ICD lead type and RV lead position in CRT-D recipients

Apical or Septal Right Ventricular Location in Patients Receiving Defibrillation Leads: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study reviews the published data comparing the efficacy and safety of apical and septal right ventricle defibrillator lead positioning at 1-year follow-up. Systemic research on Medline (PubMed), ClinicalTrials.gov , and Embase was performed using the keywords "septal defibrillation," "apical defibrillation," "site defibrillation," and "defibrillation lead placement," including implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. Comparisons between apical and septal position were performed regarding R-wave amplitude, pacing threshold at a pulse width of 0.5 ms, pacing and shock lead impedance, suboptimal lead performance, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, readmissions due to heart failure and mortality rates. A total of 5 studies comprising 1438 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 64.5 years, 76.9% were male, with a median LVEF of 27.8%, ischemic etiology in 51.1%, and a mean follow-up period of 26.5 months. The apical lead placement was performed in 743 patients and septal lead placement in 690 patients. Comparing the 2 placement sites, no significant differences were found regarding R-wave amplitude, lead impedance, suboptimal lead performance, LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and mortality rate at 1-year follow-up. Pacing threshold values favored septal defibrillator lead placement ( P = 0.003), as well as shock impedance ( P = 0.009) and readmissions due to heart failure ( P = 0.02). Among patients receiving a defibrillator lead, only pacing threshold, shock lead impedance, and readmission due to heart failure showed results favoring septal lead placement. Therefore, generally, the right ventricle lead placement does not appear to be of major importance.

[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.

Analysis of 1051 ICD Leads Extractions in Search of Factors Affecting Procedure Difficulty and Complications: Number of Coils, Tip Fixation and Position-Does It Matter?

Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are considered a risk factor for major complications (MC) during transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods: We analyzed 3878 TLE procedures (including 1051 ICD lead extractions). Results: In patients with ICD lead removal, implant duration was almost half as long (69.69 vs. 114.0 months; p < 0.001), procedure complexity (duration of dilatation of all extracted leads, use of more advanced tools or additional venous access) (15.13% vs. 20.78%; p < 0.001) and MC (0.67% vs. 2.62%; p < 0.001) were significantly lower as compared to patients with pacing lead extraction. The procedural success rate was higher in these patients (98.29% vs. 94.04%; p < 0.001). Extraction of two or more ICD leads or additional superior vena cava (SVC) coil significantly prolonged procedure time, increased procedure complexity and use of auxiliary or advanced tools but did not influence the rate of MC. The type of ICD lead fixation and tip position did not affect TLE complexity, complications and clinical success although passive fixation reduces the likelihood of procedural success (OR = 0.297; p = 0.011). Multivariable regression analysis showed that ICD lead implant duration ≥120 months (OR = 2.956; p < 0.001) and the number of coils in targeted ICD lead(s) (OR = 2.123; p = 0.003) but not passive-fixation ICD leads (1.361; p = 0.149) or single coil ICD leads (OR = 1.540; p = 0.177) were predictors of higher procedure complexity, but had no influence on MC or clinical and procedural success. ICD lead implant duration was of crucial importance, similar to the number of leads. Lead dwell time >10 years is associated with a high level of procedure difficulty and complexity but not with MC and procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: The main factors affecting the transvenous removal of ICD leads are implant duration and the number of targeted ICD leads. Dual coil and passive fixation ICD leads are a bit more difficult to extract whereas fixation mechanism and tip position play a much less dominant role.

Comparison of current German and European practice in cardiac resynchronization therapy: lessons from the ESC/EHRA/HFA CRT Survey II

INTRODUCTION

The European CRT Survey II was introduced to offer insights into CRT implantation practice in Europe. We compared the national data from the participating German centres with that of the other European countries with regard to differences in patient selection, implant results, and initial properties.

METHODS AND RESULTS

11,088 patients were enrolled in 288 centres from 42 countries between 2015 and 2017. Of these, 675 (6.1%) were included in 17 centres in Germany. Patients from Germany were older, had more comorbidities and more symptoms of heart failure (HF) than patients from other European countries. There were no differences with regard to HF aetiology and guideline-directed medical treatment was overall well implemented. There was a high use of CRT in patients with atrial fibrillation, even higher in German patients. CRT was most often applied due to HF with wide QRS complex (class I recommendation) but with relatively higher frequency in Germany due to HF with primary indication for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (class IIb) or a pacemaker with expected pacing dependency (class I). The overall implant success rate was high with some differences in the implant procedure. The use of remote monitoring was lower in Germany.

CONCLUSION

This analysis from the European CRT Survey II overall shows good guideline adherence, high implantation success and a low rate of complications in daily practice. There are some regional differences in baseline characteristics, CRT indication, and procedural aspects. The use of remote monitoring in Germany lags behind other European countries.

The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and sudden cardiac death prevention: indications, device selection, and outcome

Multiple randomized multicentre clinical trials have established the role of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) as the mainstay in the treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD) prevention. These trials have focused mainly on heart failure patients with advanced left ventricular dysfunction and were mostly conducted two decades ago, whereas a more recent trial has provided conflicting results. Therefore, much remains to be determined on how best to balance the identification of patients at high risk of SCD together with who would benefit most from ICD implantation in a contemporary setting. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have also evolved from the simple, defibrillation-only devices implanted surgically to more advanced technologies of multi-chamber devices, with physiologic bradycardic pacing, including cardiac resynchronization therapy, atrial and ventricular therapeutic pacing algorithms, and subcutaneous ICDs. These multiple options necessitate individualized approach to device selection and programming. This review will focus on the current knowledge on selection of patients for ICD treatment, device selection and programming, and future directions of implantable device therapy for SCD prevention.

Collapse