Key result
Simplified CIED radiotherapy protocol shows no significant changes in lead sensing or impedance.
Why the study?
There remains ambiguity across international and manufacturer guidelines on managing patients with CIEDs undergoing radiotherapy, prompting evaluation of the safety of a locally implemented Standard of Practice.
Does a simplified local Standard of Practice (without mandatory device reprogramming, magnet placement, or continuous specialist monitoring) maintain device safety and lead parameter stability in patients with CIEDs undergoing radiotherapy?
Observational (n=320)
No
Does a simplified local Standard of Practice (without mandatory device reprogramming, magnet placement, or continuous specialist monitoring) maintain device safety and lead parameter stability in patients with CIEDs undergoing radiotherapy?
A simplified local protocol for managing CIEDs during radiotherapy—omitting routine device reprogramming, magnet application, and continuous specialist monitoring—demonstrated no clinically significant lead parameter changes or radiation-related adverse events, offering a resource-sparing alternative to BHRS guidelines.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports simplified CIED protocols during radiotherapy in this cohort; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective trials before practice change.
Background: The aim of this study is to determine the safety of a locally implemented Standard of Practice (SOP) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). With increasing use of radiotherapy in cancer treatment and the widespread adaptation of CIEDs, the British Heart Rhythm Society introduced new guidance in 2025. There remains ambiguity between various international, as well as manufacturer, guidelines on the management of these patients. Methods: This was a retrospective single-centre observational study analysing patients with CIEDs receiving radiotherapy after the implementation of our Standard of Practice in 2021. Patients were identified using the Cardiobase system. Patients were divided into non-pacemaker-dependent, pacemaker-dependent and implantable-cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) groups. Lead sensing and impedance values were gathered pre- and post-treatment and analysed using a paired Student’s T-test. Results: A total of 320 patients were included in this study. There were no statistically significant changes in lead sensing capabilities in any of the groups pre- and post-radiotherapy with a p value of >0.05. There were no statistically significant changes in lead impedance in the ICD and non-pacemaker-dependent groups. Although statistically significant (p = 0.039), there was no clinically significant reduction in atrial lead impedance in the pacemaker-dependent cohort. Conclusions: From the obtained results, we can conclude that our locally implemented SOP is a safe alternative to BHRS guidelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saghie et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cancer patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing radiotherapy (n=320). Radiotherapy under locally implemented CIED Standard of Practice (SOP) without mandatory device reprogramming or magnet placement vs. Pre-radiotherapy baseline device parameters was evaluated on Pre- versus post-radiotherapy changes in CIED lead sensing and lead impedance parameters (p=>0.05). Radiotherapy under a simplified local CIED protocol resulted in no significant changes in lead sensing (p>0.05) and no clinically significant changes in lead impedance across 320 patients.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: