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

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have evolved from the treatment of last resort to the gold standard therapy for patients at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. High-risk patients include those who have survived life-threatening arrhythmias, and individuals with cardiac diseases who are at risk for such arrhythmias, but are symptomless. Use of an ICD will affect the patient's quality of life. Some drugs can substantially affect defibrillator function and efficacy, and possible drug-device interactions should be considered. Patients with ICDs may encounter cell phones, antitheft detectors, and many other sources of potential electromagnetic Interference. In addition to treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias, new defibrillators provide full featured dual chamber pacing, and could treat atrial arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure by means of biventricular pacing.

Implantation of cardioverter device in young children: the perirenal approach

Placement of Implantable cardioverter devices in young children is complicated because of the relatively large size and heavy weight of these devices. A technique is described where the device is implanted in the left perirenal space while an endovascular lead is used instead of an epicardial patch electrode.

Worldwide clinical experience with a down-sized active can implantable cardioverter defibrillator in 162 consecutive patients. Worldwide 7221 ICD Investigators

Treatment with an ICD is the first-line treatment for survivors of sudden cardiac death. More recently, evidence accumulates that prophylactic ICD therapy may be beneficial for selected subgroups of patients after myocardial infarction. Particularly for future studies on the value of prophylactic ICD therapy, downsized devices are needed to allow easy pectoral implantation with a single lead configuration and featuring extended memory capabilities. Accordingly, this study assesses the clinical performance of a downsized fourth-generation ICD in 162 consecutive patients. All devices could be successfully implanted pectorally, in 96% with a single lead configuration with a low defibrillation threshold of 10.6 +/- 5.2 J. During a 3-month follow-up, 26% of the patients received ICD therapy. Twenty percent had appropriate therapy for ventricular fibrillation (n = 9) and VT (n = 23), which was effective in all cases. Of the 450 episodes of VT, 426 were terminated by antitachycardia pacing. Fourteen patients (9%) had inappropriate ICD therapy mainly due to atrial fibrillation or sinus tachycardia, which could be reliably diagnosed by the ICD stored intracardiac electrograms.

[Current indications for implantable automatic defibrillators]

Since the first implantation in man in 1980 implantable cardioverter defibrillator technology has greatly improved and the number of devices implanted has increased considerably in recent years. Non-thoracotomy lead systems and biphasic shocks are now the approach of choice, offering nearly a 100% success rate. This paper version reviews the current indications for the implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator and is an upgraded of an article previously published by the Arrhythmia's Section of the Spanish Society of Cardiology. Recommendations for qualification of centres implanting defibrillators and follow up are also addressed.