Routine DFT testing in patients undergoing ICD implantation does not improve mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation with shock lead placement in the left bundle branch area: a case report

Background

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe technique providing physiological pacing, and LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) has been shown to provide better electrical resynchronization than traditional CRT. However, there are few reports on shock lead placement in the left bundle branch area (LBBA) during CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation.

Case summary

A 76-year-old woman with heart failure from dilated cardiomyopathy presented with left bundle branch block pattern (QRS duration, 160 ms). Left ventricular ejection fraction was 21%. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator implantation was performed due to worsening symptoms. By reshaping the Agilis HisPro catheter and adding a septal curve, the shock lead was placed deep into the ventricular septum, narrowing QRS duration to 114 ms. Left ventricular activation time was 84 ms. A defibrillation threshold test confirmed successful treatment without adverse events. At 6-month follow-up, left ventricular ejection fraction improved from 21 to 63%, with the patient's condition improving from New York Heart Association class III to class I.

Discussion

It was reported that QRS narrowing in CRT was related to long-term mortality, and LOT-CRT further decreased QRS duration as compared with LBBP only or biventricular pacing and increased the response rate. Combining LBBAP with coronary sinus pacing can potentially achieve superior electrical resynchronization. Lack of a suitable tool for direct shock lead placement in LBBA necessitated additional LBBAP lead in conventional LOT-CRT. Our successful LOT-CRT-D procedure with minimal number of leads through Agilis HisPro catheter reshaping enabled direct LBBA shock lead placement.

Prediction of Sudden Death Risk in Patients with Congenital Heart Diseases

Risk stratification for sudden death should be discussed with patients with congenital heart disease at each stage of personal and cardiac development. For most patients, risk is low through teenage years and the critical factors to consider are anatomy, ventricular function, and symptoms. By adulthood, these are supplemented by screening for atrial arrhythmias, ventricular arrhythmias, and pulmonary hypertension. Therapies include medication, ablation, and defibrillator placement.

Indications and management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in childhood hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Sudden cardiac death is the most common mode of death during childhood and adolescence in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, and identifying those individuals at highest risk is a major aspect of clinical care. The mainstay of preventative therapy is the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, which has been shown to be effective at terminating malignant ventricular arrhythmias in children with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy but can be associated with substantial morbidity. Accurate identification of those children at highest risk who would benefit most from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation while minimising the risk of complications is, therefore, essential. This position statement, on behalf of the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC), reviews the currently available data on established and proposed risk factors for sudden cardiac death in childhood-onset hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and current approaches for risk stratification in this population. It also provides guidance on identification of individuals at risk of sudden cardiac death and optimal management of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in children and adolescents with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. General anesthesia (GA) is considered the standard sedation approach because of the pain caused by the manipulation of subcutaneous tissue with S-ICD implantation. However, GA carries several limitations, including additional risk of adverse events, prolonged in-room times, and increased costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define the effectiveness and safety of tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) in comparison to GA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients referred for S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2020. Patients were allocated to either TLA or GA on the basis of patient's preferences and/or anesthesia service availability. TLA was prepared using lidocaine, epinephrine, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium chloride. All patients provided written informed consent, and the institutional review board at each site provided approval for the study.

RESULTS

Sixty patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation from July 2019 to November 2020. Thirty patients (50%) received TLA, and the rest GA. There were no differences between groups with regard to baseline characteristics. In-room and procedural times were significantly shorter with TLA (107.6 minutes vs 186 minutes; P < .0001 and 53.2 minutes vs 153.7 minutes; P < .0001, respectively). Pain was reported less frequently by patients who received TLA. The use of opioids was significantly reduced in patients who received TLA (23% vs 62%; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

TLA is an effective and safe alternative to GA in S-ICD implantation. The use of TLA is associated with shorter in-room and procedural times, less postprocedural pain, and reduced usage of opioids and acetaminophen for analgesia.