Implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICD): a new lead-system using transvenous-subcutaneous approach in patients with prior cardiac surgery

Cardioverter discharges following sensing of electrical artifact due to fluid penetration in the connector port

We report a unique case of fluid penetration, 3 months after implantation, in the connector port of an automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with transvenous subcutaneous lead system. The patient had coronary artery disease and recurrent episodes of ventricular fibrillation, the fluid caused electrical signals interpreted as ventricular fibrillation by the device, which triggered shock delivery.

Total pectoral implantation: a new technique for implantation of transvenous defibrillator lead systems and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

We describe a new approach to total pectoral implantation of cardioverter defibrillators with an endocardial defibrillation lead system. Endocardial lead configuration used was an FDA approved right atrial-superior vena cava defibrillation spring electrode, right ventricular bipolar sensing electrode, and a pectoral patch. Endocardial leads were implanted via a cephalic or an axillary venesection. Pectoral patch was placed in a submuscular position. In case of failure to obtain satisfactory thresholds, a small intercostal thoracotomy was performed via the same skin incision and patch placed over the epicardium instead of submuscular position and used with the right atrial spring electrode. The device was implanted in the pectoral region, submuscularly, over the patch. Sixteen consecutive patients underwent this approach. With a submuscular patch, adequate defibrillation thresholds (< or = 15 joules [J]) were obtained in 14 (87.5%) patients. In the other two, defibrillation thresholds of < or = 15 J were obtained with a epicardial patch. Pectoral implantation of the device was feasible in all 16 patients and none needed repositioning. Average postimplant hospital stay was 5 days. During follow-up period (average 5 months), none of the patients reported any major local symptoms and no problems have been encountered in device interrogation. Thus, total pectoral implantation of the cardioverter defibrillator including the patch, leads, and the device is feasible. Furthermore, in case of failure to obtain adequate defibrillation thresholds with submuscular patch, an epicardial patch can easily be implanted and allows 100% successful defibrillation at energy levels of < or = 15 J with right atrial patch configuration.

Surgical experience with defibrillator implantation using nonthoracotomy leads

Between October 10, 1989, and June 17, 1991, 109 patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator at our institution. In 50 patients, nonthoracotomy lead systems consisting of a subcutaneous chest wall patch electrode near the cardiac apex and one (Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc: Endotak C) or two (Medtronic: Transvene) transvenous electrodes were tested. The mean ejection fraction was 0.44 +/- 0.15 with a range from 0.19 to 0.81. Twenty-four patients had a history of open heart operation. In 43 patients the nonthoracotomy lead system was implanted, whereas in 7 patients epicardial patch lead systems were required due to elevated defibrillation thresholds during nonthoracotomy lead testing. There was one perioperative death unrelated to the operative procedure (hydrocephalus internus). Hemorrhage from the subcutaneous patch pocket or the device pocket that required reintervention occurred in 4 patients. During a mean follow-up of 13 +/- 5 months (range, 4 to 26 months) no dislocation of an endocardial lead, insulation defect, or lead fracture has been observed. In 1 patient, the lead system had to be removed due to infection of the subcutaneous patch pocket. The cardiovascular survival rate was 98% at 12 and 18 months, and freedom from sudden cardiac death was 100% at 6 and 12 months. In conclusion, defibrillator implantation using nonthoracotomy lead systems is feasible with a success rate of 86%, and during short-term follow-up no problems related to the lead system such as dislocation, fracture, or insulation defect have occurred.

Initial experience with a new transvenous defibrillation system

The clinical efficacy and safety of a new bidirectional transvenous defibrillation endocardial lead system (ELS) was studied in 39 patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or fibrillation (VF). There were 28 patients with coronary disease and 11 patients with nonischemic VT/VF. Fourteen patients received the ELS combined with antitachycardia pacing devices (Ventak PRx 1700, CPI) and 25 patients with the Ventak P or P2 (CPI). Implantation of the ELS was attempted in 47 patients. Intraoperatively, the mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) was > 25 joules in five patients and no reliable ELS position was found in three other patients. These eight patients underwent thoracotomy and epicardial leads implantation. The mean DFT was < or = 20 joules in all 39 patients and the mean DFT was 18 joules. During the mean follow-up of 8 +/- 2 months two patients (5%) died suddenly. Complications occurred in two patients (5%).

Initial experience with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead systems: operative morbidity and mortality

Introduction of non-thoracotomy lead systems (Medtronic, Inc.) for the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has expanded the indications for use of this mode of therapy. Patients previously considered "too ill" to undergo a thoracotomy as well as patients who are at a high risk for developing sudden death but without previous cardiac arrest, are now considered candidates. The initial experience with the non-thoracotomy lead system at our institution was analyzed for morbidity and mortality. Thirty-four patients underwent attempted intravascular lead implantation, with 30 having initial successful implantation (88.2%). There were 23 males; average ejection fraction (EF) was 38.6%. Three patients developed pulmonary edema and low output immediately after the procedure. Three patients developed electromechanical dissociation during defibrillation threshold testing. A prolonged testing time for the non-thoracotomy lead system was noted when compared to the thoracotomy system (57.39 vs 32.30 min; P < 0.0000). There were more intraoperative morbidities with the non-thoracotomy leads than with the thoracotomy system. There were no perioperative deaths. The potential consequences of prolonged anesthesia time and extensive defibrillation threshold testing should be considered when choosing the route of ICD implant, the type of anesthesia, and the intraoperative testing protocol for each patient.

Implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator in the subpectoral region combined with a nonthoracotomy lead system

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator was placed into a subpectoral pocket via the incision for cephalic venotomy during implantation of a nonthoracotomy lead system. The approach obviated another incision and subcutaneous tunneling of the leads. There were no perioperative complications and after 6 months of follow-up, the patient continues to tolerate the device satisfactorily.