Why the study?
Inappropriate shocks occur in over 3.1% of patients with an S-ICD annually and require disabling during pseudo-electrical storm, but strategies for temporary inhibition using magnets in critical care settings need description.
Does the application of clinical magnets temporarily inhibit inappropriate shock therapy in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators?
Does the application of clinical magnets temporarily inhibit inappropriate shock therapy in patients with subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators?
Any standard clinical magnet can safely and effectively inhibit inappropriate shocks from a subcutaneous ICD in an emergency setting when a specific programmer is unavailable.
Introduction: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) represents a major advancement in ICD technology. Inappropriate shocks (IAS) occur in more than 3.1% of the population with S-ICD each year and are usually followed by admission to the emergency department (ED). In this setting, the disabling of IAS is mandatory during a pseudo-electrical storm (ES). This report describes the strategies that can be followed in order to temporarily inhibit IAS in critical care settings with the use of magnets. Case presentation: An S-ICD was implanted more than 6 weeks prior to presentation in a 68-year-old man with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. In the ED, the patient experienced 3 IAS in the last hour. A Medtronic magnet was applied to stop IAS, as the specific programmer was not available. The maneuver interrupted the IAS. In order to verify the universal magnetic response of the S-ICD, six different magnets and one smartphone with MagSafe technology were tested. All magnet models suspended arrhythmia detection and IAS, while the smartphone did not cause magnet interferences. Conclusions: This report demonstrates the safety and efficacy of all clinical magnet models in inhibiting IAS. In case of pseudo-ES, any type of magnet allows ED providers to easily and rapidly disable the functionality of the devices when appropriate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santomauro et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: