Comparison of implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillators in the operating room versus the electrophysiology laboratory

Safety and potential cost savings of same-setting electrophysiologic testing and placement of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Separately, electrophysiologic study (EPS) and placement of a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) can be performed safely in the majority of patients. The safety and potential cost savings of same-setting procedures have not been evaluated.

HYPOTHESIS

Electrophysiologic study and placement of transvenous ICDs can be performed safely in the same setting at reduced cost.

METHODS

In all. 160 (mean age 65 +/- 10 years, 75% men) and 41 (mean age 66 +/- 11 years, 73% men) consecutive patients who underwent same- versus separate-setting procedures, respectively, were prospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The two groups had similar clinical characteristics and indications for EPS and ICD therapy. Complications occurred in eight patients (5.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.3-10.3) who had same-setting procedures (one hypotension during ICD testing, one pocket hematoma, two lead dislodgments, two pneumothoraces, one stroke, and one infection) and in two (4.9%, CI 0.60-16.5) who had separate-setting procedures (one pocket hematoma and one infection). There were no procedure-related deaths or long-term ICD-related complications in either group. The mean time from ICD implantation to hospital discharge was similar in the two groups (2.5 +/- 2.4 vs. 2.7 +/- 2.2 days, p = NS). The combined procedure cost was higher in patients who had separate-setting procedures ($12,403 +/- 1,386 vs. $10,242 +/- 2.256, p = < 0.001). who incurred an additional hospital cost of $2,121 +/- $2,125 for the waiting period (1.7 +/- 1.6 days) between EPS and ICD implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients deemed candidates for ICD therapy based on EPS results, placement of transvenous defibrillators in the same setting as EPS is as safe as separate-setting procedures and, if adopted, could further reduce the cost of providing ICD therapy.

Intraoperative testing of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: how much is enough?

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation testing of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is considered a standard and required practice at the time of implantation. How much testing, if any in some cases, should be performed, however, remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Included in this retrospective analysis were 835 patients (77% men; age 65 +/- 13 years) who received transvenous ICDs between January 1996 and December 2003. One hundred twenty-nine (15.5%) had intraoperative defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, 503 (60.2%) had limited defibrillation safety margin testing, and 203 (24.3%) had no defibrillation testing. We compared the outcome (success of ICD therapies against spontaneous VT/VF events and survival) of the three groups of patients, who in some respects had important clinical differences. The success of the first delivered shocks against VT/VF was similar for DFT (91%), safety margin testing (91%), and no-testing (92%) groups; and the second shocks terminated the remaining episodes in all three groups. Sudden-death-free survival rates were similar in the three groups, however, the overall long-term survival rate was significantly lower in the no-testing group (58%) than in the DFT (74%) and safety margin testing (69%) groups (P < 0.0005). Multivariate analysis found no strong predictors of sudden death, but there were several independent predictors of overall mortality including lack of ICD testing (HR: 2.031, CI: 1.253-3.290, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In this select patient cohort, success of ICD therapies and sudden-death-free survival were similar in patients who had DFT, safety margin testing, and no testing, but overall survival was significantly lower in the no-testing group. Thus in the absence of prospective mortality data, a minimum of safety margin ICD testing should remain standard practice.

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.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable defibrillators have become the dominant therapeutic modality for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Current defibrillators are small (<60 mL) and implanted with techniques similar to standard pacemakers. They provide high-energy shocks for ventricular fibrillation and rapid ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, as well as antibradycardia pacing. Newer devices incorporating an atrial lead allow dual-chamber pacing and better discrimination between ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Randomized controlled trials have shown superior survival with implantable defibrillators than with antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Complications associated with implantable defibrillator therapy include infection, lead failure, and spurious shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Most patients adapt well to living with an implantable defibrillator, although driving often has to be restricted. Limited evidence suggests that implantable defibrillator therapy is cost-effective when compared with other widely accepted treatments. The use of implantable defibrillators is likely to continue to expand in the future. Ongoing clinical trials will define further prophylactic indications of the implantable defibrillator and clarify its cost-effectiveness ratio in different clinical settings.

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.

Complications of third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

To determine the incidence of complications of third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, 144 patients were prospectively studied who underwent first implant of third-generation devices (i.e., ICD systems with biphasic shocks, ECG storage capability, and nonthoracotomy lead systems). During 21 +/- 15 months of follow-up, 41 (28%) patients had one or more complications. No patient died perioperatively (30 days) and no ICD infection was observed during follow-up. Complications included bleeding or pocket hematoma (hemoglobin drop > 2 g/dL) in 5 (3%) patients, prolonged reversible ischemic neurological deficit in 1 (1%) patient, postoperative deep venous thrombosis of leg in 1 (1%) patient, pneumothorax in 2 (1%) patients, difficulty to defibrillate ventricular fibrillation intraoperatively in 2 (1%) patients, generator malfunction in 1 (1%) patient, arthritis of the shoulder in 3 (2%) patients, and allergic reaction to prophylactic antibiotics in 2 (1%) patients. A total of seven lead related complications were observed in six (4%) patients including endocardial lead migration in four (3%) patients. Twenty-three (16%) patients received inappropriate shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (n = 13), non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 7), or myopotential oversensing (n = 3). We conclude that serious complications such as perioperative death or ICD infection are rare in patients with third-generation ICDs. Lead-related problems and inappropriate shocks during follow-up are the most frequent complications of third-generation ICD therapy. Recognition of these complications should promote advances in ICD technology and management strategies to avoid their recurrence.

A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation: analysis of costs and outcomes

Traditionally cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed by surgeons under general anesthesia. However, with advances in lead and pulse generator technology, the surgical implantation technique has been simplified and routine pectoral pulse generator placement without general anesthesia is now possible. To assess the economic benefit of pectoral implantation, we analyzed 43 consecutive initial transvenous defibrillator implantations. The patients were grouped according to whether the implant was abdominal by a surgeon in the operating room (n = 23) or pectoral by an electrophysiologist in a laboratory (n = 20). The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the operating room than in the laboratory group (8.1 +/- 3.4 vs 5.8 +/- 2.4 days, p = 0.01), which was due primarily to the postoperative stay which averaged 1.9 days longer. Total costs were $40,274 +/- 6,861 for the operating room cohort and $32,546 +/- 3,634 for the lab group (p < 0.001). This reduction was due to a 32% lowering of professional costs and an 18% lowering of facility costs. We conclude that pectoral defibrillator implantation is cost effective and results in significant reductions of hospital stay.

Subpectoral implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator under local anaesthesia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient acceptability of submuscular implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) under local anaesthesia with conscious sedation.

DESIGN

Retrospective review. Patient acceptability in the second half of the study was routinely assessed within 24 hours.

SETTING

Regional cardiac centre.

PATIENTS

45 consecutive patients with either aborted sudden death or haemodynamically unstable ventricular tachycardia were referred for ICD implantation.

INTERVENTIONS

A subpectoral implantation technique was employed. Twelve procedures were performed under general anaesthesia. Thirty three patients were sedated with midazolam and diamorphine, and local anaesthesia was achieved with bupivicaine. Ventricular fibrillation for defibrillation threshold testing was induced by alternating current, T wave shock, or ultrarapid burst pacing. Patients were contacted after the procedure to assess acceptability.

RESULTS

32 patients having implantation under local anaesthesia did not recall the surgical procedure. One patient described an awareness of "pushing" as the generator was positioned in the pocket. Seven patients said that the procedure was painless but recalled a test shock, four describing it as mildly uncomfortable. All 33 patients stated that they would be willing to have a second implant under local anaesthesia. Twelve patients who had the implant performed under general anaesthesia had no recollection of the procedure. Mean (SD) total procedure duration was significantly longer in those who had general anaesthesia (93 (16) v 67 (17) minutes; p = 0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral implantation of ICDs may be performed safely with patient acceptability under local anaesthesia with conscious sedation.

Infections with nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillators: can these be prevented? Endotak Lead Clinical Investigators

Nonthoracotomy ICDs are believed to be the best therapeutic modality for treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Little is known about the risk of infection with initial implantation of these devices. We studied the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors associated with infections in 1,831 patients with nonthoracotomy ICD from the Endotak-C nonthoracotomy lead registry of Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. A transvenous lead was implanted in 950 patients (51.9%) and a combination transvenous plus subcutaneous patch was used in 881 patients (48.1%). Nine preselected data variables were studied, and all investigators identified as having patients with infections were personally contacted. Infections occurred in 22 (1.2%) of 1,831 patients receiving this nonthoracotomy ICD system. The mean time to infection was 5.7 +/- 6.5 months (range 1-25 months). Staphylococci were isolated in 58% of patients with reported infection. The presence of a subcutaneous defibrillator patch system was associated with the development of infection. Six of 950 patients (0.63%) with a totally transvenous lead system developed infection versus 16 of 838 (1.9%) patients with a transvenous lead plus subcutaneous patch system configuration (P = 0.015, Chi-square test), with an unadjusted estimated odds ratio of 3.06 (CI 1.19-7.86). The risk of infection encountered with the nonthoracotomy ICD is low, estimated from our data to be 1.2%. Placement of a subcutaneous defibrillator patch appears to be an independent risk factor for development of infection.

Favorable results of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in patients older than 70 years

BACKGROUND

The clinical results of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in the elderly have received limited documentation. As the longevity of the U.S. population has increased, so has the need for ICD implantation in the elderly. We evaluated the efficacy and outcome of ICD implantation in elderly patients (>70 years) compared with younger patients.

METHODS

The case records of all consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation at our institution between 1986 and 1994 were reviewed. Of a total of 238 patients, 78 patients were 70 years of age or older and 160 patients were younger than 70 years of age.

RESULTS

The mean age of the younger group was 58 years and that of the elderly group was 74 years. There were no statistical differences in the presence of coronary artery disease, left ventricular systolic function, the inducibility of arrhythmias, or the history of sudden cardiac death. The hospital morbidity rate was similar in both groups (6.9% in the younger group and 7.7% in the elderly group; p = not significant). The operative mortality rate was 1.9% for the younger group and 1.3% for the elderly group (p = not significant). At a mean follow-up of 33 +/- 26 months, Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated similar survival rates, with 93%, 82%, and 65% of the patients alive at 1, 3, and 6 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was equally effective in the treatment of patients older than 70 years as in younger patients. No differences in theoretic survival or morbidity were observed.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of deep sedation for electrophysiology procedures administered in the absence of an anesthetist

Several procedures performed in the electrophysiology laboratory (EP lab) require surgical manipulation and are lengthy. Patients undergoing such procedures usually receive general anesthesia or deep sedation administered by an anesthesiologist. In 536 consecutive procedures performed in the EP lab, we assessed the safety and efficacy of deep sedation administered under the direction of an electrophysiologist and in the absence of an anesthetist. Patients were monitored with pulse oximetry, noninvasive blood pressure recordings, and continuous ECGs. The level of consciousness and vital signs were evaluated at 5-minute intervals. Deep sedation was induced in 260 patients using midazolam, phenergan, and meperidine, then maintained with intermittent dosing of meperidine at the following mean doses: midazolam 0.031 +/- 0.024 mg/kg; phenergan 0.314 +/- 0.179 mg/kg; and meperidine 0.391 +/- 0.167 mg/kg per hour. In the remaining 276 patients, deep sedation was induced with midazolam and fentanyl and maintained with a continuous infusion of fentanyl at a mean dose of 2.054 +/- 1.43 micrograms/kg per hour. Fourteen patients experienced a transient reduction in oxygen saturation that was readily reversed following administration of naloxone. An additional 11 patients desaturated secondary to partial airway obstruction, which resolved after repositioning the head and neck. Fourteen patients experienced hypotension with fentanyl. All but one returned to baseline blood pressures following an infusion of normal saline. No patient required intubation and no death occurred. Only three patients had recollection of periprocedure events. No patient remembered experiencing pain with the procedure. Hospital stays were not prolonged as a result of the sedation used.

IN CONCLUSION

(1) deep sedation during EP procedures can be administered safely under the guidance of the electrophysiologist without an anesthetist present; (2) the drugs used should be readily reversible in case of respiratory depression; and (3) this approach may reduce the overall cost of the procedures in the EP lab, maintaining adequate patient comfort.

A patch in the pectoral position lowers defibrillation threshold

Implantable pacemaker cardioverter defibrillators are now available with biphasic waveforms, which have been shown to markedly improve defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). However, in a number of patients the DFT remains high. Also, DFT may increase after implantation, especially if antiarrhythmic drugs are added. We report on the use of a subcutaneous patch in the pectoral position in 15 patients receiving a transvenous defibrillator as a method of easily reducing the DFT. A 660-mm2 patch electrode was placed beneath the generator in a pocket created on the pectoral fascia. The energy required for defibrillation was lowered by 56% on average, and the system impedance was lowered by a mean of 25%. This maneuver allowed all patients to undergo a successful implant with adequate safety margin.

Transvenous defibrillator systems implanted by electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory

BACKGROUND

A significantly lower perioperative mortality has established the nonthoracotomy approach as the preferred technique in implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) implantation. With the currently available transvenous endocardial leads in combination with the expanded use of biphasic ICD devices, the need for use of an additional subcutaneous lead has almost been eliminated. Thus, implantation of these systems has been simplified and reports have appeared in the literature that the procedure can now be performed by an electrophysiologist alone without surgical assistance in the electrophysiology or catheterization laboratory.

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of ICD implantation by an electrophysiologist in a procedure performed entirely in the catheterization laboratory without the assistance of a surgeon.

METHODS

Over a period of 28 months, we implanted transvenous ICDs in 40 consecutive patients with (n = 34) and without (n = 6) use of general anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory with minor surgical assistance in abdominal pocket fashioning for the first two cases and then working alone for the remainder. The study included 36 men and 4 women, aged 59 +/- 12.5 years, with coronary artery (n = 22) or valvular heart disease (n = 4), cardiomyopathy (n = 12), and long QT syndrome (n = 1) or idiopathic ventricular tachycardia (n = 1), and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%, who presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 30) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 10).

RESULTS

One-lead ICD systems (Endotak, n = 21; Transvene, n = 8; or EnGuard, n = 1) were used in 30 patients, and 2-lead (EnGuard, n = 5 or Transvene, n = 5) systems in 10 patients. Generators were implanted in an abdominal (n = 17) or pectoral (n = 23) pocket. Active can devices were employed in 17 patients. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9 J. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. There were three complications (8%); one pulmonary edema that responded to drug therapy, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on the third day, and one pocket hematoma in a patient receiving anticoagulation, with no need for evacuation. There were no operative deaths and no infections. After implant, patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. During follow-up (12 +/- 8 months), 20 patients received appropriate and 5 patients inappropriate shocks. Three patients died of pump failure at 3, 7, and 19 months, respectively; they had received 0, 42, and 15 appropriate shocks, respectively, over these months. Another patient succumbed to a myocardial infarction at 9 months. At 6 months, one patient developed subacute subclavian vein thrombosis which resolved with anticoagulation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current transvenous biphasic ICD systems allow experienced electrophysiologists to implant them safely alone in the catheterization laboratory without surgical assistance, even for abdominal implants, with a high success rate and no need for use of a subcutaneous patch.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of patients treated with nonthoracotomy and thoracotomy implantable defibrillators

In 193 consecutive patients treated with implantable defibrillators at our institution, thoracotomy approaches were used in 87 patients and nonthoracotomy approaches in 106 patients. Long-term outcomes of the 2 groups were compared by the intention-to-treat analysis. Surgical mortality (30-day mortality) rates were 5.7% in the thoracotomy group and 0% in the nonthoracotomy group. Six of 106 patients who underwent nonthoracotomy implantation had a high defibrillation threshold and did not receive nonthoracotomy defibrillators. The duration of follow-up was 52 +/- 31 months in the thoracotomy group, and 23 +/- 15 months in nonthoracotomy group. Actuarial survival rates at 6 and 24 months were, respectively, 90% and 81% in nonthoracotomy patients and 89% and 80% in thoracotomy patients (p = NS). In patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <30%, surgical mortality was 0% by the nonthoracotomy and 10% by the thoracotomy approach. Despite the 10% difference in 30-day mortality, survival rates at 6 months were 85% in nonthoracotomy patients and 81% in thoracotomy patients. At 24 months they were 73% in nonthoracotomy patients and 74% in thoracotomy patients. Thus, this nonrandomized study suggests that while short-term survival is better in nonthoracotomy patients than thoracotomy patients, the difference in survival diminishes quickly during the first few months and disappears by 6 months. The results were similar in patients with severe ventricular dysfunction. Several important implantable-cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) trials initially utilized thoracotomy ICDs. Although questions may be raised with regard to applicability of such a trial in the era of nonthoracotomy ICDs, this study suggests that the results of such ICD trials will be largely applicable to patients treated with nonthoracotomy ICDs.

The additional hospital costs generated in the management of complications of pacemaker and defibrillator implantations

The rapid approach of capitated reimbursement mandates that providers examine their practice patterns associated with all surgical procedures. Documentation of (1) the complications associated with these procedures and (2) the additional hospital costs associated with the management of these complications is critical for comprehensive fiscal accountability. This study analyzed (1) the feasibility of obtaining accurate hospital cost data specific for complications and (2) the outcome in terms of fully loaded hospital costs generated in the management of the most common surgical complications associated with pacemaker and nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator therapies. Between July 1989 and September 1994, a total of 1031 pacemaker and 105 implantable defibrillator procedures were performed by a cardiac surgeon in a tertiary-level teaching hospital setting. The additional fully loaded hospital costs were determined by (1) correlating clinical data from the complete medical record with complete hospital charge data for the admission(s) related to the complication, (2) carving out complication-related charges based on the clinical data, (3) converting complication-related charges to fully loaded costs based on conversion factors in effect at the time of service, and (4) correlating cost with hospital net reimbursement and payor source. The feasibility study determined that accurate and reliable cost data specific to complications can be obtained, although the process was cumbersome and difficult. The outcomes study determined that mean fully loaded complication costs were $4345 +/- $1540 for pacemaker lead revision and $4879 +/- $3167 for implantable defibrillator lead dislodgement, $24,459 +/- $14,585 for pacemaker infection, and $13,736 +/- $12,505 for defibrillator generator system malfunction. The one infected defibrillator cost $57,213 to treat. Costs exceeded reimbursement for almost all Medicare patients with complications in this study, suggesting that similar shortfalls would occur under a capitation scheme. This information is critical to a complete understanding of the financial impact of interventional procedures in a capitated reimbursement environment.

Safety of nurse-administered deep sedation for defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory

Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory has been shown to be safe. However, general endotracheal anesthesia and/or administration of sedatives is mostly performed by anesthesiologists. In 53 patients undergoing ICD implantation in the EP laboratory, we prospectively assessed whether deep sedation without endotracheal intubation can be administered by nursing personnel under medical supervision. The mean patient age was 67 +/- 7 years, and the mean ejection fraction was 32 +/- 8%. All ICDs were placed in the abdomen requiring lead tunneling. Patients were monitored with pulse oximetry and noninvasive blood pressure recordings. The level of consciousness and vital signs were evaluated at 5-minute intervals. Deep sedation was induced with phenergan and midazolam and maintained with either meperidine or fentanyl. The mean doses given were as follows: phenergan 0.33 +/- 0.15 mg/kg, midazolam 0.05 +/- 0.03 mg/kg, meperidine 0.46 +/- 0.10 mg/kg per hour, and fentanyl 1.94 +/- 0.71 micrograms/kg per hour. None of the patients required intubation during or after the procedure. No death occurred and no patient had any recollection of the procedure. In three patients, O2 desaturation was easily managed by transient reversion of the effects of meperidine or fentanyl with naloxone. No patient experienced prolonged hospitalization after the implant (mean 2.4 +/- 0.5 days).

IN CONCLUSION

(1) adequate sedation for ICD implantation and testing can be administered safely by nursing staff in the EP lab; (2) optimum sedation protocols should include drugs easy to reverse in case of excessive respiratory depression; and (3) this may represent a more cost-effective approach to ICD implantation.

Clinical predictors of defibrillation energy requirements in patients treated with a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system. The ResQ Investigators

Many factors can influence defibrillation energy requirements (DER) in patients with a nonthoracotomy defibrillator. No large studies, however, have correlated clinical characteristics with the DER. In this study, 124 patients underwent the same DER protocol with the identical biphasic waveform, nonthoracotomy lead system, and lead configuration. These patients were 63 +/- 12 years old (mean +/- SD); 99 were men; the ejection fraction was 0.32 +/- 0.13, and 36 were taking an antiarrhythmic medication. New York Heart Association congestive heart failure class I was present in 28, class II in 70, and class III in 26 patients. Male sex (454 +/- 94 V vs 406 +/- 91 V for female sex) was associated with a significantly higher DER (p = 0.02) and an increased risk of a DER > 550 V (p = 0.047). No other clinical variable was associated with the DER or a DER > 550 V. In conclusion, women tend to have lower DERs than men.

Long-term outcomes and modes of death of patients treated with nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillators

Long-term outcomes of all patients who underwent nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation at our institution from April 1991 to October 1994 were studied using the intention-to-treat analysis. Of 94 consecutive patients, 81 underwent nonthoracotomy ICD implantation and 13 underwent thoracotomy (for concomitant surgery in 11 and unavailability of nonthoracotomy leads in 2). Six of 81 patients had a high defibrillation threshold, 4 subsequently underwent thoracotomy, and 2 were treated with amiodarone. Surgical mortality was 0%. The duration of follow-up was 20 +/- 13 months, and was > 12 months in 74% of 67 living patients. Actuarial survival rates at 1 and 2 years were, respectively, 98% and 94% for sudden death and 91% and 83% for total mortality. Deaths during long-term follow-up were mostly due to nonsudden cardiac or noncardiac deaths. Two-year mortality rates were 12% and 25% in patients with ejection fraction > or = 30% and < 30%, respectively. Thus, instances of sudden death and surgical mortality are very few in patients with nonthoracotomy ICDs. Deaths during long-term follow-up are mostly due to nonsudden cardiac and noncardiac deaths. Therefore, ICD therapy may have greater impact on survival in patients with lower risks of nonsudden cardiac and cardiac death (e.g., younger patients with minimal heart disease) than in patients with severe cardiac or noncardiac disease. Prospective studies are needed to address this question.