Clinical results with nonthoracotomy ICD systems

Implantable cardiac defibrillators

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) represents an important development in the effort to reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death (almost 400,000 yearly in the United States). Early generation ICDs, which required epicardial lead systems and abdominal placement of the pulse generator, have been replaced by transvenous leads and pectoral implants. Other important refinements, which include biphasic waveforms, extensive memory capability, antitachycardia pacing, and enhanced sensing algorithms, have greatly improved patient tolerance. Ongoing trials and those in the planning stages will continue to expand the indications for ICDs and will focus on cost-effectiveness.

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.

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.

Biphasic waveforms prevent the chronic rise of defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare chronic changes in monophasic and biphasic defibrillation thresholds using a uniform transvenous lead system and testing protocol.

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation thresholds increase over time in patients with nonthoracotomy lead systems. This increase can result in an inadequate chronic defibrillation safety margin and could limit the safety of smaller pulse generators, which have a reduced maximal output. However, previous studies of the temporal changes of defibrillation thresholds evaluated complex lead systems or monophasic shock waveforms, neither of which are used with current technology.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of the effects of shock waveforms on the changes of transvenous defibrillation thresholds over time. Paired monophasic and biphasic thresholds were measured both at implantation and at follow-up (250 +/- 105 days) in 24 consecutive patients who were not receiving antiarrhythmic drugs. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak C lead, and reverse polarity shocks (distal coil = anode) were delivered.

RESULTS

Monophasic defibrillation thresholds increased from (mean +/- SD) 13.7 +/- 6.0 J to 16.8 +/- 6.7 J (p = 0.02), whereas biphasic thresholds were unchanged (10.4 +/- 4.3 J to 10.2 +/- 4.8 J, p = 0.86) in the same patients. Shock impedance chronically increased (47.0 omega to 50.5 omega, p = 0.02) and was unaffected by waveform.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that biphasic shocks prevent the chronic increase in defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system.

Long-term survival and complications in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias: treatment with a nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillator with or without a subcutaneous patch

The Endotak lead system and ICD has been used to treat patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of 1,053 patients who underwent implantation of the Endotak lead system with or without a subcutaneous patch. Group A consisted of 567 patients receiving the Endotak lead with a subcutaneous patch; group B consisted of 486 patients receiving the Endotak lead alone. The 2-year survivals from sudden death, cardiac death, and total death in groups A and B were 97.6%/98.2% (P = 0.38), 88.6%/92.7% (P = 0.09), and 84.7%/86.8% (P = 0.06), respectively. Minimum tested effective defibrillation energy at implantation was 17.2 +/- 5.2 J for group A and 15.8 +/- 5.1 J for group B (P < 0.01). The operative mortality was 1.8% in group A and 0.6% in group B (P = 0.09). The incidence of lead dislodgment, malfunction, and infection was 6.7% for group A and 3.5% for group B (P < 0.01). Sudden death survival was excellent in both groups with less lead complications in group B. The Endotak lead alone may be the preferred choice of lead configuration in those patients who have adequate defibrillation thresholds at implant.

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.

Complications associated with pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: comparison of subcutaneous and submuscular approaches. Worldwide Jewel Investigators

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a subcutaneous or submuscular approach.

BACKGROUND

Pectoral placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators is now routine because of downsizing of these devices. subcutaneous implantation has been advocated by some because it is a simple surgical procedure comparable to pacemaker insertion. Others have favored submuscular insertion to avoid wound complications. These surgical approaches have not been compared previously.

METHODS

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 633.7 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed up for > or = 6 months. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture and dislodgment.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous implantation was performed in 604 patients and submuscular implantation in the remaining 396. The median procedural times were shorter for subcutaneous implantation (p = 0.014). In addition, the cumulative percentage of patients free from erosion was greater for subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.03, 100% vs. 99.1% at 6 months). However, lead dislodgment was more common with subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.019, 2.3% vs. 0.5% at 6 months) and occurred primarily during the first month postoperatively. Overall, there were no significant differences in cumulative freedom from complications between groups (4.1% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.1836).

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous pectoral implantation of this ICD can be performed safely and has a low complication rate. This approach requires a simple surgical procedure and, compared with the submuscular approach, is associated with shorter procedure times and comparable overall complication rates. However, early follow-up is important in view of the increased lead dislodgment rate.

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.

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.

Elevated defibrillation threshold when right-sided venous access is used for nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator lead implantation. The Endotak Investigators

INTRODUCTION

Although myriad factors influence the defibrillation threshold, the relation between the site of transvenous lead entry into the vascular system and the defibrillation threshold has not been reported. This study examines the influence that venous entry site has on defibrillation success for a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead with two defibrillating coils.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population comprised 345 patients. Their mean age was 61 +/- 13 years and, left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.33 +/- 0.13. A left-sided approach was used in 324 (93.9%) of the patients, and a right-sided approach was used in the remaining 21 (6.1%) patients. There was no difference in the gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, or underlying cardiac disease in the two groups. For all patients, with a transvenous lead used either alone or with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch, the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.9 +/- 4.8 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.0 +/- 7.3 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.02). When a transvenous lead was used with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (115 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.5 +/- 4.3 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 12.0 +/- 10.0 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.98). When a transvenous lead was used without a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (230 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 10.1 +/- 5.0 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.6 +/- 6.6 J when a right-sided approach was used (P < 0.01). For the entire group of patients and for each specific lead arrangement, there was no significant difference in the defibrillating lead system impedance when right-sided versus left-sided approaches were compared.

CONCLUSION

Left-sided approaches to implant transvenous leads with two coils for defibrillation result in lower biphasic defibrillation thresholds than when right-sided approaches are used.

Influence of malpositioned transvenous leads on defibrillation efficacy with and without a subcutaneous array electrode

Some patients cannot receive a transvenous lead system because of high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). We hypothesized that a right ventricular (RV) catheter electrode not extending as far as possible into the RV apex could cause high DFTs. Recently, a subcutaneous array (SQA) electrode has been shown to lower DFTs substantially. We compared the influence of a malpositioned RV catheter electrode on defibrillation efficacy for endocardial lead systems with and without a SQA. In eight anesthetized pigs, defibrillation catheters were placed in the RV apex and near the junction of the superior vena cava (SVC) and right atrium. SQA, formed by three elements, each 20 cm in length, was placed in the left thorax. DFTs were determined for a biphasic waveform using an up/down protocol with the RV catheter at the apex and with it repositioned 1-cm and 2-cm proximal to the apex. The mean DFT energies for the configurations with a SQA were less than those without a SQA for every catheter position. The placement of the RV catheter away from the apex caused an increase in defibrillation energy for the configurations without a SQA (apex: 17.1 +/- 3.8 J [mean +/- SD]; 1 cm: 20.1 +/- 4.6 J; 2 cm: 27.6 +/- 9.5 J; P < 0.05), but not for the configurations with a SQA (apex: 12.2 +/- 2.2 J; 1 cm: 12.3 +/- 2.9 J; 2 cm: 12.1 +/- 0.9 J: P = NS). These results suggest that a malpositioned RV catheter electrode, at the time of implantation or by late dislodgment, significantly elevates DFTs for a total endocardial system but not for a system that includes a SQA.

Postoperative lead-related complications in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to document postoperative complications attributable to nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems in a large cohort.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of postoperative complications specifically associated with nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems is unknown.

METHODS

Postoperative lead-related complications were evaluated in 170 patients with a nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system who were followed up for a mean (+/- SD) of 17 +/- 12 months. Each system incorporated one or more intravascular leads. In 117 patients (69%), the system incorporated a subcutaneous defibrillation patch. All implantations were performed in an operating room by cardiothoracic surgeons. Defibrillation thresholds were measured at implantation, before hospital discharge (mean 3 +/- 2 days) and at 4 to 18 weeks after implantation. Patients were evaluated every 2 to 3 months after implantation or as indicated by clinical exigency.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients (15.9%) were diagnosed with a lead-related complication that either extended the initial hospital period or led to a second hospital admission. Complications included endocardial lead or subcutaneous defibrillation patch dislodgment in eight patients (4.7%), which was diagnosed between 2 and 345 days after implantation; endocardial or subcutaneous patch lead fracture in six (3.5%), which was diagnosed between 53 and 600 days after implantation; subcutaneous patch mesh fracture in one, which was diagnosed at 150 days after implantation; subclavian vein thrombosis in three (1.8%), which was diagnosed at 2 to 50 days after implantation; and unacceptably elevated defibrillation threshold (within 5 J of maximal device output) in nine (5.3%), which was documented at one of the two postimplantation evaluations in eight patients or at the time of failure to terminate a spontaneous ventricular tachycardia in one. Seventeen of the 27 patients required reoperation for correction of their complication. In addition, system infection requiring complete explantation occurred in seven other patients (4.1%) at an interval from implantation ranging from 14 to 120 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complications related to a nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system were common and frequently required reoperation for correction. The rate of system explantation due to infection was also significant. Postoperative defibrillation testing and vigilant outpatient follow-up evaluation are necessary to ensure normal lead function.

Mechanical complications after implantation of multiple-lead nonthoracotomy defibrillator systems: implications for management and future system design

Nonthoracotomy lead system (NTL) implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) provide excellent protection against sudden death from ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, these devices have unique mechanical complications and management issues. We reviewed the major complications occurring in 159 patients who underwent attempted implantation of a multilead NTL system. Successful implantation was obtained in 98% of patients. Two-year, all-cause actuarial survival on an intention-to-treat basis was 94%. Major complications occurred in 28 (17.6%) patients over a follow-up period of 21 +/- 10 months. Complications included 11 (6.9%) lead dislodgements, 10 (5.7%) lead fractures in 9 patients, 2 (1.3%) pocket infections, 1 frozen shoulder, 1 right ventricular perforation, 1 pneumothorax, 1 bleed requiring transfusion, 1 thromboembolism, and 1 "twiddle"-induced torsion of leads. Most of the lead dislodgements and fractures were identified by routine x-ray surveillance. Single-lead systems may significantly reduce complication rates in the future and maintain excellent survival rates.

Transvenous versus transthoracic cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. A comparative analysis of morbidity, mortality, and survival

The hypothesis that transvenous implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator is associated with less morbidity than use of a transthoracic approach was investigated in a retrospective series of 146 patients. None of these patients had concomitant heart procedures, and the preoperative characteristics of the two groups were similar. When analyzed by actual technique used (transvenous, 57 patients; transthoracic, 89 patients) and by the intention-to-treat method (transvenous, 65 patients, 8 of whom actually underwent thoracotomy; thoracotomy, 81 patients), transvenous implantation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory complications and atrial fibrillation. Total cardiac mortality and freedom from sudden cardiac death in the transvenous and transthoracic groups were comparable at 2 years.

Implantation and follow-up of a third-generation cardioverter defibrillator: comparison of epicardial and nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system

OBJECTIVE

The intraoperative and follow-up results were compared in 67 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent implantation of the Ventritex Cadence defibrillator with either epicardial patch (EPI, 25 patients) or nonthoracotomy CPI Endotak (ENDO, 42 patients) defibrillation lead systems.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in age, sex, structural heart disease, ejection fraction, arrhythmia history, or drug therapy. Successful implantation was accomplished in all patients using either lead system. In the ENDO group, 35 patients (83%) had a defibrillation threshold < or = 550 V and did not require a subcutaneous patch. Intraoperatively, the defibrillation threshold was 453 +/- 139 V (13 +/- 9 J) for EPI and 490 +/- 113 V (15 +/- 8 J) for ENDO (P = NS). There were no perioperative deaths in either group. At predischarge testing, the defibrillation threshold was 445 +/- 183 V (14 +/- 12 J) for EPI and 439 +/- 133 V (13 +/- 7 J) for ENDO (P = NS). During a mean follow-up of 16 +/- 8 months, there were no sudden deaths, and four patients died from congestive heart failure (3 EPI, 1 ENDO). During follow-up, 916 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes occurred in 16 of 25 EPI patients (64%) and 967 episodes occurred in 31 of 42 ENDO patients (74%) (P = NS). The number of episodes detected as ventricular fibrillation were 192 for EPI (21%) and 232 for ENDO (24%), with first shock success in 76% and 75%, respectively; all episodes were successfully terminated by the device. In the remaining episodes detected as ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing was attempted and was successful in 672 of 724 episodes (93%) with EPI and 666 of 735 episodes (91%) with ENDO lead systems (P = NS). Acceleration of ventricular tachycardia with antitachycardia pacing occurred in 21 episodes (3%) with EPI and in 37 episodes (5%) with ENDO leads (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

A nonthoracotomy approach using the third generation cardioverter defibrillator Cadence V-100 is safe and effective and has clinical results that are not significantly different from epicardial defibrillation lead systems.

NASPE/ACC/AHA/ESC medical/scientific statement special report--clinical investigation of antiarrhythmic devices: a statement for healthcare professionals from a Joint Task Force of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Working Groups on Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology

The goal of radiofrequency catheter ablation and the criterion for efficacy is the elimination of arrhythmogenic myocardium. The application of radiofrequency current in the heart clearly results in lower morbidity and mortality rates than thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in general, and comparisons of therapy with radiofrequency catheter ablation and therapy with thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in randomized clinical trials are unwarranted. Trials of radiofrequency catheter ablation versus medical or implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy may be indicated in certain conditions, such as ventricular tachycardia associated with coronary artery disease. Randomized trials are recommended for new and radical departures in technology that aim to accomplish the same goals as radiofrequency catheter ablation. Surveillance using registries and/or databases is necessary in the assessment of long-term safety and efficacy.

Clinical investigation of antiarrhythmic devices. A statement for healthcare professionals from a joint task force of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology, the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Working Groups on Arrhythmias and Cardiac Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology

The goal of radiofrequency catheter ablation and the criterion for efficacy is the elimination of arrhythmogenic myocardium. The application of radiofrequency current in the heart clearly results in lower morbidity and mortality rates than thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in general, and comparisons of therapy with radiofrequency catheter ablation and therapy with thoracic and cardiac surgical procedures in randomized clinical trials is unwarranted. Trials of radiofrequency catheter ablation versus medical or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy may be indicated in certain conditions, such as ventricular tachycardia associated with coronary artery disease. Randomized trials are recommended for new and radical departures in technology that aim to accomplish the same goals as radiofrequency catheter ablation. Surveillance using registries and/or databases is necessary in the assessment of long-term safety and efficacy.

Italian multicenter clinical experience with endocardial defibrillation: acute and long-term results in 307 patients. The Italian Endotak Investigator Group

This study presents the acute and long-term results of 307 patients (267 men, mean age 57.5 years, 205 suffering from coronary artery disease, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 33.3%) with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent attempted transvenous ICD implantation with the CPI Endotak lead system in 37 Italian centers. Transvenous ICD implantation was ultimately accomplished in 306 (99.7%) patients. These included 19 subjects with high (< 10 J below output energy of implanted device) defibrillation threshold (DFT) at implant. One hundred sixty-four patients (53%) were implanted with the endocardial lead alone, while 142 also received an SQ patch or SQ array. The mean DFT (not always step-down DFT) at implant was 16.9 +/- 5.7 joules; 15.3 +/- 5.2 joules with biphasic shock and 19.6 +/- 5.4 joules with monophasic shock; P < 0.0001. A significantly higher percentage of patients tested with a biphasic shock could be implanted with adequate safety margin and without an additional SQ patch or SQ array (98% and 81%, respectively). No perioperative deaths occurred. During the mean follow-up of 14.5 +/- 10.2 months, 140 patients (52%) received at least one appropriate shock. An inappropriate shock was observed in 26% of episodes. The 1- and 3-year actuarial incidence of sudden death was 2% and 4%, respectively, and that of total death was 10% and 20%, respectively. A pocket infection requiring ICD explantation occurred in 4 patients (1.4%) and an endocardial lead dislodgment in 11 patients (3.6%). Two patients (0.3%) showed a sensing pin disconnection and six patients (2.3%) had a lead insulation break. The results of this Italian multicenter trial indicate that the CPI Endotak lead system is a simple, safe, and reliable system for endocardial defibrillation. When compared to epicardial leads, it clearly reduces the perioperative mortality and morbidity, while maintaining a similar efficacy in preventing sudden death and terminating ventricular arrhythmias.

Predictors of defibrillation energy requirements with nonepicardial lead systems

The determinants of high defibrillation energy requirements (DER) using nonepicardial lead systems (NELS) have not been well characterized. The goal of this study was to examine prospectively the influence of clinical, radiographic, echocardiographic, and procedural variables on DER during NELS placement. Data from 100 consecutive patients undergoing attempted NELS implantation were analyzed. Transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, and monophasic shock devices from two manufacturers were used. Leads were successfully positioned for testing in 95% of patients. An adequate DER (< or = 25 J) was obtained in 73 of 95 (77%) of patients. Univariate analysis identified amiodarone therapy and left ventricular mass as predictors of high DER. With multivariate analysis, amiodarone therapy was the sole significant predictor of high DER (P = 0.002, odds ratio 5.46). The 22 patients with high NELS DER also had high epicardial DER (mean 24 +/- 9 J). The two patch epicardial DER was > 25 joules in 12 of 22 patients. Thus, adequate DER with monophasic shock waveforms can be obtained in most patients undergoing NELS testing. However, amiodarone therapy significantly increases the probability of obtaining high DER.

Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory: initial experiences in 48 patients

The exponential increase in cardioverter-defibrillator implantations has resulted in a need for safe implantations that do not require long waiting periods. We report intraoperative and follow-up results in 48 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory. Twenty-six (54%) patients had their first cardioverter-defibrillator implant (group 1), and 22 (46%) patients underwent pulse-generator replacement (group 2). In all patients, cardioverter-defibrillator implant or pulse-generator replacement was performed with the patient under general anesthesia. In 25 (96%) of 26 patients in group 1, cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was possible with a mean defibrillation threshold of 13 +/- 8 J. One patient had a defibrillation threshold of > 25 J, and therefore cardioverter-defibrillator implant was not achieved. This patient underwent epicardial device implantation 1 day later. Another patient in group 1 had vessel rupture (vena subclavia) intraoperatively. During a mean follow-up of 2 +/- 1 months, two patients died from congestive heart failure 2 and 4 months after device implantation. An infection occurred in one patient in group 2, 3 months after generator replacement. In conclusion, these data show that in the majority of patients cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory is safe and has a low complication rate and therefore can generally be recommended.

Comparison of initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation in a transvenous defibrillator system with automatic gain control

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate postshock redetection of ventricular fibrillation by a system that coupled an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with an automatic gain control sense amplifier and a transvenous lead system.

BACKGROUND

Redetection of ventricular fibrillation after an unsuccessful first shock has not been systematically evaluated. Previous studies have suggested that sensing performance of some lead systems may be adversely affected by the delivery of subthreshold shocks.

METHODS

The time required for both initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation was compared in 22 patients. These times were estimated by subtracting the capacitor charge time from the total event time.

RESULTS

A total of 113 successful and 57 unsuccessful initial shocks were delivered during induced ventricular fibrillation. The mean +/- SD initial time to detection of ventricular fibrillation was 5.5 +/- 1.7 s (range 2.4 to 10.8); the time to redetection ranged from 1.5 to 18.5 s (mean 4.5 +/- 2.8, p = NS vs. detection time). Abnormal redetection episodes, defined as a redetection time > 10.2 s (i.e., > 2 SD above the mean redetection time), were observed in 4 (18%) of 22 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Redetection of ventricular fibrillation after a subthreshold first shock may be delayed. Device testing with intentional delivery of subthreshold shocks to verify successful postshock redetection of ventricular fibrillation should be performed routinely in all patients.

A direct comparison of epicardial and nonthoracotomy defibrillation using monophasic and biphasic shocks

Defibrillation using epicardial patches may be associated with lower energy requirements than nonthoracotomy defibrillation although a direct comparison using various waveforms has not been reported. To directly compare defibrillation efficacy using these two configurations, nine mongrel dogs (20.9 +/- 2.3 kg) first underwent nonthoracotomy defibrillation testing followed by a thoracotomy and implantation of epicardial patch electrodes and redetermination of defibrillation efficacy. Each dog served as its own control. Nonthoracotomy electrode configuration consisted of a right ventricular catheter (cathode) and a chest wall subcutaneous patch (anode). The epicardial configuration consisted of two 13.9 cm2 epicardial patches. Alternating current induced ventricular fibrillation was allowed to persist for 10 seconds, followed by either a monophasic or a single capacitor biphasic shock of 10-msec total duration. Four trials of five leading edge voltages were performed for monophasic and biphasic pulses and stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to determine 80% probability of successful defibrillation (E80). For epicardial defibrillation E80s were: monophasic 19.2 +/- 4.2 J and biphasic 12.6 +/- 4.0 J; nonthoracotomy defibrillation E80s were: monophasic 24.2 +/- 4.4 J and biphasic 17.8 +/- 4.1 J. Epicardial patch defibrillation required less energy than nonthoracotomy electrode configuration. However, using biphasic pulses nonthoracotomy defibrillation could achieve lower defibrillation energy requirements than epicardial defibrillation with monophasic pulses.

Position of epicardial patch electrodes for implantable defibrillation significantly affects shock strength requirements

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of epicardial patch electrode position on internal defibrillation efficacy.

METHODS

Two mesh patch electrodes (13 cm2) were positioned on the epicardium of acute, isoflurane-anesthetized pigs (n = 7, 40-47 kg). Defibrillation efficacy was determined for three different patch positions: P1 = anterior-basal right ventricle (RV) and lateral-apical left ventricle (LV); P2 = lateral RV and lateral LV; and P3 = anterior-basal septal region and posterior-apical septal region. To quantify defibrillation efficacy, single capacitor discharge, fixed-tilt (68%) biphasic waveforms were delivered to the heart 10 seconds after initiation of ventricular fibrillation. Initial shock intensities were selected using an up/down protocol. Conversion data were used to construct sigmoidal curves relating probability of defibrillation to energy delivered, peak voltage, and peak current in each animal.

RESULTS

Mean peak voltage and current at 50% defibrillation probability were 40% higher for P2 than they were for either P1 or P3 (p < 0.05). Similarly, mean energy delivered was 75% higher for P2. In this pig model, position of epicardial patch electrodes affects defibrillation efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Apical-to-basal shock vectors (P1 and P3) yielded significantly lower defibrillation shock strength requirements than did a lateral-wall-to-lateral-wall vector (P2), which was perpendicular to the intraventricular septum. These data may help explain the disparity in defibrillation thresholds observed in the human population of patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing with epicardial patch electrodes.

Management of electrical instability after ICD implantation

Postoperative ventricular arrhythmias were studied in 52 patients receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). A group of 9 patients was identified who experienced electrical instability (EI). The lead approach was thoracotomy in 6 and nonthoracotomy in 3 patients. In 8 of 9 patients VTs started soon after surgery. There was no evidence of ischemia, cardiac failure, electrolyte imbalance, or drug intoxication. The severity of ventricular arrhythmias varied from a considerable increase in incidence of well-tolerated VTs in 3 patients (1 incessant) to poorly tolerated frequent VTs in 6 patients (2 incessant). In 4 patients VTs led to cardiac failure. Ventricular arrhythmias during EI were refractory to antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) in 7 of 9 patients. In 3 patients VTs accelerated into fast VT or VF with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) or cardioversion. The successful management of EI was: sedation in 4 patients (3 with midazolam 1 with temazepam), ATP and AAD in 2 patients, AAD and hemodynamic support in 2 patients, spontaneous resolution in 1 patient. All patients survived the period of postoperative EI. Two patients had a relapse of EI at 2- and 9-months postimplantation, respectively, one of whom eventually died.

CONCLUSIONS

EI occurred in 17% of patients after ICD implantation, had a varying degree of severity and required an individualized approach. Control of EI with AAD was successful in only 2 of 9 patients. Sedation with midazolam was useful in the management of EI.

Epicardial and nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems combined with a cardioverter defibrillator

The intraoperative and long-term results were reviewed in 67 patients who underwent implantation of the Ventritex Cadence defibrillator with either epicardial patch (EPI, 25 patients) or nonthoracotomy CPI Endotak (ENDO, 42 patients) defibrillation lead systems. In the ENDO group, 35 patients (83%) had a defibrillation threshold (DFT) of < or = 20 joules and did not require a subcutaneous patch. Intraoperatively, the DFT was 13 +/- 9 joules (mean +/- SD) for EPI and 15 +/- 8 joules for ENDO (P = NS). There was no perioperative death in either group. During a mean follow-up of 12 +/- 8 months, there was no sudden death, and four patients died from congestive heart failure (3 EPI, 1 ENDO). During follow-up, 875 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes (AE) occurred in 15 of 25 EPI patients (60%), versus 652 in 28 of 42 ENDO patients (67%; P = NS). Ventricular tachycardia at a rate > or = 222 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation represented 167 AE for EPI (19%) and 182 AE for ENDO (28%), and was terminated by the first shock in 76% and 75% of attempts, respectively. Ventricular tachycardia at a rate < 222 beats/min represented a total of 1,178 AE and antitachycardia pacing was successful in 660 of 708 AE (93%) with EPI and 414 of 470 AE (88%) with ENDO lead systems (P = NS). Therefore, a nonthoracotomy approach using the Cadence V-100 is safe and effective and has clinical results that are not significantly different from epicardial defibrillation lead systems.

Nonthoracotomy- versus thoracotomy-implantable defibrillators. Intention-to-treat comparison of clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Nonthoracotomy-implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) systems may represent a significant advance in the treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, but their merits relative to those of the well-established thoracotomy systems remain largely unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes after attempted ICD implantation via a nonthoracotomy versus thoracotomy approach in similar groups of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between September 1990 and December 1992, 212 consecutive patients underwent attempted ICD system implantation without concomitant cardiac surgery at a single institution. Approach selection was not randomized but rather was based primarily on hardware availability. Primary comparisons of short- and long-term outcome were performed according to the "intention-to-treat" principle. Implantation was attempted via a nonthoracotomy approach in 120 patients (57%) and via a thoracotomy approach in 92 patients (43%). Prior cardiac surgery was more prevalent in the nonthoracotomy patients; otherwise, groups did not differ significantly in terms of prognostically relevant clinical characteristics. Nonthoracotomy implantation was successful in 101 patients (84%). After crossover to thoracotomy implantation (14 patients), the eventual success rate for ICD system implantation was 96% in the nonthoracotomy group. Thoracotomy implantation was successful in 89 patients (97%). Operative mortality was 3.3% in the nonthoracotomy and 4.3% in the thoracotomy groups (P = .73). Nonthoracotomy group patients were less likely to experience postoperative congestive heart failure (6% versus 16%; P = .02) or supraventricular arrhythmia (6% versus 18%; P = .004) and had significantly shorter postoperative intensive care and total hospitalization. Total hospital costs were significantly lower in the nonthoracotomy group ($32,205 versus $37,265; P = .001). After a follow-up of 16 +/- 9 months, there were 17 deaths in the nonthoracotomy group (none sudden) and 12 deaths in the thoracotomy group (1 sudden). One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were .87 (95% CI, .78 to .91) and .80 (95% CI, .68 to .88) in the nonthoracotomy group and .90 (95% CI, .82 to .95) and .87 (95% CI, .77 to .93) in the thoracotomy group (P = .56; log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonthoracotomy ICD implantation is associated with reduced surgical morbidity, postoperative hospital care requirement, and hospital costs and has similar efficacy in preventing sudden death relative to the thoracotomy approach. From these nonrandomized data, it appears that a nonthoracotomy approach should be considered preferable in most patients requiring ICD therapy.

Three-year outcome of a nonthoracotomy approach to cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in 189 consecutive patients

To date, no long-term clinical data have been published in patients undergoing a nonthoracotomy approach to cardioverter-defibrillator system implantation. In the present report, 189 consecutive patients prospectively underwent a standardized approach to cardioverter-defibrillator system implantation in which the nonthoracotomy configurations were tested first. If satisfactory defibrillation thresholds were not obtained, thoracotomy was performed during the same intraoperative session. A nonthoracotomy system was successfully implanted in 149 of 189 patients (79%), with a higher success rate (90%) observed in patients who had more recent implantations. The overall rate of complications associated with these systems was low (11%). Over a mean follow-up of 12.5 +/- 9.3 months, 17 patients (9%) died. Three-year total, cardiac, and sudden death-free actuarial survival for all patients was 83 +/- 11%, 88 +/- 7%, and 94 +/- 2%, respectively. Three-year sudden death-free actuarial survival was higher in the nonthoracotomy than in the thoracotomy patients (97 +/- 2% vs 87 +/- 6%, p = 0.047), although total survival was similar (77 +/- 11% vs 83 +/- 7%, p = 0.77). These data suggest that a majority of patients (> 80%) requiring a cardioverter-defibrillator system can undergo implantation using a nonthoracotomy approach. Patients receiving nonthoracotomy systems have 3-year outcomes comparable to those implanted via thoracotomy. If these results are maintained, a nonthoracotomy approach will supplant thoracotomy-implanted systems as the preferred method because of the simpler implant procedure and lower overall cost involved.

Troubleshooting new ICD systems

Advances in ICD technology have improved arrhythmia detection and termination, and the development of nonthoracotomy lead systems has reduced operative mortality and morbidity. Despite these important developments, patients with ICDs continue to experience untoward events that are usually attributable to lead failures, the effects of antiarrhythmic drugs, problems related to signal processing, or the need to modify the ICD program. It is incumbent on physicians who implant ICDs and monitor long-term therapy to appreciate the mechanisms by which these events occur, approaches needed to establish a diagnosis, and therapeutic interventions that can resolve problems associated with ICDs.

Nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation: a single-center experience with 200 patients

Nonthoracotomy leads for defibrillator implantation and biphasic shocking devices are under investigation. Implantation success and mortality and morbidity of the procedure determine the operative course. Lead-associated complications, late infection, and freedom of sudden cardiac death characterize the follow-up period with respect to the implanted device. From October 1989 to March 1993 in 200 patients, 205 (including five infections caused by reimplantations) transvenous or transvenous-subcutaneous lead systems were tested. Mean ejection fraction was 0.40 +/- 0.16. In 62.5% (125/200) coronary artery disease and in 19% (38/200) cardiomyopathy was the underlying disease (59 patients with prior cardiac operations). Leads were implanted with defibrillation thresholds less than 25 J in 195 patients, whereas 10 patients received intrathoracal patches. Since biphasic shocks became available, no nonthoracotomy lead system has failed in the last 115 consecutive patients. Perioperative mortality in the nonthoracotomy group was 1% (2/195). In 6.2% (12/193) of the surviving patients, perioperative complications occurred. Major problems were bleeding from the device or patch pocket (n = 6) and early infection (n = 2). During the follow-up of 20 +/- 10 months, lead-associated complications (dislocation, lead fracture, insulation defect, loss of sensing) occurred in 9 patients and in 5 patients late infection appeared. Within the follow-up period no patient died suddenly, and 134 patients received therapeutic interventions by the device. Defibrillator implantation using nonthoracotomy leads, especially combined with biphasic shocking devices, is applicable in almost every patient. During the operative course and follow-up, the defibrillator-associated morbidity and mortality is at the same level as or lower than when using patch lead systems.

Clinical experience with a new cardioverter defibrillator capable of biphasic waveform pulse and enhanced data storage: results of a prospective multicenter study. European Ventak P2 Investigator Group

A recently introduced cardioverter defibrillator was implanted in 162 patients with refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias and/or aborted sudden cardiac death. The new device is capable of delivering monophasic and biphasic defibrillation waveform pulses, arrhythmia detection, and therapy in two independently programmable zones, antibradycardia and postshock pacing. Additionally, the device enhanced data logs by storing intracardiac "far-field" electrograms of spontaneous arrhythmic episodes. One hundred sixty-two patients (mean age 55.5 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36%) were enrolled in this multicenter investigation; coronary artery disease was the primary cardiac disease in 63.6% of the patients, idiopathic cardiomyopathy in 23.8%. Ventricular fibrillation was present in 49.7% of the patients; 29.3% of the patients experienced ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia; monomorphic ventricular tachycardia alone was present in 19.1% of the patients. In 26 patients the device was implanted with standard epicardial defibrillation leads (mean defibrillation threshold 11.5 +/- 3.7 J). One hundred thirty-nine patients underwent testing for implantation of a nonthoracotomy system and in 136 (98%), a nonthoracotomy system could be implanted. Defibrillation thresholds with a biphasic waveform (mean 10.2 +/- 4.3 J) were lower than with a monophasic waveform (mean 17.4 +/- 5.7 J). Two patients (1.2%) died perioperatively (< 30 days). During study time period follow-up, there were 338 device discharges in 49 patients. Analysis of stored electrograms classified 25% of discharges as inappropriate and due to supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. At a mean follow-up of 10.8 months, cumulative survival from sudden cardiac death was 98.8%, and survival from all-cause mortality was 96.3%. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator in preventing arrhythmic death and the superior defibrillation efficacy of biphasic waveform pulses, which results in a higher implantation rate of nonthoracotomy systems, as well as the accurate arrhythmia classification made possible by the stored electrograms.

Rise in chronic defibrillation thresholds in nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator

BACKGROUND

To establish the chronic stability of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) in a transvenous cardioverter/defibrillator (TCD) system, we studied 37 consecutive patients with TCD systems implanted for > 6 months.

METHODS AND RESULTS

DFT was measured by a step-down method at implant and 2 and 6 months later. The mean ejection fraction was 34.5 +/- 14.3%. Coronary artery disease with previous myocardial infarction was present in 31 patients. The mean DFT rose from 13.3 +/- 4.3 J at implant to 16.5 +/- 4.7 J at 2 months (P < .001) and 17.6 +/- 5.4 J at 6 months (P < .0001). ANOVA revealed a statistically significant rise in DFT over time (P < .0005). At 2 months, 25 patients had a rise in DFT, and 14 had a rise > or = 5 J. The observed rise at 2 months persisted in 19 patients. A chronic rise, defined as > or = 5 J rise at 6 months, occurred in 17 patients. Univariate analysis of clinical as well as implant variables revealed no predictors of a rise in DFT in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there is a significant rise in DFT at 2 and 6 months in this TCD system. Although the chronic threshold remained well within the available energy range of the pulse generator, this observation has important implications for implantation guidelines, programming, and future pulse generator development for TCD patients.