrome
  10. Pacing System Malfunctions
    1. Failure To Capture
    2. Failure To Pace
    3. Failure To Sense
  11. Electromagnetic Interference
    1. Nonmedical Sources Of Interference
    2. Medical Sources Of Interference
  12. Management of Pacemaker-Related Complications and Malfunctions
    1. Approach To The Pacemaker Patient With Tachycardia
      1. The Magnet
    2. Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support In Patients With Pacemakers Or Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators
    3. Approach To The Pacemaker/Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Patient Who Receives A Shock
  13. Disposition
  14. Controversies And Cutting Edge
    1. Remote Monitoring
    2. Leadless Pacing
    3. Device Deactivation
  15. Summary
  16. Risk Management Pitfalls For Implantable Devices
  17. Case Conclusions
  18. Clinical Pathway For Emergency Department Management Of Multiple
  19. Tables and Figures
    1. Table 1. American College of CardiologyAmerican Heart Association Classification Of Recommendations And Level Of Evidence
    2. Table 2. The North American Society For Pacing And ElectrophysiologyBritish Pacing And Electrophysiology Group Generic Pacemaker Code
    3. Table 3. Indications For Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
    4. Table 4. Radiographic Assessment Of The Permanent Pacemaker/Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator
    5. Table 5. Methods To Identify Device Manufacturer
    6. Table 6. Implant-Related Complications
    7. Table 7. Causes Of Pacemaker Malfunction%2C By Category
    8. Table 8. Expected Response To Magnet Placement Over PacemakerImplantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator And Clinical Implications Of Different Magnet Responses
    9. Table 9. Clinical Applications Of Magnet On Implanted Cardiac Device
    10. Figure 1. Indications For Permanent Pacing
    11. Figure 2. Electrocardiogram Tracing Of Paced Rhythms In The Setting Of Severe Hyperkalemia
    12. Figure 3. Electrocardiogram Tracing Of Myocardial Infarction, Paced Rhythm
    13. Figure 4. Radiograph Of Dual-Chamber, Biventricular Pacemaker/Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator System
    14. Figure 5. Electrocardiogram Appearance of Pacemaker Failure
    15. Figure 6. Pacemaker-Mediated Tachycardia
  20. References


The use of implanted pacemaker devices is increasing worldwide, owing to technological advances, new indications, and an aging population. Despite greater experience in implantation and improved device sophistication, patients continue to face complications associated with hardware implantation and device malfunction. This review summarizes current indications for permanent pacing, reviews epidemiologic data relevant to implant complications, and describes a clinical approach to the patient with potential pacing malfunction. The electrocardiographic diagnosis of hyperkalemia and acute myocardial infarction in paced rhythms is also discussed. Potential sources of electromagnetic interference and special considerations pertaining to the cardiac resuscitation of patients with implanted cardiac devices are reviewed. Finally, a basic approach to implanted cardioverter-defibrillator devices (which often accompany pacemaker devices) is presented.

Case Presentations

An ill-appearing 74-year-old woman is brought in on a stretcher by EMS personnel who broke down her door to find her slumped on her couch. Her temperature is normal, her blood pressure is 86/40 mm Hg, and her heart rate is 42 beats/min. On the cardiac monitor, you see extremely wide QRS complexes following pacer artifacts and intermittent pauses where pacing artifacts appear alone. A prior ECG shows a paced rhythm and narrower QRS complexes. What are your critical actions?

A 38-year-old woman who fainted in the grocery store is wheeled into the last unoccupied room in your ED with a cardiac monitor. She has cardiac sarcoidosis and has a DDD pacemaker that was implanted 6 months ago. She tells you that this is the third time she has fainted in the past 24 hours. She is normotensive and her heart rate is 48 beats/min. The cardiac monitor shows pacing artifacts that are completely dissociated from QRS complexes. What steps will you take to diagnose the underlying cause of this patient’s recurrent syncopal episodes?


Cardiac pacemakers have evolved from singlechamber devices that deliver a fixed pacing rate to multichamber systems with programmable features that preserve and more closely mimic normal cardiac electrophysiology. Preservation of atrioventricular synchrony, physiologic heart rate, and interventricular synchrony are significant improvements that have been made possible with dual-chamber, rate-adaptive, and biventricular pacing systems. For patients, improved quality of life, increased exercise tolerance, and decreased disease progression are among the clinical outcomes driving new indications for pacemaker implantation and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). At the same time, mortality benefits associated with implanted cardioverterdefibrillator devices (ICDs) in patients with heart failure have translated into an increasing number of biventricular pacing systems with integrated ICD technology. While pacemakers have become more complex and sophisticated, patients continue to present to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms related to device malfunctions. In addition, special considerations with regard to implanted pacemakers are relevant to the diagnostic workup of comorbid illnesses.


Implanted pacemakers are increasingly prevalent in the United States.1 Approximately 370,000 pacemakers are placed annually,2 the most common indication for which is sinus node disease.3 Regardless of the indication for pacing, dual-chamber pacemakers have been adopted as the technology of choice. However, since United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2001, CRT devices are being implanted more frequently.4 Most of these are combined with defibrillation technology, and CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) devices have come to comprise approximately 40% of all pacemakers in the United States.5 Compared with the general population, patients receiving implanted devices are older (mean age of implantation of 75.6 years) and carry a higher burden of age-adjusted comorbid illness.1,6

Critical Appraisal Of The Literature

PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for English-language articles pertaining to the management of patients with implanted pacemakers and cardiac devices published between January 1, 1990 and February 21, 2014. Search terms included permanent pacemakers and the thematic topics of pacemaker complications, cardiac resynchronization therapy, pacemaker malfunction, and electromagnetic pacemaker interfer ence. The bibliographies of review articles were hand-searched and the level of evidence graded according to the guidelines from the American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. (See Table 1.) Guidelines published by the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA), the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) were also reviewed.7-11

Risk Management Pitfalls For Implantable Devices

  1. “The ventricular-paced rhythm makes the ECG uninterpretable for diagnosing MI. I’ll call cardiology if the troponin comes back positive.” While concordant ST-segment changes and exaggerated discordance are insensitive findings for diagnosing acute MI in paced rhythms, they are diagnostically useful, when present.
  2. “Pacing artifacts appear stranded among widened and regular QRS complexes at a ventricular rate of 42. There must be a problem with the pacemaker.” Hyperkalemia can cause QRS widening, bradycardia, and failure to capture. Obtain a serum potassium level quickly and consider immediate administration of calcium. Always consider hyperkalemia before attributing failure to capture to a hardware problem or programming error.
  3. “I thought electrical cardioversion was contraindicated in patients with permanent pacemakers.” Electric direct-current cardioversion is safe as long as the electrodes are placed in anterior-posterior orientation at least 8 cm away from the pacemaker device. Device interrogation for proper functioning should be performed after cardioversion.
  4. “Pacemaker-mediated tachycardia was on my differential, but I was afraid to place a magnet over the pacemaker.” A pacemaker magnet only disables the sensing function, not the pacing function, and it can be effective in terminating pacemaker-mediated tachycardia as well as for differentiating among various types of potential pacemaker malfunction.
  5. “I thought all newer pacemakers were MRI-compatible.” While advances in pacemaker design have led to the development of pacing leads and pulse generators that are safe for the magnetic environment, safe MRI requires careful screening, established protocols, and physician supervision.
  6. “I didn’t think to compare the chest x-ray with a previous one or consider lead dislodgement as a complication that could occur so far out from implantation.”Lead migration more commonly occurs shortly after implantation, but it can be a late complication. Comparison with previous x-rays is helpful in detecting macro lead dislodgements.
  7. “The 12-lead ECG appeared normal. I didn’t think the patient needed device interrogation.” Pacemaker interrogation is critical in evaluating the possibility of pacemaker dysfunction that might not be apparent on a 12-lead ECG.
  8. “The patient experienced syncope and has a pacemaker, so she is a high-risk cardiac patient and needs to be admitted to telemetry.” Pacemaker interrogation can be performed in the ED to rule out dysrhythmia and pacing malfunction as underlying causes of palpitations, syncope, and light-headedness. Device interrogation may help to avoid unnecessary hospital admission in some of these patients.
  9. “I didn’t think that hiccoughs could be related to the patient’s pacemaker.” Direct stimulation of the diaphragm or the phrenic nerve occurs with lead dislodgement or with high output from a left ventricular lead placed in the coronary sinus.
  10. “Ventricular tachycardia clearly wasn’t the cause of his symptoms. If he had ventricular tachycardia, his CRT-D device would have shocked him.”Ventricular tachycardia may occur at rates below the programmed tachycardia detection rate (TDR). Above the TDR, ICD therapy is administered. A low TDR can be programmed, with the risk of administering therapy inappropriately to supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Antitachycardia pacing and algorithms to improve the specificity of VT detection have reduced the incidence of inappropriate ICD therapy for supraventricular arrhythmias.

Tables and Figures

Table 1. American College of CardiologyAmerican Heart Association Classification Of Recommendations And Level Of Evidence

Table 2. The North American Society For Pacing And ElectrophysiologyBritish Pacing And Electrophysiology Group Generic Pacemaker Code


Evidence-based medicine requires a critical appraisal of the literature based upon study methodology and number of subjects. Not all references are equally robust. The findings of a large, prospective, randomized, and blinded trial should carry more weight than a case report.

To help the reader judge the strength of each reference, pertinent information about the study will be included in bold type following the reference, where available. In addition, the most informative references cited in this paper, as determined by the authors, will be noted by an asterisk (*) next to the number of the reference.

  1. Greenspon AJ, Patel JD, Lau E, et al. Trends in permanent pacemaker implantation in the United States from 1993 to 2009: increasing complexity of patients and procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(16):1540-1545. (Retrospective observational; 2.9 million patients)
  2. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129(3):e28-e292. (Executive summary)
  3. v Mond HG, Proclemer A. The 11th world survey of cardiac pacing and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: calendar year 2009--a World Society of Arrhythmia project. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2011;34(8):1013-1027. (Survey; 1.02 million implantations)
  4. van Veldhuisen DJ, Maass AH, Priori SG, et al. Implementation of device therapy (cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter defibrillator) for patients with heart failure in Europe: changes from 2004 to 2008. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11(12):1143-1151. (Retrospective observational)
  5. * Young JB, Abraham WT, Smith AL, et al. Combined cardiac resynchronization and implantable cardioversion defibrillation in advanced chronic heart failure: the MIRACLE ICD Trial. JAMA. 2003;289(20):2685-2694. (Prospective randomized controlled; 369 patients)
  6. Uslan DZ, Tleyjeh IM, Baddour LM, et al. Temporal trends in permanent pacemaker implantation: a population-based study. Am Heart J. 2008;155(5):896-903. (Retrospective observational; 1291 patients)
  7. * Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2012 ACCF/ AHA/HRS focused update incorporated into the ACCF/ AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(3):e6-e75. (Guideline)
  8. Epstein AE, DiMarco JP, Ellenbogen KA, et al. ACC/AHA/ HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the ACC/ AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices) developed in collaboration with the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(21):e1-e62. (Guideline)
  9. European Society of Cardiology, European Heart Rhythm Association, Brignole M, Auricchio A, Baron-Esquivias G, et al. 2013 ESC guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Task Force on Cardiac Pacing and Resynchronization Therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA). Europace. 2013;15(8):1070-1118. (Guideline)
  10. Gillis AM, Russo AM, Ellenbogen KA, et al. HRS/ACCF expert consensus statement on pacemaker device and mode selection. Developed in partnership between the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and in collaboration with the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Heart Rhythm. 2012;9(8):1344-1365. (Guideline)
  11. European Heart Rhythm Association, European Society of Cardiology, Heart Rhythm Society, et al. 2012 EHRA/HRS expert consensus statement on cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: implant and follow-up recommendations and management. Europace. 2012;14(9):1236-1286. (Guideline)
  12. Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome. Lancet. 1997;350(9086):1210-1216. (Prospective observational; 225 patients)
  13. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, et al. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2932-2937. (Retrospective observational trial; 1339 patients)
  14. Sweeney MO, Bank AJ, Nsah E, et al. Minimizing ventricular pacing to reduce atrial fibrillation in sinus-node disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(10):1000-1008. (Prospective randomized; 1065 patients)
  15. Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S, et al. Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation. 2004;110(25):3766-3772. (Prospective cohort; 53 patients)
  16. Bernstein AD, Daubert JC, Fletcher RD, et al. The revised NASPE/BPEG generic code for antibradycardia, adaptiverate, and multisite pacing. North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology/British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002;25(2):260-264. (Guideline)
  17. Chan TC, Cardall TY. Electronic pacemakers. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006;24(1):179-194. (Review)
  18. Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, Hojberg S, et al. A comparison of single-lead atrial pacing with dual-chamber pacing in sick sinus syndrome. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(6):686-696. (Prospective randomized; 1415 patients)
  19. Dretzke J, Toff WD, Lip GY, et al. Dual chamber versus single chamber ventricular pacemakers for sick sinus syndrome and atrioventricular block. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(2):CD003710. (Systematic review)
  20. Brandt J, Anderson H, Fahraeus T, et al. Natural history of sinus node disease treated with atrial pacing in 213 patients: implications for selection of stimulation mode. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20(3):633-639. (Prospective observational; 213 patients)
  21. Gang UJ, Hvelplund A, Pedersen S, et al. High-degree atrioventricular block complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in the era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Europace. 2012;14(11):1639-1645. (Retrospective observational; 2073 patients)
  22. American College of Emergency Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, O’Gara PT, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(4):e78-140. (Guideline)
  23. Farwell D, Patel NR, Hall A, et al. How many people with heart failure are appropriate for biventricular resynchronization? Eur Heart J. 2000;21(15):1246-1250. (Retrospective observational; 721 patients)
  24. Shamim W, Francis DP, Yousufuddin M, et al. Intraventricular conduction delay: a prognostic marker in chronic heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 1999;70(2):171-178. (Retrospective observational; 241 patients)
  25. Abraham WT, Fisher WG, Smith AL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1845-1853. (Prospective randomized controlled; 453 patients)
  26. Higgins SL, Hummel JD, Niazi IK, et al. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for the treatment of heart failure in patients with intraventricular conduction delay and malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(8):1454- 1459. (Prospective randomized controlled; 490 patients)
  27. Linde C, Abraham WT, Gold MR, et al. Randomized trial of cardiac resynchronization in mildly symptomatic heart failure patients and in asymptomatic patients with left ventricu lar dysfunction and previous heart failure symptoms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(23):1834-1843. (Randomized controlled; 610 patients)
  28. Tang AS, Wells GA, Talajic M, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for mild-to-moderate heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(25):2385-2395. (Prospective randomized; 1798 patients)
  29. Moss AJ, Hall WJ, Cannom DS, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy for the prevention of heart-failure events. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1329-1338. (Prospective randomized controlled; 1820 patients)
  30. Bristow MR, Saxon LA, Boehmer J, et al. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy with or without an implantable defibrillator in advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2140-2150. (Prospective randomized; 1520 patients)
  31. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al. The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(15):1539-1549. (Prospective randomized; 813 patients)
  32. Birnie DH, Tang AS. The problem of non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2006;21(1):20- 26. (Review)
  33. Stavrakis S, Lazzara R, Thadani U. The benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy and QRS duration: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012;23(2):163-168. (Meta-analysis; 6501 patients)
  34. Sipahi I, Chou JC, Hyden M, et al. Effect of QRS morphology on clinical event reduction with cardiac resynchronization therapy: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J. 2012;163(2):260-267. (Meta-analysis; 5356 patients)
  35. Connolly SJ, Sheldon R, Roberts RS, et al. The North American Vasovagal Pacemaker Study (VPS). A randomized trial of permanent cardiac pacing for the prevention of vasovagal syncope. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33(1):16-20. (Prospective randomized; 54 patients)
  36. Sutton R, Brignole M, Menozzi C, et al. Dual-chamber pacing in the treatment of neurally mediated tilt-positive cardioinhibitory syncope : pacemaker versus no therapy: a multicenter randomized study. The Vasovagal Syncope International Study (VASIS) Investigators. Circulation. 2000;102(3):294-299. (Prospective randomized; 42 patients)
  37. Ammirati F, Colivicchi F, Santini M, et al. Permanent cardiac pacing versus medical treatment for the prevention of recurrent vasovagal syncope: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Circulation. 2001;104(1):52-57. (Prospective randomized; 93 patients)
  38. Raviele A, Giada F, Menozzi C, et al. A randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study of permanent cardiac pacing for the treatment of recurrent tilt-induced vasovagal syncope. The vasovagal syncope and pacing trial (SYNPACE). Eur Heart J. 2004;25(19):1741-1748. (Prospective randomized controlled; 29 patients)
  39. Connolly SJ, Sheldon R, Thorpe KE, et al. Pacemaker therapy for prevention of syncope in patients with recurrent severe vasovagal syncope: Second Vasovagal Pacemaker Study (VPS II): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2003;289(17):2224-2229. (Prospective randomized; 100 patients)
  40. Huang SK, Ezri MD, Hauser RG, et al. Carotid sinus hypersensitivity in patients with unexplained syncope: clinical, electrophysiologic, and long-term follow-up observations. Am Heart J. 1988;116(4):989-996. (Prospective observational; 76 patients)
  41. Sugrue DD, Gersh BJ, Holmes DR, Jr., et al. Symptomatic “isolated” carotid sinus hypersensitivity: natural history and results of treatment with anticholinergic drugs or pacemaker. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1986;7(1):158-162. (Prospective observational; 56 patients)
  42. Morley CA, Perrins EJ, Grant P, et al. Carotid sinus syncope treated by pacing. Analysis of persistent symptoms and role of atrioventricular sequential pacing. Br Heart J. 1982;47(5):411-418. (Case series; 70 patients)
  43. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Lolli G, et al. Validation of a method for choice of pacing mode in carotid sinus syndrome with or without sinus bradycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1991;14(2 Pt 1):196-203. (Prospective observational; 60 patients)
  44. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Lolli G, et al. Natural and unnatural history of patients with severe carotid sinus hypersensitivity: a preliminary study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1988;11(11 Pt 2):1628-1635. (Prospective randomized; 35 patients)
  45. Parry SW, Steen N, Bexton RS, et al. Pacing in elderly recurrent fallers with carotid sinus hypersensitivity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Heart. 2009;95(5):405-409. (Randomized controlled crossover trial; 34 patients)
  46. Okmen E, Erdinler I, Oguz E, et al. An electrocardiographic algorithm for determining the location of pacemaker electrode in patients with right bundle branch block configuration during permanent ventricular pacing. Angiology. 2006;57(5):623-630. (Retrospective observational; 25 patients)
  47. Barold SS, Herweg B, Giudici M. Electrocardiographic follow-up of biventricular pacemakers. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2005;10(2):231-255. (Review)
  48. Kahloon MU, Aslam AK, Aslam AF, et al. Hyperkalemia induced failure of atrial and ventricular pacemaker capture. Int J Cardiol. 2005;105(2):224-226. (Case report)
  49. Ortega-Carnicer J, Benezet J, Benezet-Mazuecos J. Hyperkalaemia causing loss of atrial capture and extremely wide QRS complex during DDD pacing. Resuscitation. 2004;62(1):119-120. (Case report)
  50. Schiraldi F, Guiotto G, Paladino F. Hyperkalemia induced failure of pacemaker capture and sensing. Resuscitation. 2008;79(1):161-164. (Case report)
  51. Sgarbossa EB, Pinski SL, Gates KB, et al. Early electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the presence of ventricular paced rhythm. GUSTO-I investigators. Am J Cardiol. 1996;77(5):423-424. (Retrospective observational; 17 patients)
  52. Maloy KR, Bhat R, Davis J, et al. Sgarbossa Criteria are highly specific for acute myocardial infarction with pacemakers. West J Emerg Med. 2010;11(4):354-357. (Retrospective cohort; 57 patients)
  53. Madias JE. The nonspecificity of ST-segment elevation ≥ 5.0 mm in V1-V3 in the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the presence of ventricular paced rhythm. J Electrocardiol. 2004;37(2):135-139. (Case report)
  54. Smith SW, Dodd KW, Henry TD, et al. Diagnosis of STelevation myocardial infarction in the presence of left bundle branch block with the ST-elevation to S-wave ratio in a modified Sgarbossa rule. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(6):766-776. (Retrospective cohort; 162 patients)
  55. Karumbaiah K, Omar B. ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the presence of biventricular paced rhythm. J Emerg Med. 2013;45(2):e35-e40. (Case report)
  56. Altun A, Erdogan O. Pacemaker lead failure suggestive of crush injury. Cardiol Rev. 2003;11(5):256. (Case report)
  57. Kiviniemi MS, Pirnes MA, Eranen HJ, et al. Complications related to permanent pacemaker therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999;22(5):711-720. (Retrospective observational; 446 patients)
  58. Kutinsky IB, Jarandilla R, Jewett M, et al. Risk of hematoma complications after device implant in the clopidogrel era. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2010;3(4):312-318. (Prospective observational; 935 patients)
  59. Osmonov D, Ozcan KS, Erdinler I, et al. Cardiac devicerelated endocarditis: 31-years’ experience. J Cardiol. 2013;61(2):175-180. (Retrospective observational; 5287 patients)
  60. Rodriguez Y, Garisto J, Carrillo RG. Management of cardiac device-related infections: a review of protocol-driven care. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166(1):55-60. (Retrospective observational; 350 patients)
  61. Athan E, Chu VH, Tattevin P, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of infective endocarditis involving implantable cardiac devices. JAMA. 2012;307(16):1727-1735. (Prospective cohort; 2760 patients)
  62. Ellenbogen KA, Hellkamp AS, Wilkoff BL, et al. Complications arising after implantation of DDD pacemakers: the MOST experience. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92(6):740-741. (Retrospective observational; 2010 patients)
  63. * Pavia S, Wilkoff B. The management of surgical complications of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2001;16(1):66-71. (Review)
  64. * McMullan J, Valento M, Attari M, et al. Care of the pacemaker/ implantable cardioverter defibrillator patient in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2007;25(7):812-822. (Review)
  65. Higgins SL, Suh BD, Stein JB, et al. Recurrent twiddler’s syndrome in a nonthoracotomy ICD system despite a Dacron pouch. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998;21(1 Pt 1):130-133. (Case report)
  66. Furman S. Defibrillator twiddler’s syndrome. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;59(2):544-546. (Comment)
  67. Bracke F, Meijer A, Van Gelder B. Venous occlusion of the access vein in patients referred for lead extraction: influence of patient and lead characteristics. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26(8):1649-1652. (Retrospective observational; 89 patients)
  68. Mandal S, Pande A, Mandal D, et al. Permanent pacemakerrelated upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: a series of 20 cases. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012;35(10):1194-1198. (Case series; 20 patients)
  69. Al-Bawardy R, Krishnaswamy A, Bhargava M, et al. Tricuspid regurgitation in patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators: a comprehensive review. Clin Cardiol. 2013;36(5):249-254. (Review)
  70. Link MS, Hellkamp AS, Estes NA 3rd et al. High incidence of pacemaker syndrome in patients with sinus node dysfunction treated with ventricular-based pacing in the Mode Selection Trial (MOST). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43(11):2066- 2071. (Prospective cohort; 182 patients)
  71. * Trohman RG, Kim MH, Pinski SL. Cardiac pacing: the state of the art. Lancet. 2004;364(9446):1701-1719. (Review)
  72. Mollazadeh R, Mohimi L, Zeighami M, et al. Hemodynamic effect of atrioventricular and interventricular dyssynchrony in patients with biventricular pacing: implications for the pacemaker syndrome. J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2012;3(3):200-203. (Cross-sectional; 40 patients)
  73. * Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, et al. Ventricular pacing or dual-chamber pacing for sinus-node dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(24):1854-1862. (Randomized controlled trial; 2010 patients)
  74. Maisel WH, Moynahan M, Zuckerman BD, et al. Pacemaker and ICD generator malfunctions: analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual reports. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1901- 1906. (Retrospective observational)
  75. Tracy CM, Epstein AE, Darbar D, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ HRS focused update of the 2008 guidelines for devicebased therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. [corrected]. Circulation. 2012;126(14):1784-1800. (Guidelines)
  76. Maisel WH. Pacemaker and ICD generator reliability: metaanalysis of device registries. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1929-1934. (Meta-analysis; 3365 patients)
  77. Hauser RG, Hayes DL, Kallinen LM, et al. Clinical experience with pacemaker pulse generators and transvenous leads: an 8-year prospective multicenter study. Heart Rhythm. 2007;4(2):154-160. (Prospective observational; 2652 pulse generators, 615 leads)
  78. Ofman P, Rahilly-Tierney C, Djousse L, et al. Pacing system malfunction is a rare cause of hospital admission for syncope in patients with a permanent pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013;36(1):109-112. (Retrospective observational; 162 patients)
  79. Emilsson K, Oddsson H, Allared M, et al. An unusual cause of high threshold values at pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20(2 Pt 1):366-367. (Case report)
  80. Patton KK, Levy M, Viswanathan M. Atrial lead dysfunction: an unusual feature of hypothyroidism. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31(12):1650-1652. (Case report)
  81. Takasugi N, Kubota T, Kawamura I, et al. Sudden reversible pacemaker failure in a patient with cardiac sarcoidosis: an unfortunate case of ventricular septal pacing. Europace. 2012;14(7):1061-1062. (Case report)
  82. Montefoschi N, Boccadamo R. Propafenone induced acute variation of chronic atrial pacing threshold: a case report. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1990;13(4):480-483. (Case report)
  83. Barold SS, Herweg B. The effect of hyperkalaemia on cardiac rhythm devices. Europace. 2014. (Review)
  84. Santos KR, Adragao P, Cavaco D, et al. Diaphragmatic myopotential oversensing in pacemaker-dependent patients with CRT-D devices. Europace. 2008;10(12):1381-1386. (Retrospective observational; 37 patients)
  85. Gross JN, Platt S, Ritacco R, et al. The clinical relevance of electromyopotential oversensing in current unipolar devices. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1992;15(11 Pt 2):2023-2027. (Prospective observational; 34 patients)
  86. Brown KR, Carter W, Jr., Lombardi GE. Blunt traumainduced pacemaker failure. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20(8):905- 907. (Case report)
  87. * Misiri J, Kusumoto F, Goldschlager N. Electromagnetic interference and implanted cardiac devices: the nonmedical environment (part I). Clin Cardiol. 2012;35(5):276-280. (Review)
  88. Misiri J, Kusumoto F, Goldschlager N. Electromagnetic interference and implanted cardiac devices: the medical environment (part II). Clin Cardiol. 2012;35(6):321-328. (Review)
  89. Tandogan I, Temizhan A, Yetkin E, et al. The effects of mobile phones on pacemaker function. Int J Cardiol. 2005;103(1):51- 58. (Cross-sectional; 679 patients)
  90. Tandogan I, Ozin B, Bozbas H, et al. Effects of mobile telephones on the function of implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2005;10(4):409-413. (Cross-sectional; 43 patients)
  91. Jilek C, Tzeis S, Vrazic H, et al. Safety of screening procedures with hand-held metal detectors among patients with implanted cardiac rhythm devices: a cross-sectional analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(9):587-592. (Cross-sectional; 388 patients)
  92. Gimbel JR, Cox JW Jr. Electronic article surveillance systems and interactions with implantable cardiac devices: risk of adverse interactions in public and commercial spaces. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(3):318-322. (Case series; 2 patients)
  93. Webster G, Jordao L, Martuscello M, et al. Digital music players cause interference with interrogation telemetry for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators without affecting device function. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5(4):545- 550. (Cross-sectional; 51 patients)
  94. Wolber T, Ryf S, Binggeli C, et al. Potential interference of small neodymium magnets with cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Heart Rhythm. 2007;4(1):1-4. (Cross-sectional; 70 patients)
  95. Levine GN, Gomes AS, Arai AE, et al. Safety of magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiovascular devices: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Committee on Diagnostic and Interventional Cardiac Catheterization, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. Circulation. 2007;116(24):2878-2891. (Scientific statement)
  96. Hayes DL, Holmes DR Jr, Gray JE. Effect of 1.5 tesla nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scanner on implanted permanent pacemakers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10(4):782-786. (Cross-sectional; 8 patients)
  97. Nazarian S, Hansford R, Roguin A, et al. A prospective evaluation of a protocol for magnetic resonance imaging of patients with implanted cardiac devices. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(7):415-424. (Prospective nonrandomized trial; 438 patients, 555 MRI studies)
  98. Kanal E, Borgstede JP, Barkovich AJ, et al. ACR Blue Ribbon Panel response to the AJR commentary by Shellock and Crues on the ACR white paper on MR safety. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(1):31-35. (Comment)
  99. Das G, Staffanson DB. Selective dysfunction of ventricular electrode-endocardial junction following DC cardioversion in a patient with a dual chamber pacemaker. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1997;20(2 Pt 1):364-365. (Case report)
  100. Waller C, Callies F, Langenfeld H. Adverse effects of direct current cardioversion on cardiac pacemakers and electrodes Is external cardioversion contraindicated in patients with permanent pacing systems? Europace. 2004;6(2):165-168. (Case report; 3 cases)
  101. Platonov MA, Gillis AM, Kavanagh KM. Pacemakers, implantable cardioverter/defibrillators, and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: evidence-based guidelines for the modern era. J Endourol. 2008;22(2):243-247. (Guideline)
  102. Fishberger SB, Mehta D, Rossi AF, et al. Variable effects of adenosine on retrograde conduction in patients with atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1998;21(6):1254-1257. (Prospective nonrandomized trial; 13 patients)
  103. Sarko JA, Tiffany BR. Cardiac pacemakers: evaluation and management of malfunctions. Am J Emerg Med. 2000;18(4):435-440. (Review)
  104. Lewalter T, Schimpf R, Kulik D, et al. Comparison of spontaneous atrial fibrillation electrogram potentials with the P-wave electrogram amplitude in dual chamber pacing with unipolar atrial sensing. Europace. 2000;2(2):136-140. (Prospective observational; 42 patients)
  105. Jacob S, Panaich SS, Maheshwari R, et al. Clinical applications of magnets on cardiac rhythm management devices. Europace. 2011;13(9):1222-1230. (Review)
  106. Becker R, Ruf-Richter J, Senges-Becker JC, et al. Patient alert in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: toy or tool? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44(1):95-98. (Prospective cohort; 240 patients)
  107. Stevenson WG, Chaitman BR, Ellenbogen KA, et al. Clinical assessment and management of patients with implanted cardioverter-defibrillators presenting to nonelectrophysiologists. Circulation. 2004;110(25):3866-3869. (Review)
  108. Glikson M, Friedman PA. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Lancet. 2001;357(9262):1107-1117. (Review)
  109. Pinski SL. Emergencies related to implantable cardioverterdefibrillators. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(10 Suppl):N174-N180. (Review)
  110. McPherson CA, Manthous C. Permanent pacemakers and implantable defibrillators: considerations for intensivists. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170(9):933-940. (Review)
  111. * Gehi AK, Mehta D, Gomes JA. Evaluation and management of patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock. JAMA. 2006;296(23):2839-2847. (Review)
  112. Friedman PA, McClelland RL, Bamlet WR, et al. Dualchamber versus single-chamber detection enhancements for implantable defibrillator rhythm diagnosis: the detect supraventricular tachycardia study. Circulation. 2006;113(25):2871- 2879. (Randomized controlled trial; 400 patients)
  113. Credner SC, Klingenheben T, Mauss O, et al. Electrical storm in patients with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: incidence, management and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32(7):1909-1915. (Prospective cohort; 136 patients)
  114. Nademanee K, Taylor R, Bailey WE, et al. Treating electrical storm: sympathetic blockade versus advanced cardiac life support-guided therapy. Circulation. 2000;102(7):742-747. (Prospective nonrandomized trial; 49 patients)
  115. Mulpuru SK, Patel DV, Wilbur SL, et al. Electrical storm and termination with propofol therapy: a case report. Int J Cardiol. 2008;128(1):e6-e8. (Case report)
  116. Sham’a RA, Nery P, Sadek M, et al. Myocardial injury secondary to ICD shocks: insights from patients with lead fracture. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2014;37(2):237-241. (Prospective observational; 22 patients)
  117. Gurevitz O, Lipchenca I, Yaacoby E, et al. ST-segment deviation following implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks: incidence, timing, and clinical significance. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2002;25(10):1429-1432. (Prospective observational; 28 patients)
  118. Cowie MR, Sarkar S, Koehler J, et al. Development and validation of an integrated diagnostic algorithm derived from parameters monitored in implantable devices for identifying patients at risk for heart failure hospitalization in an ambulatory setting. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(31):2472-2480. (Retrospective observational; 2231 patients)
  119. Sack S, Wende CM, Nagele H, et al. Potential value of automated daily screening of cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator diagnostics for prediction of major cardiovascular events: results from Home-CARE (Home Monitoring in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13(9):1019-1027. (Prospective cohort; 377 patients)
  120. Whellan DJ, Ousdigian KT, Al-Khatib SM, et al. Combined heart failure device diagnostics identify patients at higher risk of subsequent heart failure hospitalizations: results from PARTNERS HF (Program to Access and Review Trending Information and Evaluate Correlation to Symptoms in Patients With Heart Failure) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(17):1803- 1810. (Retrospective observational trial; 694 patients)
  121. Reddy VY, Knops RE, Sperzel J, et al. Permanent leadless cardiac Pacing: results of the LEADLESS trial. Circulation. 2014. (Prospective nonrandomized trial; 33 patients)
  122. Lampert R, Hayes DL, Annas GJ, et al. HRS expert consensus statement on the management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients nearing end of life or requesting withdrawal of therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2010;7(7):1008-1026. (Consensus statement)
Publication Information

Jennifer Martindale, MD; Ian S. deSouza, MD

Publication Date

September 2, 2014

Already purchased this course?
Log in to read.
Purchase a subscription

Price: $449/year

140+ Credits!

Money-back Guarantee
Get A Sample Issue Of Emergency Medicine Practice
Enter your email to get your copy today! Plus receive updates on EB Medicine every month.
Please provide a valid email address.