Subcutaneous single-incision implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators under local anesthesia by electrophysiologists in the electrophysiology laboratory

Different venous approaches for implantation of cardiac electronic devices. A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Many of the complications arising from cardiac device implantation are associated to the venous access used for lead placement. Previous analyses reported that cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) is safer but less effective than subclavian vein puncture (SVP). However, comparisons between these techniques and axillary vein puncture (AVP) - guided either by ultrasound or fluoroscopy - are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare safety and efficacy of these approaches.

METHODS

We searched for articles assessing at least two different approaches regarding the incidence of pneumothorax and/or lead failure (LF). When available, bleeding and infectious complications as well as procedural success were analyzed. A frequentist random effects network meta-analysis model was adopted.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were analyzed. Most articles assessed SVP versus CVC. Compared to SVP, both CVC and AVP were associated with reduced odds of pneumothorax (OR: 0.193, 95%CI: 0.136-0.275 and OR: 0.128, 95%CI: 0.050-0.329; respectively) and LF (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.406-0.976 and OR: 0.425, 95%CI: 0.286-0.632; respectively). No significant differences between AVP and CVC were demonstrated. Limited data suggests no major impact of different approaches on infectious and bleeding complications. Initial CVC approach required significantly more often an alternate/additional venous access for lead placement, compared to both AVP and SVP. No differences between these two were identified.

CONCLUSION

Both AVP and CVC seem to decrease incident pneumothorax and LF, compared to SVP. Initial AVP approach seems to decrease the need of alternate venous access, compared to CVC. These results suggest that AVP should be further clinically tested.

Ultrasound-guided Axillary Vein Puncture in Cardiac Lead Implantation: Time to Move to a New Standard Access?

Cardiac stimulation therapy has evolved significantly over the past 30 years. Currently, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) are the mainstream therapy for many potentially lethal heart conditions, such as advanced atrioventricular block or sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Despite sometimes being lifesaving, the implant is surgical and therefore carries all the inevitable intrinsic risks. In the process of technology evolution, one of the most important factors is to make it safer for the patient. In the context of CIED implants, complications include accidental puncture of intrathoracic structures. Alternative strategies to intrathoracic subclavian vein puncture include cephalic vein dissection or axillary vein puncture, which can be guided by fluoroscopy, venography or, more recently, ultrasound. In this article, the authors analyse the state of the art of ultrasound-guided axillary vein puncture using evidence from landmark studies in this field.

Anesthesia for Insertion of Implantable Cardioverter Defibdilators

The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation has steadily in creased since the 1980s. ICDs have undergone a signifi cant evolution over the past 2 decades, initially requir ing thoracotomy for placement of epicardial patches to the modern-day devices that involve only transvenously placed leads. Indications for the placement of ICDs are expanding. This article reviews the perioperative anes thetic management of patients undergoing insertion of ICDs. Preoperative assessment of patients for ICD place ment includes careful assessment of underlying medical disease as well as specific determination of the need for continuation or discontinuation of perioperative antiar rhythmic agents. It is important to consider the poten tial effects of anesthetic choice both on hemodynamic stability in patients with limited cardiac reserve and on the ability to intraoperatively induce, and subsequently treat, ventricular dysrhythmias. The relative merits of inhalational and intravenous general anesthesia, as well as those of local anesthesia and intravenous seda tion, should therefore be considered. The present re view also addresses issues of myocardial stunning from repeated defibrillation, cerebral function in the context of repeated circulatory arrest, appropriate intraopera tive monitoring, and postoperative care of patients undergoing ICD placement.

Left ventricular ejection fraction as criterion for implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in heart failure patients undergoing surgical left ventricular reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Besides implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), a proportion of patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction due to ischemic cardiomyopathy are potential candidates for surgical LV reconstruction (Dor procedure), which changes LV ejection fraction (LVEF) considerably. In these patients, LVEF as selection criterium for ICD implantation may be difficult. This study aimed to determine the value of LVEF as criterium for ICD implantation in heart failure patients undergoing surgical LV reconstruction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with end-stage heart failure who underwent ICD implantation and LV reconstruction were evaluated. During admission, two-dimensional (2D) echocardiography (LV volumes and LVEF) was performed before surgery and was repeated at 3 months after surgery. Over a median follow-up of 18 months, the incidence of ICD therapy was evaluated.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 37 patients (59 +/- 11 years). At baseline, mean LVEF was 23 +/- 5%. Mean left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) were 175 +/- 73 mL and 225 +/- 88 mL, respectively. At 3-month follow-up, mean LVEF was 41 +/- 9% (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline), and mean LVESV and LVEDV were 108 +/- 65 mL and 176 +/- 73 mL, respectively (P < 0.0001 vs. baseline). During 18-month follow-up, 12 (32%) patients had ventricular arrhythmias, resulting in appropriate ICD therapy. No significant relations existed between baseline LVEF (P = 0.77), LVEF at 3-month follow-up (P = 0.34), change in LVEF from baseline to 3-month follow-up (P = 0.28), and the occurrence of ICD therapy during 18-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

LVEF before and after surgical LV reconstruction is of limited use as criterium for ICD implantation in patients with end-stage heart failure.

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.

Anesthetic management of cardiac tamponade after dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy

We report a case of cardiac tamponade in a patient with dilated cardiomyopathy after undergoing dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. General anesthesia was required for subxiphoid pericardiotomy. Although the occurrence rate of adverse events with ICDs has been reported to be high, the acute onset of significant cardiac tamponade is uncommon as a short-term complication of ICD implantation. We describe our anesthetic management of cardiac tamponade in the ICD patient with dilated cardiomyopathy.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in patients with mild-to- moderate left ventricular dysfunction: hemodynamics and recovery profile with two different anesthetics used during deep sedation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of thiopental and propofol during defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) on hemodynamics and recovery profile in patients requiring automatic internal cardioverter-defibrilator placement.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical investigation.

SETTING

University hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four adult patients.

INTERVENTIONS

After administration of midazolam, 0.025 mg/kg, and fentanyl, 0.5 to 1 mug/kg, surgery was performed under topical infiltration with 1% lidocaine. In group I (GI) (n = 17), patients received thiopental by slow injection and patients in group II (GII) (n = 17) received propofol before induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients received 4.1 +/- 1.4 mg of midazolam, 114 +/- 34 mug of fentanyl, and 280 +/- 78 mg of thiopental in GI; and 4.6 +/- 1.7 mg of midazolam, 119 +/- 62 mug of fentanyl, and 147 +/- 40 mg of propofol in GII (p > 0.05). Hemodynamics did not show significant differences between the groups at any recording time. Average time needed to regain the pretest sedation level was 16.4 +/- 8.8 minutes in GI and 10.9 +/- 5.5 minutes in GII (p = 0.03). Time required to achieve a score of 10 using a modified Aldrete score was 26.4 +/- 9.3 minutes in GI and 17.4 +/- 4.9 in GII (p = 0.001). Seven patients in GII (41%) and 1 patient in GI (6%) became hypotensive after DFT (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Deepening the sedation level by slow injection of thiopental or propofol before DFT provided satisfactory conditions during brief episodes of VF. Delay in recovery of arterial pressure after DFT with propofol and delay in arousal and discharge of patients with thiopental are major disadvantages of the regimens.

Technologic advances in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Multiple technologic advances in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have resulted in smaller size, easier implantation, and improved detection, therapy, and stored diagnostic information. Advanced dual-chamber ICDs are currently available that allow dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing with mode switching, enhanced detection algorithms, antitachycardia pacing, low-energy cardioversion, high-energy shocks, and extensive diagnostics. Based on improvements in lead systems and improved energy waveforms, almost all devices are being implanted with nonthoracotomy leads in the pectoralis area. The results of recent clinical trials have expanded indications for the ICD for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. With advances in capacitor and battery technology coupled with improved lead systems and waveform resulting in lower defibrillation thresholds, it is likely that lower-output, smaller devices will be developed. In the future, ICDs may have expanded indications and may incorporate physiologic sensors to access hemodynamic significance of arrhythmias and algorithms for prediction and prevention of cardiac arrhythmias.