Determinants of successful nonthoracotomy cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: experience in 101 patients using two different lead systems

Implantation of transvenous nonthoracotomy cardioverter-defibrillator systems in patients with permanent endocardial pacemakers

Among 177 patients in whom a nonthoracotomy approach was initially used to implant a cardioverter-defibrillator system, 11 (6%) patients also received a separately implanted permanent pacemaker. The main problem encountered in these patients were previously implanted unipolar pacemakers (n = 3) and ventricular pacing leads positioned at the right ventricular apex, the latter interfering with optimal placement of the tripolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead (n = 9). The approaches used to solve these problems were individualized and included placement of the ICD sensing lead at the right ventricular outflow tract (n = 3), initial placement (n = 1) or subsequent repositioning (n = 2) of the right ventricular pacing lead at the outflow tract, upgrade from unipolar to bipolar systems (n = 2), reprogramming from the DDD to AAI mode (n = 2), inactivation of the pacemaker (n = 1), and simultaneous placement of a single-chamber atrial pacemaker with the ICD lead (n = 2). These revisions fulfilled the pacing needs in each patient and prevented unfavorable sensing interaction between the two systems.

The usefulness of a stretch-polyester pouch to encase implanted pacemakers and defibrillators

This study was undertaken to assess the effects of enclosing permanent pacemaker and ICD pulse generators in a stretch-polyester pouch prior to implantation. Follow-up of 223 patients with oversized pacemakers and with ICDs and 344 with standard-sized pacemaker pulse generators showed that the pouch was effective in decreasing the frequency of pulse generator migration and extrusion.

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.

Transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads: effect of transvenous electrode polarity on defibrillation threshold

INTRODUCTION

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) of a transvenous-subcutaneous electrode configuration is sometimes unacceptably high. To obtain a DFT with a sufficient safety margin, the defibrillation field can be modified by repositioning the electrodes or more easily by a change of electrode polarity. In a prospective randomized cross-over study, the effect of transvenous electrode polarity on DFT was evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 21 patients receiving transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads, the DFT was determined intraoperatively for two electrode configurations. Two monophasic defibrillation pulses were delivered in sequential mode between either the right ventricular (RV) electrode as common cathode and the superior vena cava (SVC) and subcutaneous electrodes as anodes (configuration I) or the SVC electrode as common cathode and the RV and subcutaneous electrodes as anodes (configuration II). In each patient, both electrode configurations were used alternately with declining energies (25, 15, 10, 5, 2 J) until failure of defibrillation occurred. The DFT did not differ between both configurations (18.3 +/- 8.2 J vs 18.9 +/- 8.9 J; P = 0.72). Eleven patients had the same DFT with both electrode configurations, 5 patients a lower DFT with the RV electrode as cathode, and 5 patients a lower DFT with the SVC as cathode. Four patients had a sufficiently low DFT (< or = 25 J) with only 1 of the 2 configurations.

CONCLUSION

A change of electrode polarity of transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation electrodes may result in effective defibrillation if the first electrode polarity tested fails to defibrillate. In general, neither the RV electrode nor the SVC electrode is superior if used as a common cathode in combination with a subcutaneous anodal chest patch.

Clinical experience with the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator has played an increasingly greater role in the management of episodes of sudden cardiac-related death related to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. This study reviews the cases of 142 patients who underwent insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, 104 who received a device alone (group I) and 38 who underwent insertion of the device in combination with other cardiac surgical procedures (group II). The overall operative mortality was 3.5% and this did not differ between the two groups. The complication rate was higher for group II than for group I patients, and consisted primarily of an increased incidence of atrial arrhythmias (53% versus 13%; p < 0.001). Late complications included three device infections requiring removal of the defibrillator. The late mortality did not differ between the two groups and was primarily related to congestive heart failure. Sudden cardiac-related death was an uncommon late event, with an actuarial freedom from sudden cardiac-related death of 98%, 97%, and 87% at 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. The morbidity and mortality rate are low in association with the insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, even when this is combined with other cardiac surgical procedures. Its insertion is also associated with a low subsequent rate of sudden cardiac-related death.

Advances in ICD lead systems

We have presented both technical and clinical data indicating that transvenous lead systems are comparable to standard epicardial ICD systems with respect to efficacy. In addition there may be a reduction in morbidity when compared with the standard epicardial implant. We have shown for the Endotak and Transvene systems that each has its own idiosyncrasies, advantages, and disadvantages. Other lead systems are too early in their clinical evaluations for such definitive statements to be made. Regarding long-term reliability, the issues of mechanical integrity of the insulation and conductor materials, as well as the stability (or otherwise) of sensing and defibrillating characteristics remains to be determined for all lead systems. Similarly, compatibility between lead systems and pulse generators made by different manufacturers cannot be assumed, but needs to be prospectively examined in rigorous clinical trials.

Preliminary experience with a hybrid nonthoracotomy defibrillating system that includes a biphasic device: comparison with a standard monophasic device using the same lead system

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed the advantage of combining a biphasic device with a transvenous system and compared the results with those obtained with a standard monophasic device.

BACKGROUND

Available lead systems use monophasic pulses and may require lengthy intraoperative testing to achieve adequate defibrillation threshold in a conspicuous number of patients. The option of biphasic waveform may provide further benefits. However, clinical experience with a permanent implant is lacking.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients underwent testing and received a permanent implant using the Endotak lead system associated with a CPI monophasic device. The remaining 36 patients received a permanent implant with the Endotak lead system connected to a biphasic device. In both groups a subcutaneous patch was combined when needed to obtain acceptable defibrillation thresholds.

RESULTS

Biphasic pulses resulted in lower mean (+/- SD) defibrillation thresholds (monophasic 15 +/- 4.7 J vs. biphasic 12 +/- 5 J, p = 0.03) and a better implantation rate (100% biphasic vs. 89% monophasic, p = 0.07). Biphasic pulses allowed implantation with less ventricular fibrillation induction (7.4 +/- 3.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 1.8, p < 0.01) and a mean shorter procedure time (168 +/- 39 vs. 111 +/- 30 min, p < 0.01). With the biphasic waveform a greater proportion of patients met the implantation criteria with the lead system alone (83% vs. 45%, p < 0.01). When needed, the left prepectoral location of the patch electrode was always sufficient in left subscapular position was required in 15 patients in the monophasic group. Implantation of the biphasic device was associated with a shorter mean hospital stay (3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 5.4 +/- 2.2 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of a biphasic device in a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator uniformly increases the efficacy of the system and the ease of implantation.

Implantation by electrophysiologists of 100 consecutive cardioverter defibrillators with nonthoracotomy lead systems

BACKGROUND

Traditional lead systems for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) require a thoracotomy for placement. Nonthoracotomy lead systems are available and are usually implanted by an electrophysiologist and a surgeon. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of ICD implantation with a nonthoracotomy lead system by electrophysiologists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A consecutive series of 100 patients (mean age, 61 +/- 13 years, +/- SD) underwent ICD implantation with a nonthoracotomy lead system while intubated and under general anesthesia. Seventy-seven patients had coronary artery disease, 15 had idiopathic cardiomyopathy, 6 had miscellaneous heart disease, and 2 had structurally normal hearts. The mean ejection fraction was 0.29 +/- 0.13. Sixty-eight patients had suffered a cardiac arrest, and 32 had had ventricular tachycardia or syncope. All patients except 9 underwent electrophysiological testing and had failed 1 +/- 1 drug trials before ICD implantation. Three types of nonthoracotomy lead systems were used. The nonthoracotomy lead with an ICD was successfully implanted in 96 patients (96%). Of the unsuccessful implants, 1 patient did not have venous access, the passive fixation lead in 1 would not remain lodged, 1 had elevated defibrillation thresholds, and 1 developed a hemopneumothorax while venous access was being obtained. The mean defibrillation threshold was 17 +/- 6 J. The mean procedure duration was 161 +/- 57 minutes. When a subcutaneous patch was used (n = 58), the procedure duration was 189 +/- 5 minutes, and when a subcutaneous patch was not required (n = 40), the procedure lasted 123 +/- 37 minutes (P < .0001). Patients remained in the hospital 4.5 +/- 4.1 days after implantation, with no procedure-related deaths. Acute complications occurred in 10 patients; 2 had lead dislodgments, 1 with previous abdominal surgery had his abdominal cavity entered (without other complications) while the ICD pocket was being made, 1 had postoperative heart failure, 1 developed a large hematoma when anticoagulation therapy was initiated, 3 required reintubation because of excessive anesthesia, 1 developed superficial cellulitis, and 1 developed a hemopneumothorax secondary to a lacerated subclavian vein. During 6 +/- 3 months of follow-up, 2 patients developed lead fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Electrophysiologists can implant an ICD with a nonthoracotomy lead system safely and with a high success rate; (2) use of a subcutaneous patch correlates with longer procedure durations; and (3) special precautions should be taken in patients with previous abdominal surgery.

The future of arrhythmia surgery

The future of arrhythmia surgery is discussed in light of the 25 years of historical developments that have led to the present explosion in antiarrhythmic therapies and technologies. The role of the arrhythmia surgeon in these developments is outlined, along with a number of exciting near-term and far-term developments that will continue to revolutionize therapeutic interventions for arrhythmia problems.