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

Additional coils mitigate elevated defibrillation threshold in right-sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator generator placement: a simulation study

AIMS

The standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator (can) is placed in the left pectoral area; however, in certain circumstances, right-sided cans may be required which may increase defibrillation threshold (DFT) due to suboptimal shock vectors. We aim to quantitatively assess whether the potential increase in DFT of right-sided can configurations may be mitigated by alternate positioning of the right ventricular (RV) shocking coil or adding coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and coronary sinus (CS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of CT-derived torso models was used to assess DFT of ICD configurations with right-sided cans and alternate positioning of RV shock coils. Efficacy changes with additional coils in the SVC and CS were evaluated. A right-sided can with an apical RV shock coil significantly increased DFT compared to a left-sided can [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P < 0.001]. Septal positioning of the RV coil led to a further DFT increase when using a right-sided can [26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J, P < 0.001], but not a left-sided can [12.1 (8.1, 17.6) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P = 0.099). Defibrillation threshold of a right-sided can with apical or septal coil was reduced the most by adding both SVC and CS coils [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 6.6 (3.9, 9.9) J, P < 0.001, and 26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 12.1 (5.7, 13.5) J, P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Right-sided, compared to left-sided, can positioning results in a 50% increase in DFT. For right-sided cans, apical shock coil positioning produces a lower DFT than septal positions. Elevated right-sided can DFTs may be mitigated by utilizing additional coils in SVC and CS.

Predictors of a high defibrillation threshold test during routine ICD implantation

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence that routine defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is not necessary. However a small group of patients might be at risk if no DFT testing is performed.

METHODS

Patients with a new pectoral ICD implantation in our hospital between 2006 and 2014 were included in a retrospective registry. A clinical high DFT was defined as a safety margin <10 J of the maximal device output. Logistic regression for prediction of high DFT was performed using patient characteristics, clinical, echocardiographic and device-related parameters.

RESULTS

DFT testing was performed in 788/864 (91.2%) procedures. In 76 (8.8%) patients no DFT testing was performed mainly due to atrial fibrillation, intra-cardiac thrombus, hemodynamic instability or logistical reasons. A high DFT was present in 44 (5.6%) patients. A QRS duration ≥150 ms, a low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤25%), a severely dilated left ventricle ≥60 mm and right sided pre-pectoral implantations were univariate predictors of a high DFT. Independent predictors of a high DFT were a LVEF ≤25% (HR 2.195, 95%CI 1.085-4.443) and right sided pre-pectoral implantations (HR 3.135, 95% CI 1.186-8.287).

CONCLUSIONS

A high DFT is still present in about 5% of patients and is more frequent in patients with a severely dilated left ventricle, a very low LVEF, right sided pre-pectoral implantation and wider QRS duration. It might be clinically important to continue DFT testing in these high risk patients.

Should Single-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Be Used in all Patients?

The historical preference for dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads stems from high defibrillation thresholds associated with old device platforms. The high safety margins generated by contemporary devices have rendered the modest difference in defibrillation efficacy between single- and dual-coil leads clinically insignificant. Cohort data demonstrating worse lead extraction outcomes and higher all-cause mortality have brought the incremental utility of an superior vena cava coil into question. This article summarizes the current literature and re-evaluates the utility of dual-coil leads in the context of modern device technology.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Who Doesn't Get It?

Defibrillation testing has been routinely performed as part of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedure, and is currently supported by practice guidelines; however, more recently, this practice has been called into question. Such testing is safe, and serious complications are rare. With modern ICD systems, physicians will rarely encounter a patient in whom defibrillation will fail. This article reviews the literature regarding the utility, necessity, complications, and cost of routine operative and follow-up defibrillation testing, and, it is hoped, clarifies the issue of "Who doesn't get it?"

A successful implantation of a dual-chambers cardioverter defibrillator for a patient with severe tortuous persistent left superior vena cava

We report a case of successful implantation of a dual-chambers transvenous cardioverter defibrillator for a dilated cardiomyopathy patient with severe tortuous persistent left superior vena cava and a very small innominate vein. After confirming the presence of a right superior vena cava, a dilated sheath was advanced into the narrow innominate vein to increase the lumen of innominate vein. The active atrial and ventricular leads were successfully inserted into right atrium and right ventricle through innominate bridge by the support of steerable long sheaths.

Transvenous Biventricular Defibrillation Can Improve Defibrillation Threshold

A case report of a patient with a high defibrillation threshold at initial implantation that was improved by the insertion of a shocking coil in the left lateral cardiac vein is discussed.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

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

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.