Transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators: radiographic assessment

Inadvertent implantation of an ICD lead in the great cardiac vein

We report an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implanted with a single lead inadvertently introduced in the great cardiac vein. No venous lesion was caused by the shocks and the position of the lead remained stable. This case emphasizes the usefulness of different fluoroscopic views during ICD implantation.

Several unsuccessful internal and external defibrillations during active can ICD implantation in a patient with pneumothorax

During implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation of an active can ICD several defibrillations with 20 J and 34 J as well as 360 J externally were ineffective. The implant criteria were finally met with a second defibrillation lead and reversed polarity. A left-sided pneumothorax due to subclavian vein puncture was detected soon after ICD implantation. It is assumed that especially in the active can alignment the developing pneumothorax made defibrillation current flow more difficult. In case of several unsuccessful defibrillations during active can ICD implantation in which the subclavian vein was punctured, the possibility of a pneumothorax should be considered.

Chest radiography in the ICU

Proper positioning and assessment of abnormalities and complications of the above-mentioned devices have a significant impact on the management of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The timely assessment of new or rapidly evolving findings is critical. Optimal radiographic technique, availability of images to the clinicians, and rapid reporting by the radiologist all serve to maximize the efficacy of bedside chest radiography in the ICU. Sometimes, changes in cardiopulmonary status may only be appreciated on chest radiographs (CXRs). Complications from ventilatory assistance, such as barotrauma, occur frequently and must be detected promptly. The position of monitoring devices, an important component of critical care management, is best checked radiographically. Indications for CXRs and the recommended frequency for repeat follow-up CXRs are based on the existing literature and the consensus of an expert panel formed by the American College of Radiology.

Lead fracture in cephalic versus subclavian approach with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems

Lead fracture, occurring in approximately 1%-4% of patients, is an infrequent, but potentially catastrophic complication of permanent pacing systems. Its incidence in transvenous defibrillator systems has not been established. We analyzed data from 757 patients undergoing implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems using the Medtronic Transvene Lead system between October 20, 1989 and June 25, 1992 to determine if site of venous approach influenced incidence of lead fracture. All patients received a 3-lead system in 1 of 3 configurations: (1) right ventricle/superior vena cava/subcutaneous patch; (2) right ventricle/coronary sinus/subcutaneous patch; or (3) right ventricle/superior vena cava/coronary sinus. Of 767 right ventricular leads placed, 523 were placed via the subclavian vein, 221 via cephalic vein, and 18 via the internal jugular (5 leads were implanted using another vein). The total number of leads is greater than the total number of patients, as five patients received a second defibrillator system if the initial system was explanted and reimplanted for any reason. Seven patients (0.9%) had right ventricular lead fracture, presenting with inappropriate defibrillator shocks (1), loss of pacing ability (3), both loss of pacing ability and inappropriate shocks (1), or increased pacing threshold (2). All patients required reoperation. All had leads placed by the subclavian venous approach, with chest X ray confirming fracture at the clavicle-first rib junction in 6 of 7 cases. Using Fisher's Exact test, the difference in lead fracture between subclavian and cephalic vein implant approached statistical significance (P = 0.08). The trend toward increased lead fracture incidence with leads placed via subclavian vein suggests that cephalic vein approach may be preferable to avoid this complication.