Apical versus Non-Apical Lead: Is ICD Lead Position Important for Successful Defibrillation?

[Lead placement in cardiac implantable electronic devices]

The implantation of electrodes for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) requires profound technical understanding and precise execution. The positioning of electrodes in the right ventricle and atrium has significant implications for patient safety and the effectiveness of CIED therapy. Particular focus is given to the distinction between apical and septal stimulation in ventricular positioning. Based on current data, this article provides a practice-oriented guide that leads implanters through the individual steps of electrode positioning. The implantation of electrodes for physiological stimulation (cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT, and conduction system pacing, CSP) is not addressed in this article.

How to get the optimal defibrillation lead parameters using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in patients with coronary artery disease

The conventional criteria for a defibrillation lead (DL) implantation don't take into account presence of scar or deep ischemia in the myocardium. This may impair a proper functioning of the DL. We sought to optimize the DL implantation placement using rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS), which allow detecting areas of myocardial hypoperfusion (MH). To study the influence of MH and scarring, detected by MPS, on the DL parameters in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). 69 patients (male-65, age 64.8 ± 7.7 years) with CAD and indications for ICD implantation were enrolled. Two days before ICD implantation all patients underwent MPS at rest. Then patients were divided in 2 groups. In the 1st group DL was implanted considering MPS results: to the septal position, if the most significant MH were detected in the apical segments, and to the apical position, if MH were in the septal segments. In the 2nd group DL was implanted using the conventional approach without considering MPS results. Clinical 12 months follow-up was performed with ICD interrogation. Patients of both groups were comparable by clinical and scintigraphic parameters. In the same time, in the 1st group pacing threshold was lower (p < 0.0001) and ventricle signal amplitude was higher (p < 0.0001) comparing with the 2nd group at all control points. The presence of MH detected by MPS in the area of the DL placement worsens its parameters. The results of MPS in patients with CAD can be useful for optimization of DL placement.

Optogenetic approaches for termination of ventricular tachyarrhythmias after myocardial infarction in rats in vivo

Cardiac optogenetics facilitates the painless manipulation of the heart with optical energy and was recently shown to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) in explanted mice heart. This study aimed to evaluate the optogenetic-based termination of induced VT under ischemia in an open-chest rat model and to develop an optimal, optical-manipulation procedure. VT was induced by burst stimulation after ligation of the left anterior descending coronary artery, and the termination effects of the optical manipulation, including electrical anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and spontaneous recovery, were tested. Among different multisegment optical modes, four repeated illuminations of 1000 ms in duration with 1-second interval at a 20-times intensity threshold on the right ventricle achieved the highest termination rate of 86.14% ± 4.145%, higher than that achieved by ATP and spontaneous termination. We demonstrated that optogenetic-based cardioversion is feasible and effective in vivo, with the underlying mechanism involving the light-triggered, ChR2-induced depolarization of the illuminated myocardium, in turn generating an excitation that disrupts the preexisting reentrant wave front.

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.