Transvenous defibrillator systems implanted by electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory

"Real life" longevity of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices

BACKGROUND

Manufacturers of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) promise a 5- to 9-year projected longevity; however, real-life data indicate otherwise. The aim of the present study was to assess ICD longevity among 685 consecutive patients over the last 20 years.

HYPOTHESIS

Real-life longevity of ICDs may differ from that stated by the manufacturers.

METHODS

The study included 601 men and 84 women (mean age, 63.1 ± 13.3 years). The underlying disease was coronary (n = 396) or valvular (n = 15) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 220), or electrical disease (n = 54). The mean ejection fraction was 35%. Devices were implanted for secondary (n = 562) or primary (n = 123) prevention. Single- (n = 292) or dual-chamber (n = 269) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices (n = 124) were implanted in the abdomen (n = 17) or chest (n = 668).

RESULTS

Over 20 years, ICD pulse generator replacements were performed in 238 patients (209 men; age 63.7 ± 13.9 years; ejection fraction, 37.7% ± 14.0%) who had an ICD for secondary (n = 210) or primary (n = 28) prevention. The mean ICD longevity was 58.3 ± 18.7 months. In 20 (8.4%) patients, devices exhibited premature battery depletion within 36 months. Most (94%) patients had none, minor, or modest use of ICD therapy. Longevity was longest for single-chamber devices and shortest for CRT devices. Latest-generation devices replaced over the second decade lasted longer compared with devices replaced during the first decade. When analyzed by manufacturer, Medtronic devices appeared to have longer longevity by 13 to 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

ICDs continue to have limited longevity of 4.9 ± 1.6 years, and 8% demonstrate premature battery depletion by 3 years. CRT devices have the shortest longevity (mean, 3.8 years) by 13 to 17 months, compared with other ICD devices. These findings have important implications, particularly in view of the high expense involved with this type of electrical therapy.

Can we implant cardioverter defibrillator under minimal sedation?

Aim In a prospective study, we tested the feasibility of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation under local anaesthesia (LA) with minimal sedation (MS) vs. short general anaesthesia (SGA) for defibrillation test (DT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We implanted ICDs in 118 patients between October 2002 and November 2003. Surgery was performed under LA with MS. Depending on the day of admission, patients had DT without SGA with a shock delivered when patient is unconscious (MS group, n = 73) or with short general anaesthesia (SGA group, n = 45). The patients were asked to rate the intensity of pain on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) at the end of the implantation procedure and for the patient of MS group just after DT (VAS-DT). Visual analogue scale was not influenced by the type of anaesthesia (MS vs. SGA). Univariate analysis showed that NYHA >III, 3 leads implanted and an incomplete understanding of the explanation on the procedure were risk factors of VAS >4. Only understanding of the explanation on the procedure has an influence on pain in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

ICD implantation under MS even for DT is feasible and acceptable for the patient.

Two-coil versus single-coil transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems: comparative data

Two types of new-generation transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems, incorporating a two-coil (62 patients, group 1) versus single-coil (32 patients, group 2) lead system were compared among 94 consecutive patients. The two groups were comparable in age (58 +/- 13 vs 59 +/- 14 years), presenting arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia versus ventricular fibrillation 77%/21% vs 84%/13%), cycle length of induced VT (294 +/- 4 vs 289 +/- 44 ms), number of unsuccessful antiarrhythmic drugs (1.7 +/- 0.8 vs 1.7 +/- 0.7), and left ventricular ejection fraction (35 +/- 12% vs 34 +/- 9%). Both systems were successfully implanted strictly transvenously in all patients. Biphasic shocks were used in all patients. Active shell devices were used in 79% and 84% patients of groups I and II, respectively (P = NS). Intraoperative testing revealed comparable defibrillation threshold (DFT) values (10.2 +/- 3.7 J in group 1 versus 9.3 +/- 3.6 J in group 2 system), and pacing threshold (0.7 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.3 V), but R wave amplitude and lead impedance were lower in group 1 (13 +/- 5 vs 16 +/- 5 mV, P = 0.003; and 579 +/- 115 vs 657 +/- 111 ohms, P = 0.002, respectively). Lead insulation break requiring reoperation occurred in one patient with an Endotak lead, and two patients with Transvene leads had initially high DFT with a single one-lead/active can system, which was converted to a two- or three-endocardial-lead/inactive can configuration. We conclude that both single-coil and two-coil transvenous ICD systems were associated with high rates of successful strictly transvenous ICD implantation and a low incidence of lead-related complications. Significant differences were noted in the sensed R wave and lead impedance, probably reflecting the active fixation characteristics of the Transvene lead. However, in order to obviate the sporadic need for implantation of additional endocardial leads, as was the case in two patients in this series, a double-coil lead may be preferable.

Electrophysiologist-implanted transvenous cardioverter defibrillators using local versus general anesthesia

With the advent of smaller biphasic transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the experience gained over the years, it is now feasible for electrophysiologists to implant them safely in the abdominal or pectoral area without surgical assistance. Throughout the years, general anesthesia has been used as the standard technique of anesthesia for these procedures. However, use of local anesthesia combined with deep sedation only for defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing might further facilitate and simplify these procedures. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of using local anesthesia and compare it with the standard technique of general anesthesia, during implantation of transvenous ICDs performed by an electrophysiologist in the electrophysiology laboratory. For over 4 years in the electrophysiology laboratory, we have implanted transvenous ICDs in 90 consecutive patients (84 men and 6 women, aged 58 +/- 15 years). Early on, general anesthesia was used (n = 40, group I), but in recent series (n = 50, group II) local anesthesia was combined with deep sedation for DFT testing. Patients had coronary (n = 58) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 25) or no organic disease (n = 3), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 35%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 72) or fibrillation (n = 16), or syncope (n = 2). One-lead ICD systems were used in 74 patients, two-lead systems in 10 patients, and an AVICD in 6 patients. ICDs were implanted in abdominal (n = 17, all in group I) or more recently in pectoral (n = 73) pockets. The DFT averaged 9.7 +/- 3.6 J and 10.2 +/- 3.6 J in the two groups, respectively (P = NS) and there were no differences in pace-sense thresholds. The total procedural duration was shorter (2.1 +/- 0.5 hours) in group II (all pectoral implants) compared with 23 pectoral implants of group I (2.9 +/- 0.5 hours) (P < 0.0001). Biphasic devices were used in all patients and active shell devices in 67 patients; no patient needed a subcutaneous patch. There were six complications (7%), four in group I and two in group II: one pulmonary edema and one respiratory insufficiency that delayed extubation for 3 hours in a patient with prior lung resection, both probably related to general anesthesia, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on day 3, two pocket hematomas, and one pneumothorax. There was one postoperative arrhythmic death at 48 hours in group I. No infections occurred. Patients were discharged at a mean time of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. Thus, it is feasible to use local anesthesia for current ICD implants to expedite the procedure and avoid general anesthesia related cost and possible complications.

Pectoral cardioverter defibrillators: comparison of prepectoral and submuscular implantation techniques

The purpose of this study was to compare the two techniques of pectoral ICD implantation, prepectoral and submuscular, performed by an electrophysiologist in the catheterization laboratory with use of general or local anesthesia in 45 consecutive patients. Over a period of 30 months, we implanted pectoral transvenous ICDs in 43 men and 2 women, aged 59 +/- 12 years, with use of general (n = 20) or local (n = 25) anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory. Patients had coronary (n = 30) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 10) or no organic disease (n = 1), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 31%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 40) or fibrillation (n = 5). One-lead ICD systems (18 Endotak, 10 Transvene/8 Sprint, 2 EnGuard) were used in 38 patients, 2-lead (5 Transvene, 1 EnGuard) systems in 6 patients, and 1 atrioventricular lead ICD system in 1 patient. The prepectoral technique was employed in 29 patients with adequate subcutaneous tissue, while the submuscular technique was used in 16 patients who had a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9-10 J in both groups and there were no differences in pace/sense thresholds. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. Active or hot can devices were used in 39 patients. There were no complications, operative deaths, or infections. Patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predis-charge testing. Over 14 +/- 8 months, 20 patients received appropriate device therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shocks). No late complications occurred. One patient died at 3 months of pump failure; there were no sudden deaths. In conclusion, for exclusive pectoral implantation of transvenous ICDs, electrophysiologists should master both prepectoral and submuscular techniques. One can thus avoid potential skin erosion or need for abdominal implantation in patients with a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. Finally, there are no differences in pacing or defibrillation thresholds between the two techniques.