Use of a single coil transvenous electrode with an abdominally placed implantable cardioverter defibrillator in children

Fifteen years' experience of implantable cardioverter defibrillator in children and young adults: Mortality and complications study

BACKGROUND

Young implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients have a high rate of complications, some of which seem to be underestimated. We report our clinical experience with ICD therapy in children and young adults during a 15 year follow up.

METHODS

We reviewed the database of ICD recipients at the present institution and chose 73 consecutive patients who underwent implantation at age 6-21 years. We analyzed intervention rate, mortality, rate and characteristics of complications and treatment options.

RESULTS

A total of 20/73 patients (27.4%) received ≥1 episode of appropriate therapy (AT) for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (anti-tachycardia pacing or shock) and 24/73 patients (32.8%) had one or multiple episodes of inappropriate therapy (IT). Eight patients (11%) had both interventions: AT + IT. A total of 15/73 patients (20.5%) had ventricular lead dysfunction, with 13 re-implantations (17.8%) of a new system. Four of 73 patients (5.5%) had infection: endocarditis or device pocket infection. A total of 2/73 patients (2.7%) died due to ventricular lead dysfunction, while 22/73 patients (30.1%) needed elective device replacement, five of them twice (6.8%).

CONCLUSION

Endocardial ICD implantation in children and young adults is a feasible and life-saving procedure, according to the present 15 year follow up. The rate of complications including IT was high: 72.8% in the young ICD recipients. Re-implantation of a new system was often required due to ventricular lead dysfunction or infection in 25% of the patients.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in young individuals: comparison of conventional and subcostal approaches-a single-centre experience

AIM

The aim of our study is to compare two approaches of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation, conventional (supra/subpectoral) and subcostal in young adults in terms of procedural complications and adverse events encountered during follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2007 to December 2013, all patients under the age of 50 years who received an ICD in our centre were included in this study. Patient's hospital records were analysed for procedural complications and adverse events during follow-up until December 2014. Data from device on first interrogation after implantation and on follow-up were also noted. A total of 106 patients of which 40.6% had Brugada's syndrome (65.1% male, age 33.6 ± 10.97 years) were included in analysis; 71 (61%) had ICD placed in (sub/supra) pectoral and 35 (33%) in subcostal position. Only seven patients received an epicardial lead system. During the follow-up period of 2.1 ± 1.8 years, 84.90% of the patients had no adverse events. Most of the complications, procedural and during follow-up, occur in conventionally placed, pectoral ICD. Lead follow-up data in both groups, conventional and subcostal, showed no difference in right ventricular (RV) shock impedance and R wave sensing, P-value = 0.56 and 0.77, respectively. Lead survival was 95 and 97%, respectively, in conventional and subcostal groups over a mean follow-up of 2.1 ± 1.8 years. Log-rank test for lead survival was not significant in terms of site of implantation.

CONCLUSION

To the best our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating subcostal ICD placement in young adults and resulting in equivalent to better outcomes when compared with conventionally placed pectoral ICD. Subcostal ICD placement might be considered an alternative option in young adults as it results in better procedural outcomes and also comparable rate of adverse events during follow-up, but bigger studies with a larger number of patients are needed for a definitive conclusion.

Subxiphoid approach to epicardial implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children

BACKGROUND

Epicardial implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is considered in the presence of intracardiac shunt, venous access issue, or small body size. We report our experience with epicardial ICD coil implantation using a minimally invasive method.

METHODS

Nine patients who underwent epicardial ICD implantation were included. The median age was 7.4 years (3.9-9.6 years) and the median weight was 15 kg (12-24 kg). Diagnosis at the time of implantation included long QT syndrome (n = 5), catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (n = 2), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 1), and fast monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (n = 1). The minimally invasive method involved a subxiphoid incision to place the epicardial pacing leads. The ICD coil was placed in the transverse sinus in four patients using an access path posterior to the heart. The second approach involved a path anterior to the heart to reach the epicardial location posterior to the left atrial appendage in the five remaining patients. No fluoroscopy was used in either approach. The median defibrillation threshold (DFT) at implantation was 7.5 J.

RESULTS

Lower DFTs were observed in the anterior approach (10 J vs 5 J). Appropriate ICD shocks were observed in three patients during the median 18-month follow-up period (0.3-28 months). No inappropriate shocks were noted. One patient developed pericardial tamponade 39 days after the procedure and was surgically drained.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive epicardial ICD coil implantation in children with low DFT values is possible. The anterior implantation approach appears superior to the posterior approach.

Fracture of the Subcutaneous Patch Electrode in a Patient With an Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillator

There are more than 20 years of experience with implantation of defibrillator devices in humans and the procedure is an important therapeutic option for patients at high risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. The incidence of new defibrillator implantation has gradually increased, being used even in children, (1) although pediatric use is associated with several complications, especially with epicardial systems,(2) including fracture of the subcutaneous patch,(3-5) mainly because of growth.(3) We present a case of subcutaneous patch electrode fracture in the left axillary pectoral region of a patient who needed the patch for effective defibrillation, and we discuss the methods of treatment.

A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

ICD implantation is standard therapy for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The advantage of dual and single coil defibrillator leads in the successful conversion of arrhythmias is unclear. This study compared the effectiveness of dual versus single coil defibrillation leads. The study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study comparing a dual with a single coil defibrillation system as part of an ICD using an active pectoral electrode. Seventy-six patients (64 men, 12 women; age 61 +/- 11 years) were implanted with a dual (group 1, n = 38) or single coil lead system (group 2,n = 38). The patients represented a typical ICD cohort: 60% presented with ischemic cardiomyopathy as their primary cardiac disease, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.406 +/- 0.158. The primary tachyarrhythmia was monomorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia in 52.6% patients and ventricular fibrillation in 38.4%. There was no significant difference in terms of P and R wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and lead impedance at implantation and follow-up in the two groups. There was similarly no difference in terms of defibrillation thresholds (DFT) at implantation. Patients in group 1 had an average DFT of 10.2 +/- 5.2 J compared to 10.3 +/- 4.1 J in Group 2, P = NS. This study demonstrates no significant advantage of a dual coil lead system over a single coil system in terms of lead values and defibrillation thresholds. This may have important bearing on the choice of lead systems when implanting ICDs.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for life-threatening arrhythmias in young patients

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the indications, efficacy and outcomes of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use in the pediatric population.

BACKGROUND

ICDs are first-line therapy for adults resuscitated from sudden cardiac death (SCD) or at high risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Use of ICDs in children and young adults is infrequent and there are few data regarding this group.

METHODS

We abstracted and analyzed data for all patients in whom ICDs were implanted.

RESULTS

A total of 38 devices were implanted in 27 patients. Age ranged from 6 to 26 years (mean, 14) and weight ranged from 16 to 124 kg (mean, 47). Diagnoses included long QT syndrome (9), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy [6], repaired congenital heart disease [5];, and idiopathic ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation [4]. Indications comprised resuscitated SCD [15], syncope [9], and life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia [3]. Initial device placement was infraclavicular in 13, abdominal in 13 and intrathoracic in 1. Epicardial leads were used with 5 systems. A single coil lead was used in 17. Seven patients, all previously resuscitated from SCD, experienced 88 appropriate successful discharges. There were 6 inappropriate discharges in 3 patients. Mean time to device replacement was 3.1 years (n = 11). Complications included 2 infected systems, 2 lead dislodgments, 2 lead fractures, 1 post-pericardiotomy syndrome, 1 adverse event with defibrillation threshold (DFT); testing, and 1 patient with psychiatric sequelae. No deaths occurred with implanted ICDs.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate that ICDs provide safe and effective therapy in young patients. The indications for ICDs as primary preventive therapy remain uncertain.