Consistent subcutaneous prepectoral implantation of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Predictors of shoulder limitations and disability in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Importance of device size

BACKGROUND

Generator-induced shoulder impairment is a common complication of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Although implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have become smaller in size, they are still bigger than pacemakers (PMs). This study aimed to investigate the effects of single-chamber PM and ICD sizes on shoulder function.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 200 consecutive patients, of whom 123 had PMs and 77 had ICDs. The CIED implantation effects on shoulder function, pain, disability, and quality of life (QoL) were evaluated. The range of motion (ROM), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey (Physical and Mental Component Summary [PCS and MCS]) were used.

RESULTS

The flexion and abduction range limitation rates were significantly higher in the ICD group than in the PM group (16.9% vs. 7.3%, p = .035 and 19.5% vs. 8.9%, p = .031, respectively). The two groups had similar VAS scores. The median QuickDASH score was significantly higher in the ICD group than in the PM group (8.2 [3.6-19.6] vs. 4.6 [2.6-17.9], p = .034). There were no significant differences in SF-36 components between the two groups. ICD implantation (OR: 1.642, 95% CI: 1.293-2.776; p = .001) and incision length (OR: 1.343, 95% CI: 1.194-2.064; p = .01) were independent predictors of shoulder ROM limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced device sizes with advancing technology can decrease shoulder functional limitations and disability after implantation. Healthcare professionals should not neglect shoulder evaluations during the pre- and postimplantation periods.

Evidence-Based Strategies to Promote Long-Term Cardiac Implant Site Health: Review of the Literature

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used nowadays. The association between CIED placement and infections is responsible for the high mortality and device explantation rate. Since CIED placement has increased in the past decade, CIED-related complications have risen. In order to reduce the CIED-related complications rate, the prevention of device infection represents the main goal. Over time, many different studies have proven the importance of the measures to prevent CIED-related infections. This review aims to collect the actual recommendations for CIED infection prevention, providing an overview of the main evidence-based strategies.

Perioperative management for the prevention of bacterial infection in cardiac implantable electronic device placement

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have become important in the treatment of cardiac disease and placement rates increased significantly in the last decade. However, despite the use of appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis, CIED infection rates are increasing disproportionately to the implantation rate. CIED infection often requires explantation of all hardware, and at times results in death. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common cause of CIED infection as a pocket infection. The best method of combating CIED infection is prevention. Prevention of CIED infections comprises three phases: before, during, and after device implantation. The most critical factors in the prevention of SSIs are detailed operative techniques including the practice of proper technique by the surgeon and surgical team.

[Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?]

Due to bulky generator size, abdominal pocket preparation and epicardial defibrillator lead placement, cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation was initially an extensive surgical intervention, which had to be performed in the operating room by cardiac surgeons under general anesthesia. The development of transvenously applicable endocardial defibrillator leads rendered thoracotomy unnecessary. The decrease in generator size enabled pectoral implantation. As a consequence of the simplified surgical procedure, implantation by cardiologists or electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory under local anesthesia and brief deep sedation with preserved spontaneous respiration was made possible. As a result, the implantation techniques of ICDs and pacemakers are converging. The present article illustrates the still existing significant differences between ICD and pacemaker treatment with regard to implantation and follow-up.

Subpectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation using a lateral approach

INTRODUCTION

Third-generation cardioverter-defibrillators have revolutionized management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Implantation can be performed in the electro-physiology laboratory, with minimal morbidity. Generator size has shrunk to the point that subcutaneous implantation is feasible and safe, even under local anesthesia. The prepectoral technique, however, is associated with increased mechanical stress to the subcutaneous tissue and can predispose to device erosion or infection. These complications may be avoided by submuscular placement. Among subpectoral techniques, the lateral approach offers unrestricted ability to deploy patches or array electrodes, should the need arise, and may represent the optimal implant technique under some circumstances.

METHODS

We studied 29 male patients, aged 29-78 years, who presented with syncope or sustained ventricular tachycardia, and underwent subpectoral defibrillator implantation under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. All devices were third-generation active can systems with biphasic shock capability. Six dual-chamber defibrillators were used.

RESULTS

Subpectoral implantation was successful in all cases, with an estimated blood loss of 28+/-17 mL and no immediate complications. Except for one patient who developed twiddler's syndrome and ultimately required revision to a subcutaneous pocket, the implant site was tolerated well, and no limitation in the range of motion of the upper limb was observed during 20 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral implantation using a lateral approach is technically straightforward and can be applied globally, with modest additional resource and equipment requirements. Familiarity with this approach can maximize the likelihood of successful defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory.

Defibrillator challenges for the new millennium: the marriage of device and patient-making and maintaining a good match

Although it has become clear that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective, important challenges remain for the physician. Due to the limitations of available risk stratification tools, patient selection for primary sudden death prevention remains controversial in many populations. Additionally, the proliferation of device choices has led to challenges in matching the appropriate device to the individual patient: device size is balanced against longevity; the advantages of dual chamber systems is weighed against their increased complexity; physician and patient preferences in device implant site are constrained by site-dependent effects on defibrillation effectiveness and lead failure rates; and special consideration must be given to the patient with a preexisting pacemaker. After ICD placement, determination of appropriate follow-up frequency and methodology to assess device function must be considered. This article will review patient selection, device implant site selection, device-device interactions, single versus dual chamber ICD selection, and follow-up.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

Factors affecting the frequency of subcutaneous lead usage in implantable defibrillators

Subcutaneous leads (SQ) add complexity to the defibrillation system and the implant procedure. New low output devices might increase the requirement for SQ arrays, although this might be offset by the effects of active can and biphasic technology. This study sought to assess the impact of these technologies on SQ lead usage, and to determine if clinical variables could predict the need for an SQ lead. Patients receiving nonthoracotomy systems (n = 554) at our institution underwent step-down-to-failure DFT testing with implant criteria of a 10-J safety margin. SQ leads were used only after several endovascular configurations failed. Use of biphasic waveforms significantly lowered the frequency of use of SQ leads from 48% to 3.7% (P < 0.000001). SQ leads were required in 4.4% of patients with cold can devices and 2.6% of patients with active can devices (P = NS). There was no increase in SQ lead usage with low energy (< 30-J delivered energy) devices. Clinical variables (including EF, heart disease, arrhythmia, and prior bypass) did not predict the need for an SQ lead. The implant DFT using SQ arrays (14.5 +/- 6.5 J) was not significantly lower than that for SQ patches (16.6 + 6.0 J). We conclude that biphasic waveforms significantly reduce the need for SQ leads. Despite this reduction, 3.7% of implants still use an SQ lead to achieve adequate safety margins. The introduction of lower output devices has not increased the need for SQ leads, and when an SQ lead is required, there is not a significant difference in the implant DFT of patches versus arrays. Clinical variables cannot predict which patients require SQ leads.

Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator are now standard for initial defibrillator implantations. However, the optimal transvenous lead system and coil location for such active can configurations are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit and optimal position of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil on defibrillation thresholds with an active left pectoral pulse generator and right ventricular coil.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, randomized study was performed on 27 patients. Each subject was evaluated with three lead configurations, with the order of testing randomized. Biphasic shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and an active can alone (unipolar), or an active can in common with the proximal coil positioned either at the right atrial/SVC junction (low SVC) or in the left subclavian vein (high SVC). Stored energies at defibrillation threshold were higher for the single-coil, unipolar configuration (11.2 +/- 6.6 J) than for the high (8.9 +/- 4.2 J) or low (8.5 +/- 4.2 J) SVC configurations (P < 0.01). Moreover, 96% of subjects had low (< or = 15 J) thresholds with the SVC coil in either position compared with 81% for the single-coil configuration. Shock impedance (P < 0.001) was increased with the unipolar configuration, whereas peak current was reduced (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduces defibrillation energy requirements. The position of this coil has no significant effect on defibrillation thresholds.

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.

Defibrillation thresholds are increased by right-sided implantation of totally transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Whether an ICD is placed via a left- or right-sided approach depends on venous access, the presence of a preexisting pacemaker, and other factors. Since the DFT is affected by lead position, which in turn is determined in part by the side of access, right-sided venous access could adversely affect DFTs. Furthermore, right-sided active can placement directs electric current toward the right hemithorax, which could further increase DFTs. This study sought to determine whether DFTs were increased by right-sided vascular access, and whether active can technology was beneficial or detrimental with right-sided ICD placement. Stepdown to failure DFTs were found in 290 patients receiving transvenous systems at the time of initial ICD implantation. Of these, 271 (93%) received left-sided systems and 19 (7%) received right-sided systems. The mean DFT in systems placed via left-sided vascular access was 11.3 +/- 5.3 J versus 17.0 +/- 4.9 J for right-sided implantation (P < 0.0001); right-sided DFTs were elevated for both active can and cold can systems. Right-sided active can devices had a lower DFT than right-sided cold can systems (15 +/- 4.1 J vs 19 +/- 4.8 J, P = 0.05). The right-sided implantation of implantable defibrillators results in significantly higher DFTs than the left-sided approach. This may be due to the less favorable distribution of the defibrillating field relative to the myocardium with the devices on the right. When right-sided implantation is clinically mandated, active can devices result in lower thresholds and should be used.

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.

Clinical experience with downsized lower energy output implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Ventak Mini II Clinical Investigators

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVE

Technical improvements in cardioverter defibrillators technology has resulted in decrease in can size coupled with improved electrodes technology. A decrease in maximum energy output allows further decrease in device size. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a single lead transvenous implant employing a downsized cardioverter-defibrillator (volume 59 cm3), with a related decrease in maximum energy output (29-31 joules as stored energy and 25-27 joules as delivered energy).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty-five patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias were enrolled in 17 European institutions for implantation. At implantation step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined and the device was implanted only if a safety margin > or =10 joules was maintained between DFT and maximum programmable output. Implantation was performed in 54 of the 55 referred patients (98%) in a single electrode-device configuration. Step-down DFT testing was performed in 44 patients (43 finally implanted) and DFT was 7.77+/-4.41 joules (range 3-20). In 20 of the tested patients (45%) DFT was < or =5 joules, in 26 patients (59%) was < or =8 joules and in 34 patients (77%) it was < or =10 joules. No differences were found in DFT comparing patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = or >40% or patients treated or not with antiarrhythmic drugs or beta-blockers. Mean implant duration was 85+/-34 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Employing a downsized cardioverter defibrillator, successful transvenous implantation can be achieved in 98% of the patients, with maintenance of adequate defibrillation safety margins despite a reduction in stored energy to 29 joules.

Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with lead systems consisting of an active left pectoral electrode and either single or dual transvenous coils.

BACKGROUND

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximal output.

METHODS

This prospective study was performed in 50 consecutive patients. Each patient was evaluated with two lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. Shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and either an active can alone (single coil) or an active can with the proximal atrial coil (dual coil). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform.

RESULTS

Delivered energy at the defibrillation threshold was 10.1+/-5.0 J for the single-coil configuration and 8.7+/-4.0 J for the dual-coil configuration (p < 0.02). Moreover, 98% of patients had low (<15 J) thresholds with the dual-coil lead system, compared with 88% of patients with the single-coil configuration (p=0.05). Leading edge voltage (p < 0.001) and shock impedance (p < 0.001) were also decreased with the dual-coil configuration, although peak current was increased (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A dual-coil, active pectoral lead system reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with a single-coil, unipolar configuration.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators have proven to be an effective therapy for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Given the ever-increasing number of patients who have these devices, increasing numbers of patients are likely to present to emergency departments with defibrillator-related problems. This article discusses normal device function, indications for implantation, and technique of implantation. It also focuses on the evaluation and management of patients with these devices presenting to the emergency department.

High failure rate for an epicardial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: implications for long-term follow-up of patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the risk of epicardial lead failure during long-term follow-up and its mode of presentation.

BACKGROUND

Despite the high prevalence of epicardial lead-based implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, their long-term performance is unknown, and appropriate follow-up has not been established.

METHODS

The study group comprised all patients in whom an epicardial lead system was implanted at the Mayo Clinic between October 31, 1984 and November 3, 1994. The number of lead fractures and leads with fluid within the insulation and the mode of presentation were determined retrospectively by review of patient visits, radiographs of lead systems and data derived from formal lead testing.

RESULTS

At 4 years, the survival rate free of lead malfunction, using formal lead testing, for 160 Medtronic epicardial patches (models 6897 and 6921) was 72% compared with 92.5% for the 179 Cardiac Pacemaker, Inc. (CPI) patches (models 0040 and 0041) (p = 0.01). In addition, five Medtronic patches in three patients had fluid within the lead insulation but no obvious fracture. No CPI patches had fluid identified within the leads. Of 330 Medtronic epicardial pace/sense leads (model 6917), the 4-year survival rate free of lead malfunction as assessed by lead testing was 96%. In all, 19 presentations of lead malfunction were found in 17 patients (2 patients had more than one lead fracture at different times). In 11 (58%) of these presentations, the patients were asymptomatic despite the presence of obvious lead fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Epicardial lead malfunction is common on long-term follow-up, and some leads have a failure rate of 28% at 4 years. Many patients with fractured leads remain asymptomatic, despite involvement of multiple leads in some cases. Therefore, consideration should be given to regular periodic lead testing in addition to routine X-ray examination, as asymptomatic lead malfunction can present with normal chest X-ray findings.

Submuscular versus subcutaneous pectoral implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators: effect on high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation efficacy

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators are now routinely positioned in a pectoral location, either submuscularly (under the pectoralis muscles) or subcutaneously (over the pectoralis muscles). Furthermore, in current ICDs, the generator shield usually participates in the defibrillation energy pathway ("hot can"). Consequently, the precise generator location could affect defibrillation system efficacy. To assess this issue, we compared high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation threshold (DFT) in 20 patients undergoing submuscular and 46 patients undergoing subcutaneous pectoral implantation of an Angeion Sentinel ICD and an AngeFlex dual-coil defibrillation lead. Measurements were performed at time of ICD implant, pre-hospital discharge, and 1, 3 and/or 6 months later. Following induction of ventricular fibrillation, 569 biphasic waveform shocks were delivered between the generator shield and either the distal defibrillation coil (RV/can configuration) or both proximal and distal coils (RV/SVC/can configuration). Impedance differences between submuscular and subcutaneous implants were approximately 3-4 Ohms (p value of 0.132 to < 0.001 depending on time of follow-up and lead configuration). A significant increase in impedance over time was noted independent of implant location and lead configuration. The DFT at implant or pre-discharge was assessed in 27 individuals, and was 9.9 +/- 3.8 J in 8 patients in the submuscular group, and 7.4 +/- 3.3 J in 19 patients in the subcutaneous group (p = 0.057). In conclusion, anatomic location of a "hot can" ICD generator (submuscular versus subcutaneous) influences impedance to defibrillation current, but the impact is of small magnitude and does not appear to result in clinically important differences in DFT.

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.

Initial clinical experience with a new small sized third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator: results of a multicenter study. European Ventak Mini Investigator Group

This study reports the acute clinical experience with the new CPI VENTAK MINI: a small sized (68 cc), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with 33 J stored energy. Implantation of the device was attempted in 113 patients (90 men, mean age 57 +/- 16 years, 64 with coronary artery disease, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 41%) with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VF). All 113 patients (100%) were ultimately implanted, 12% of them for ICD replacement. Transvenous lead implantation was accomplished in all 104 patients (100%) receiving new leads, 95% of them with a single lead configuration. The safety criteria for implantation (2 consecutive VF conversions at 15 J or 3 at 20 J, in both cases without failures to convert) were demonstrated in all but 7 patients (6%). In 6 of these, safety criteria were not fully assessed while in the last patient defibrillation efficacy was not determined. Of the 104 patients with new leads, 90% underwent pectoral implantation. Of the 9 patients (9%) abdominally implanted, only 4 (4%) (3 children) were judged small sized for pectoral implant. At predischarge testing, reliable VF detection and conversion were noted in 96 of 97 patients tested. There was no perioperative mortality. At a 3.6 +/- 1.3 months follow-up, 34% of the patients had a spontaneous arrhythmic event, and 24% of the patients received shocks. Clinically inappropriate therapies occurred in 8% of the episodes in which any kind of therapy was delivered. This study demonstrates the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of the new device, and that pectoral implantation can be performed in the large majority of patients.

Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation

Lead systems that include an active pectoral shell reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximum output. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with multiple transvenous lead systems including those with an active pectoral shell to determine which system would optimize defibrillation energy requirements. This prospective study was performed on 21 consecutive patients. Each subject was evaluated with 3 lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. The configurations were a dual coil transvenous lead (lead), the distal right ventricular coil and pectoral pulse generator shell (unipolar), and all 3 components (triad). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform. Delivered energy at defibrillation threshold was 11.2 +/- 3.4 J for the lead configuration, 10.1 +/- 5.2 J for the unipolar configuration, and 7.8 +/- 3.6 J for the triad configuration (p <0.01). Leading edge voltage (p <0.01) and shock impedance (p <0.001) were also decreased for the triad configuration compared with the lead or unipolar configurations, whereas peak current was minimized with the unipolar configuration (p <0.01). We conclude that the combination of a dual coil, transvenous lead and an active pectoral shell reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with either the lead alone or unipolar configuration. Moreover, the defibrillation thresholds were < or =15 J in all patients using the triad lead system.

Conscious sedation with combined hypnotic agents for implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of placing implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in the electrophysiology laboratory using conscious sedation with combined hypnotic agents and deep sedation with etomidate.

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with transvenous leads permit the use of simplified implantation techniques similar to those used for the insertion of permanent pacemakers. However, implantation of ICDs without general anesthesia has thus far gained limited acceptance.

METHODS

In 162 patients, conscious sedation during ICD placement was achieved with combined intravenous midazolam, morphine and promethazine (Phenergan). Intravenous etomidate was administered to induce deep sedation for defibrillation threshold testing. First-time implantations were in the prepectoral position (n = 142), but some patients with preexisting devices received abdominal implants (n = 20). The results were compared with those of concurrent patients (n = 56) who received prepectoral implants under propofol anesthesia administered by an attending anesthesiologist.

RESULTS

The anesthetic protocol was implemented without major intraoperative complications. During deep sedation with etomidate, episodes of apnea, hypoxia or arterial hypotension requiring therapeutic intervention did not occur. During a mean (+/-SD) follow-up period of 257 +/- 140 days (median 227, range 14 to 482), there were, among the 162 patients, a total of two nonsudden cardiac deaths-one 71 days and the other 157 days after the operation. There were two nonsudden deaths in the concurrent control subjects (n = 56)-one 13 days and the other 110 days after the operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of ICDs under conscious sedation with combined hypnotic agents and deep sedation with etomidate is a safe and effective procedure with low perioperative morbidity and low long-term complication rates.

Long-term follow-up of cardioverter-defibrillator implanted under conscious sedation in prepectoral subfascial position

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with intravenous electrode systems and downsized generators can be implanted by use of operative techniques similar to those employed for the insertion of permanent pacemakers. However, the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up of simplified implantation procedures remain to be evaluated. This report is a prospective long-term evaluation of nonselected patients receiving ICDs in the prepectoral subfascial position under conscious sedation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Clinical characteristics of the 231 consecutive patients included a mean age of 63 years, a male-to-female ratio of 6.4, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.34, a mild-to-moderate heart failure in 91%, coronary artery disease in 84%, and a history of aborted sudden cardiac death or refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Insertion of transvenous leads and prepectoral subfascial ICD implantation were performed in electrophysiology laboratories under local anesthesia and conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and propofol. Successful implantation in all patients (operation time, 80 +/- 32 minutes, mean +/- SD) irrespective of body size and skin thickness was free of major complications, including need for emergency intubation. After surgery, 1 pocket hematoma, 1 seroma, and 1 pneumothorax required treatment. There was no operative or first-month mortality. During long-term follow-up averaging 453 +/- 296 days, six leads required repositioning, but pocket erosions or infections did not occur. First-year total survival was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation under conscious sedation of ICDs in the prepectoral subfascial position is a safe and effective procedure with low operative and postoperative morbidity and favorable long-term outcome.

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.

Complications associated with pectoral implantation of cardioverter defibrillators. World-Wide Jewel Investigators

Pectoral placement of ICD pulse generators is now routine after downsizing of these devices. However, the safety of this approach is not well documented. The aim of this study was to evaluate complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing initial pectoral ICD implantation. The subjects for this study were 1,000 consecutive patients receiving a Medtronic Jewel ICD at 93 centers worldwide. Cumulative follow-up for all patients was 634 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed for 6 months or longer. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture, and dislodgment. In this series, 1.8% of patients experienced a pocket complication with only 3 (0.3%) erosions and 2 (0.2%) infections. Lead complications were observed in 2.1% of subjects, most commonly early dislodgment of the RV lead. We conclude that pectoral implantation of a downsized ICD system can be performed with a low rate of complications. However, careful attention to anchoring techniques and close early monitoring is important given the 1.7% rate of lead dislodgment that occurred primarily during the first month following implantation.

Impact of implant techniques on complications with current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment has been in use since 1980 to prevent sudden cardiac death. The high efficacy of the original epicardial systems to terminate tachyarrhythmias was impaired by a substantial perioperative mortality and morbidity. The more "modern" transvenous ICD systems have shown a similar high efficacy in terminating ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but with a lower mortality and morbidity. As a background for discussing the impact on complications with present transvenous implantation techniques, the literature was reviewed. A large pacemaker series was used for comparison. Lead complications clearly related to design, material, or manufacture were not reviewed. The present review, covering 107 references over 40 years, gives support for the notion that in transvenously implanted ICD patients the incidence of acute and late complications related to implantation technique is now acceptable. The rate of hematomas, symptomatic thromboembolic complications, perforations, and to a certain degree infections could be improved, however. The major risk factors for implantation-related complications are discussed, and suggestions for future improvement are given.

Short biphasic pulses from 90 microfarad capacitors lower defibrillation threshold

For defibrillation between right ventricular and retropectoral patch electrodes using truncated exponential pulses, the stored energy defibrillation threshold (DFT) is lower for short pulses from small 60-microF capacitors than for conventional pulses from 120-microF capacitors, but 60-microF pulses frequently require higher voltages than are currently used. The goal of this study was to determine if DFT could be reduced by intermediate size 90-microF capacitors. This study compared biphasic waveform DFTs for 120 microF-65% tilt pulses, 90 microF-65% tilt pulses, and 90 microF-50% tilt pulses in 20 patients at defibrillator implantation. The 90 microF-50% tilt pulses were selected because their duration is half that of 120 microF-65% tilt pulses. The stored energy DFT for 90 microF-50% tilt pulses (9.1 +/- 4.3 J) was less than both the DFT for 120 microF-65% tilt pulses (12.0 +/- 5.5 J, P < 0.005) and the DFT for 90 microF-65% tilt pulses (11.6 +/- 5.8 J, P < 0.005). There was no significant difference between the latter two values. The voltage DFTs for 90 microF-50% pulses (436 +/- 113 V) and 120 microF-65% tilt pulses (436 +/- 104 V) were not statistically different; the voltage DFT for 90 microF-65% tilt pulses was higher than for either of the other two pulses (490 +/- 131, P < 0.005). The DFT was 20 J or greater in three patients for both 120 microF-65% tilt pulses and 90 microF-65% tilt pulses, but it was 16 J or less in all patients for 90 microF-50% tilt pulses. When pathways were dichotomized by the median resistance of 71 omega, 90 microF-50% tilt pulses significantly reduced DFTs compared to 120 microF-65% tilt pulses for higher resistance pathways (9.2 +/- 4.0 J vs 13.0 +/- 6.2 J, P = 0.002), but not lower resistance pathways (9.0 +/- 4.8 J vs 10.9 +/- 4.6 J, P = NS). For the electrode configuration tested, biphasic 90 microF-50% tilt pulses reduce stored energy DFT in comparison with 120 microF-65% tilt pulses without increasing voltage DFT. However, 90 microF-65% tilt pulses provide no benefit.

Transvenous defibrillation lead systems

The use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator has grown dramatically over the past 10 years. One of the major advances in defibrillation technology is the development of transvenous lead systems. Compared with traditional epicardial lead systems, transvenous defibrillation leads reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs. Transvenous lead systems provide reliable sensing of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, although redetection of ventricular fibrillation can be prolonged, especially with integrated lead systems. Both ramp and burst adaptive pacing are equally effective for the termination of ventricular tachycardia and are successful in up to 90% of spontaneous events. Defibrillation thresholds are higher with transvenous leads than with epicardial patches. These thresholds are reduced with the use of multiple transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, or with reversing shock polarity. However, the development of biphasic waveforms has made the largest impact on the efficacy of these lead systems, allowing dual coil transvenous systems to be effective in about 90% of patients. Defibrillation efficacy is further enhanced and implantation simplified by the incorporation of an active pulse generator located in the left pectoral region. Active pectoral pulse generators with biphasic waveforms will be the primary lead system for new implants.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: another device to cover

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is a mechanical device developed to manage patients with life-threatening arrhythmias when pharmacologic control has failed or produced unacceptable side effects. It is a significant amount of foreign material with a generator pack (volume 113 to 145 cc, weight 197 to 235 gm) and two or three leads and patches that are inserted into or placed on the heart. Although it has worked very well in preventing premature death, there have been complications associated with the device itself. The most significant of these has been exposure and/or infection. We present three patients who have experienced this problem. Improved coverage has been accomplished by burying the implant beneath the rectus abdominis muscle in situations where skin and subcutaneous tissue alone have proved inadequate. By dividing one or two tendinous inscriptions and the anterior limb of the internal oblique fascia, a musculofascial pocket is created to contain the generator and lead wires. This provided satisfactory coverage in two of our three patients. The single failure resulted from external trauma to the abdominal wall.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator patch erosion presenting as hemoptysis

Although the internal cardioverter defibrillator has prevented many premature deaths from lethal ventricular arrhythmias, some complications have occurred with its use. We present a patient who developed a fistula between the left ventricle and a bronchus, caused by erosion of the ventricular patch. The patient's presenting symptom was hemoptysis. Physicians caring for patients with these devices should be aware of this potential problem.