Hemodynamic changes due to intraoperative testing of the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator: implications for anesthesia management

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

Impact of defibrillation threshold testing on burden of heart failure hospitalizations

Background: Defibrillation threshold testing (DT) following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation has not shown to improve mortality. However, the impact of DT on burden of heart failure (HF) hospitalisations has not been well defined.Methods: We studied retrospectively consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation or generator change between 2008 and 2014. Primary outcome was burden of HF hospitalisations within 30 days following implantation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, and ICD shock within 30 days and one-year mortality.Results: Three hundred and eleven of 501 patients (62%) were in DT+ group versus 190 (38%) were in DT- group. The percentage of new implantations was higher in DT+ group than in DT- group (69% vs 39%, p < .001) but the distributions of NYHA function classes were similar between two groups. The burden of HF hospitalisations at 30-days was significantly higher in DT+ group than in DT- group (17.4% vs 4.7%, HR 0.842, 95% CI 0.774-0.915, p < .0001). No difference in mortality, stroke or ICD shocks was found between two groups at 30 days and mortality at 1 year.Conclusions: DT after new ICD or generator replacement was associated with increased HF hospitalisation rates at 30 days after ICD implant in a non-trial HF population. However, there was no association between DT and mortality, stroke and ICD shocks at 30 days or mortality at 1 year. The increased burden of HF hospitalisation in this observational study requires validation by randomised studies.

Anesthesia for Insertion of Implantable Cardioverter Defibdilators

The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for patients at risk for sudden death from ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation has steadily in creased since the 1980s. ICDs have undergone a signifi cant evolution over the past 2 decades, initially requir ing thoracotomy for placement of epicardial patches to the modern-day devices that involve only transvenously placed leads. Indications for the placement of ICDs are expanding. This article reviews the perioperative anes thetic management of patients undergoing insertion of ICDs. Preoperative assessment of patients for ICD place ment includes careful assessment of underlying medical disease as well as specific determination of the need for continuation or discontinuation of perioperative antiar rhythmic agents. It is important to consider the poten tial effects of anesthetic choice both on hemodynamic stability in patients with limited cardiac reserve and on the ability to intraoperatively induce, and subsequently treat, ventricular dysrhythmias. The relative merits of inhalational and intravenous general anesthesia, as well as those of local anesthesia and intravenous seda tion, should therefore be considered. The present re view also addresses issues of myocardial stunning from repeated defibrillation, cerebral function in the context of repeated circulatory arrest, appropriate intraopera tive monitoring, and postoperative care of patients undergoing ICD placement.

[Implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. How much anesthesia is necessary?]

Updated cardiologic guidelines constitute the background for an extended spectrum of indications for the implantation of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICDs) and lead to an increasing number of operative implantations of AICDs. Moreover, during implantation of devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy the anesthesiologist is responsible for the most critically ill patients with the longest duration of surgery. As a result anesthesiologists face an increasing number of critically ill patients, whose management contributes to perioperative outcome. Automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators can be implanted either during general anesthesia, local anesthesia or during a combination of local anesthesia combined with deep conscious sedation accomplished by an anesthesiologist. Besides economic aspects there is an increasing demand for anesthesia with the least cardiovascular side effects and rapid recovery in the often seriously ill patient with preexisting limitations of cardiac and pulmonary functions. Accordingly procedure and anesthesia-associated risks are reviewed and an algorithm for anesthesia management is suggested.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement in patients with mild-to- moderate left ventricular dysfunction: hemodynamics and recovery profile with two different anesthetics used during deep sedation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of thiopental and propofol during defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) on hemodynamics and recovery profile in patients requiring automatic internal cardioverter-defibrilator placement.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical investigation.

SETTING

University hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four adult patients.

INTERVENTIONS

After administration of midazolam, 0.025 mg/kg, and fentanyl, 0.5 to 1 mug/kg, surgery was performed under topical infiltration with 1% lidocaine. In group I (GI) (n = 17), patients received thiopental by slow injection and patients in group II (GII) (n = 17) received propofol before induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients received 4.1 +/- 1.4 mg of midazolam, 114 +/- 34 mug of fentanyl, and 280 +/- 78 mg of thiopental in GI; and 4.6 +/- 1.7 mg of midazolam, 119 +/- 62 mug of fentanyl, and 147 +/- 40 mg of propofol in GII (p > 0.05). Hemodynamics did not show significant differences between the groups at any recording time. Average time needed to regain the pretest sedation level was 16.4 +/- 8.8 minutes in GI and 10.9 +/- 5.5 minutes in GII (p = 0.03). Time required to achieve a score of 10 using a modified Aldrete score was 26.4 +/- 9.3 minutes in GI and 17.4 +/- 4.9 in GII (p = 0.001). Seven patients in GII (41%) and 1 patient in GI (6%) became hypotensive after DFT (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Deepening the sedation level by slow injection of thiopental or propofol before DFT provided satisfactory conditions during brief episodes of VF. Delay in recovery of arterial pressure after DFT with propofol and delay in arousal and discharge of patients with thiopental are major disadvantages of the regimens.

Resuscitation after prolonged ventricular fibrillation with use of monophasic and biphasic waveform pulses for external defibrillation

BACKGROUND

Survival after prolonged ventricular fibrillation (VF) appears severely limited by 2 major factors: (1) low defibrillation success rates and (2) persistent post-countershock myocardial dysfunction. Biphasic (BP) waveforms may prove capable of favorably modifying these limitations. However, they have not been rigorously tested against monophasic (MP) waveforms in clinical models of external defibrillation, particularly where rescue from prolonged VF is the general rule.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We randomized 26 dogs to external countershocks with either MP or BP waveforms. Hemodynamics were assessed after shocks applied during sinus rhythm, after brief VF (>10 seconds), and after resuscitation from prolonged VF (>10 minutes). Short-term differences in percent change in left ventricular +dP/dt(max) (MP -16+/-28%, BP +9.1+/-24%; P=0.03) and left ventricular -dP/dt(max) (MP -37+/-26%, BP -18+/-20%; P=0.05) were present after rescue from brief VF, with BP animals exhibiting less countershock-induced dysfunction. After prolonged VF, the BP group had lower mean defibrillation thresholds (107+/-57 versus 172+/-88 J for MP, P=0.04) and significantly shorter resuscitation times (397+/-73.7 versus 488+/-74.3 seconds for MP, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

External defibrillation is more efficacious with BP countershocks than with MP countershocks. The lower defibrillation thresholds and shorter resuscitation times associated with BP waveform defibrillation may improve survival after prolonged VF arrest.

Aortic input impedance and ventriculoarterial coupling following cardioversion/defibrillation

Defibrillation shocks are commonly used after cardiac surgery or during defibrillator implantation. The hemodynamic consequences of countershocks on circulatory dynamics are not completely understood, and there is a lack of information concerning the effects on ventriculoarterial interaction. The study presented here was performed to assess the influence of defibrillation shocks on arterial hemodynamics and ventriculoarterial coupling. Eight mongrel dogs (weight 15-18 kg) were anesthetized and median thoracotomy was performed. Pressure in the ascending aorta and the left ventricle and flow in the ascending aorta were continuously monitored. After induction of atrial or ventricular fibrillation, termination was achieved by epicardial low energy shocks (atrium, 3J; ventricle, 51). In an additional attempt ventricular fibrillation was terminated by a high energy shock (34J). Aortic input impedance was calculated by fast-Fourier-transformation of aortic flow and pressure signals, while ventriculoarterial coupling was expressed by the ratio of aortic and ventricular end systolic elastance (Ea/Ees). Defibrillation by low energy shocks of atrial or ventricular fibrillation did not result in changes of the aortic impedance spectrum, and ventriculoarterial coupling remained unaltered compared to control conditions. High energy defibrillation, however, resulted in a marked rise in total peripheral resistance (P < 0.03). The ratio of Ea/Ees increased significantly (P < 0.005). These effects were reversible within 15 minutes. Low energy defibrillation does not alter arterial hemodynamics and ventriculoarterial coupling in this experimental setup. High energy defibrillation, however, results in a temporary increase of ventricular load. This finding may be of particular interest in patients with poor left ventricular function.

Cerebral blood flow velocity during repeatedly induced ventricular fibrillation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of induced ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation on cerebral blood flow (CBF) was investigated using a transcranial Doppler.

DESIGN

Prospective clinical study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

12 ASA physical status III and IV patients who underwent implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement during general anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Cerebral blood flow velocity was measured repeatedly during induced ventricular fibrillation and subsequent defibrillation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The mean flow velocity in the middle cerebral artery was measured using a transcranial Doppler. The mean flow velocities decreased significantly immediately after ventricular fibrillation was induced, but they returned to preventricular fibrillation levels immediately after successful defibrillation. Repeatedly induced ventricular fibrillations have no cumulative detrimental effect on the CBF velocity.

CONCLUSIONS

Repetitively induced ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation during the insertion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator did not show any detrimental changes in CBF. Transcranial Doppler may be a more sensitive device than other currently available cerebral monitors to detect changes in cerebral circulation during a brief episode of ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation.

Total intravenous anesthesia with remifentanil and propofol for implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cardiocirculatory effects of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using remifentanil and propofol in high-risk cardiac surgical patients.

DESIGN

Prospective study of 20 patients undergoing first-time implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

SETTING

Major, community, university-affiliated hospital.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

In 20 patients with severely reduced left ventricular function (left ventricular ejection fraction <30%) undergoing first-time implantation of an ICD, TIVA using remifentanil and propofol was performed.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Extensive hemodynamic monitoring using a pulmonary artery catheter was performed: (T1) before induction of anesthesia, (T2) after intubation, (T3) after skin incision, (T4) after first defibrillation, and (T5) 10 minutes after extubation. Propofol, 3.0 +/- 0.6 mg/kg/h (range, 1.9 to 4.4 mg/kg/h), and remifentanil, 0.30 +/- 0.05 microg/kg/min (range, 0.21 to 0.40 microg/kg/min), were used. Total costs added up to US $44.60 per patient. Patients could be extubated within 12.5 +/- 4.2 minutes after stopping anesthesia. There were significant decreases in heart rate (HR; from 77 +/- 12 to 57 +/- 10 beats/min [T3]), mean arterial blood pressure (MAP; from 98 +/- 14 to 70 +/- 12 mmHg [T2]), and systemic vascular resistance (from 1,551 +/- 309 to 1,233 +/- 274 dyne x s x cm(-5) [T2]). Cardiac index (CI) slightly decreased only at T3 (from 2.46 +/- 0.42 to 1.92 +/- 0.29 L/min/m2; p = 0.04). The decrease in MAP could easily be treated by volume infusion in most patients (17 patients). Sixty-five percent of the patients needed dobutamine to increase CI to greater than 2.0 L/min/m2 (mean dose, 2.2 +/- 1.8 microg/kg/min). Dobutamine could be stopped before extubation in all patients. No patient needed sustained inotropic or ventilatory support and intensive care therapy could be avoided.

CONCLUSION

TIVA using remifentanil and propofol in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function is safe, well-controllable, and allows early extubation after implantation of an ICD. Because patients without complications did not need a postoperative intensive care stay, costs may be considerably reduced.

Myocardial lactate extraction during repeated fibrillation/defibrillation episodes in defibrillator implantation testing

Intraoperative testing with several fibrillation/defibrillation episodes (FDEs) is routinely performed during defibrillator implantation. Testing is considered safe even in patients with severe cardiac impairment, provided the recovery timespans and number of FDEs are adapted to the individual patient. Myocardial lactate extraction (MLE) was examined in two testing protocols. In 30 patients with coronary artery disease defibrillator implantations were performed under intravenous anesthesia. A percutaneous catheter was positioned into the coronary sinus (CS) underfluoroscopy. Two groups were randomly formed: group A (n = 20, mean number of FDEs: 4.2/patient) with 2 minutes waiting time between FDEs, and group B (n = 10, mean number of FDEs 4.1/patients) with 10 minutes between FDEs. Defibrillation pulses were released 15 seconds after T wave shock induced fibrillation. To estimate MLE, arterial and CS blood samples were collected before and after each FDE. After the last FDE, samples were obtained after 5, 10, and up to 20 minutes. In group A, MLE fell from a baseline value of 29.6% +/- 3.6% before the FDEs to 7.8% +/- 5.4% immediately after the episodes. MLE recovered to 27.2% +/- 6.5% within 1 minute and overshot to 35.6% +/- 5.8% within 5 minutes. In group B, MLE decreased from 37.6% +/- 7.5% to 15.1% +/- 8.1% immediately after each FDE and rose to its original value (33.6 +/- 7.8) within the 5-minute recovery period. MLE decreased immediately after each FDE, and recovered within 1 minute even in poor left ventricular function. For full MLE recovery a 2-minute wait between episodes is sufficient, if the total number of FDEs does not exceed four.

Changes in human coronary sinus blood flow and myocardial metabolism induced by ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation

BACKGROUND

During implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators, repeated inductions of ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation are performed. Little is known about the myocardial metabolism associated with ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation in humans.

METHODS

Sixteen patients scheduled for transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation were included in the study. In 10 of the patients, blood samples were taken simultaneously in the coronary sinus and radial artery and analyzed for PO2, PCO2, standard bicarbonate, pH, lactate, alanine, glucose, and glycerol. Oxygen saturation, base excess, and oxygen content were calculated. The patients were studied before, shortly after, and 2 and 5 minutes after successful defibrillation. In six of the patients, coronary sinus blood flow was registered continuously.

RESULTS

The coronary sinus blood flow declined from a basal value of 93 +/- 16 mL/min to 35 +/- 6 mL/min 14 +/- 2 seconds after induction of ventricular fibrillation. Following termination of ventricular fibrillation, coronary sinus blood flow increased to a peak value of 227 +/- 75 mL/min. Oxygen saturation, PO2, and oxygen content in the coronary sinus increased by approximately 25% shortly after each episode of ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation. The coronary sinus lactate increased and the arterio-coronary sinus lactate difference decreased shortly after each of the four episodes, but was normalized within 2 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated threshold tests during defibrillator implantation did not cause any long-lasting or cumulative metabolic effects, indicating that the described technique, with a 5-minute recovery period in between episodes, is safe as regards myocardial metabolism.

A prospective evaluation of two defibrillation safety margin techniques in patients with low defibrillation energy requirements

INTRODUCTION

In patients undergoing defibrillator implantation, an appropriate defibrillation safety margin has been considered to be either 10 J or an energy equal to the defibrillation energy requirement. However, a previous clinical report suggested that a larger safety margin may be required in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to compare the defibrillation efficacy of the two safety margin techniques in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty patients who underwent implantation of a defibrillator and who had a low defibrillation energy requirement (< or = 6 J) underwent six separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation, at least 5 minutes apart. For each of the first three inductions of ventricular fibrillation, the first two shocks were equal to either the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J (14.6+/-1.0 J), or to twice the defibrillation energy requirement (9.9+/-2.3 J). The alternate technique was used for the subsequent three inductions of ventricular fibrillation. For each induction of ventricular fibrillation, the first shock success rate was 99.5%+/-4.3% for shocks using the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J, compared to 95.0%+/-17.2% for shocks at twice the defibrillation energy requirement (P = 0.02). The charge time (P < 0.0001) and the total duration of ventricular fibrillation (P < 0.0001) were each approximately 1 second longer with the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J technique.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to compare prospectively the defibrillation efficacy of two defibrillation safety margins. In patients with a defibrillation energy requirement < or = 6 J, a higher rate of successful defibrillation is achieved with a safety margin of 10 J than with a safety margin equal to the defibrillation energy requirement.

Brief episodes of ventricular fibrillation do not influence postischemic cerebral perfusion assessed by positron emission tomography

OBJECTIVES

To establish the defibrillation threshold in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, at least three episodes of ventricular fibrillation are induced and converted back to regular rhythm, using direct current countershocks. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of repeated short episodes of ventricular fibrillation on global and regional cerebral perfusion.

DESIGN

A prospective, descriptive study.

SETTING

A positron emission tomography laboratory at a university hospital.

PATIENTS

Four patients, admitted for defibrillation threshold tests 2 yrs after the implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, were included in the study. Global and regional cerebral blood flow was measured by cerebral positron emission tomography, using an 15O-labeled tracer under propofol-induced general anesthesia. Electroencephalograms (EEGs) were concomitantly recorded.

INTERVENTIONS

Induction and conversion of ventricular fibrillation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

No effect on global cerebral perfusion was observed after induced ventricular fibrillation lasting 21 +/- 3 secs. The average global cerebral perfusion was 23 +/- 1 mL/100 g/min after induction of anesthesia and 31 +/- 8 mL/100 g/min and 24 +/- 2 mL/100 g/min immediately after the termination of the first and second ventricular fibrillation episodes, respectively. Ten minutes after the second and the third threshold tests, global cerebral perfusion was 21 +/- 1 mL/100 g/min and 21 +/- 2 mL/100 g/min, respectively. Regional cerebral perfusion and EEGs were not influenced.

CONCLUSION

Short episodes of ventricular fibrillation did not induce any measurable effects on global and regional cerebral perfusion detectable by positron emission tomography 30 secs and 10 mins after restitution of sinus rhythm.

Influence of anodal electrode position on transvenous defibrillation efficacy in humans: a prospective randomized comparison

Nonthoracotomy lead systems for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have reduced operative mortality and morbidity as compared to epicardial lead systems but are usually associated with higher defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to investigate if the second defibrillation electrode in the left subclavian vein can increase defibrillation efficacy and decrease DFT as compared to the superior vena cava (SVC) position in nonthoracotomy lead systems for ICDs. Seventeen patients (mean age: 49.9 +/- 11.3 years, mean ejection fraction: 46.1% +/- 15.8%) were implanted with an investigational unipolar electrode (Medtronic 13001) used as the defibrillation anode. DFT testing was started in the SVC (n = 10, group A) or the left subclavian vein (n = 7, group B), and repeated in the alternative position starting at the DFT of the initial position. Fifteen patients were eligible for analysis (group A: n = 9, group B: n = 6). With the electrode in the SVC, ventricular fibrillation could be successfully terminated in 9 out of 15 patients (60%). In the left subclavian vein the success rate was 100% (P < 0.01). Mean DFT in the SVC was 13.0 +/- 5.2 J and in the left subclavian vein 10.2 +/- 4.9 J. DFTs in the left subclavian vein were either lower (group A: n = 5/9, group B: n = 5/6) or equal to the results in the SVC position (P < 0.001). Thus, the left subclavian vein appears to be a superior alternative for positioning of the defibrillation anode as compared to the SVC for nonthoracotomy lead systems using two separate leads.

Probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement in patients with an implantable defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The probability of successful defibrillation has been determined in normal animals but not in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the probability of successful defibrillation in humans on the basis of a step-down defibrillation energy requirement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent five separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation after the defibrillation energy requirement was determined with the use of small decrements and a step-down protocol (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0.8 J). The first shock energy for defibrillation was either 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, or 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement, and the likelihoods of successful defibrillation were 70+/-27%, 84+/-12%, 86+/-25%, 80+/-29%, and 88+/-32%, respectively (P=.03). The frequencies of uniformly successful defibrillation (5 of 5 defibrillation attempts) were 30%, 27%, 60%, 64%, and 73%, respectively (P=.01). Seven patients in whom the defibrillation energy requirement was <4 J had an overall rate of successful defibrillation of 54+/-20% compared with 86+/-20% in the remaining 47 patients (P=.002). The likelihood of successful defibrillation at twice the defibrillation energy requirement was 98% in the 46 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of >4 J and 67% in the 7 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of <4 J (P=.17). An absolute safety margin of 7 J was associated with a 96% probability of successful defibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of successful defibrillation is 70% at the defibrillation energy requirement. The probability plateaus at 88%, at twice the defibrillation energy requirement. A 96% probability of successful defibrillation is achieved at an absolute safety margin of 7 J, and a 98% success rate is achieved at energies that are twice the defibrillation energy requirement if the defibrillation energy requirement is >4 J. If the defibrillation energy requirement is <4 J, larger multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement are needed to achieve a high probability of successful defibrillation.

[Influence of waveform and configuration of electrodes on the defibrillation threshold of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators]

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) is no threshold in the true sense. Between energy levels which defibrillate in all cases and energy levels which never defibrillate, a broad range of energies exists which might or might not defibrillate. Thus, the value of the DFT is dependant on the protocol used for its determination. Usually the DFT presents an energy at which the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) will defibrillate successfully at a rate of approximately 75%. To achieve a 100% success rate the energy has to be programmed 15 J above the DFT or twice the DFT.Using DFT measurements the energy needed for internal defibrillation could be gradually reduced in the last years. Major break throughs have been the introduction of the biphasic defibrillation waveform and the use of pectorally implanted ICD shells as defibrillation electrodes. The shortening of the defibrillation impulse by the use of lower capacitances could not improve DFTs but allowed to construct ICDs of smaller volume. Addition of a superior vena cava electrode or a subcutaneous array electrode at the left lateral chest to the standard bipolar electrode system (right ventricle, pectoral ICD can) allowed for tri- and quadripolar lead configurations which reduced DFTs on average only slightly but reduced the standard deviation of DFTs significantly and thus helped to avoid high DFTs. Besides building smaller ICDs, reduction of DFTs and thus programming of lower defibrillation ICD energies allows for improved battery longevities and reduced capacitor charging times and thus a lower incidence of syncopes.

Transoesophageal echocardiographic evaluation of ventricular function during transvenous defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative testing and defibrillation threshold determination may jeopardise patients, scheduled for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The purpose of this study was the assessment of the influence of consecutive defibrillation attempts on left ventricular systolic and diastolic function by means of transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

METHODS

Eighteen patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias that were resistant to antiarrhythmic drugs were monitored with TEE before, during and after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. Left ventricular fractional area contraction as a measure of ejection fraction was assessed before and after each defibrillation attempt. Transmitral and right upper pulmonary venous flow parameters were evaluated before and after the whole implantation procedure.

RESULTS

Adequate data were available in 14 patients during 4 consecutive attempts. No major alterations were observed in heart rate or fractional area contraction, measured at 30 s and 3 min after defibrillation. Overall, the ratio of early-to-late transmitral filling decreased significantly after the implantation procedure (from 0.91 +/- 0.12 to 0.82 +/- 0.14; P < 0.05). Systolic pulmonary venous flow velocity decreased from 0.49 +/- 0.11 to 0.41 +/- 0.10 m/s (P = 0.04); this decrease was observed in both groups. A significant increase of the atrial contraction wave (from 0.25 +/- 0.06 to 0.34 +/- 0.07 m/s; P < 0.03) was seen. Subdividing patients related to their precperative ejection fraction, a significant decrease of the early-to-late transmitral filling of the LV was revealed in patients with ejection fraction less than 35% (group 1). Also, a significantly lower systolic fraction of the pulmonary venous flow after ICD implantation in conjunction with a significantly longer diastolic flow time was shown in this patient group in comparison with patients with a preoperative ejection fraction of more than 35% (group 2).

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation threshold testing of the ICD system changes LV inflow characteristics and impedes diastolic function of the left ventricle and may thus precipitate heart failure by this mechanism. No deleterious effects of threshold testing were observed with respect to fractional area contraction nor any deterioration of LV function was found in a clinically significant amount due to consecutive defibrillation attempts.

Cardiac output is not affected during intraoperative testing of the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative mortality of patients undergoing implantation of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has been reduced dramatically following the availability of transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads. However, patients with severely reduced left ventricular function show a substantial rate of nonsudden cardiac mortality within the first year. Whether repeated intraoperative inductions of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) during implantation lead to hemodynamic deterioration and thus might contribute to development of end-stage heart failure in these patients is unknown. The purpose of the present study was to determine cardiac output and hemodynamic performance during transvenous-subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 11 patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) < or = 0.35, cardiac output was measured automatically with a combined continuous cardiac output/mixed venous oxygen saturation pulmonary artery catheter system. ICD implantation was performed during standardized general anesthesia. In the 11 patients (EF = 27 +/- 2% [mean +/- SEM]) a total of 95 episodes of VT/VF followed by defibrillation were induced (episodes per patient = 9 +/- 1; range 6 to 11). Cardiac index was 2.2 +/- 0.2 L.min-1.m-2 after induction of anesthesia (before start of surgery), and 1.9 +/- 0.1 L.min-1.m-2 immediately before first induction of VT/VF. After the last episode of VT/VF, cardiac index was 2.1 +/- 0.2 L.min-1.m-2. Cardiac index measured 1, 2, and 3 minutes after induction of VT/VF was not significantly different when compared to the preinduction value during any episode of VT/VF induction. Similarly, stroke volume index was 39 +/- 5 mL.m-2 immediately before first induction of VT/VF and 36 +/- 3 mL.m-2 after the last episode of VT/VF (NS). At the end of surgery, hemodynamic parameters did not exhibit any significant difference when compared to the data obtained before start of ICD implantation and testing.

CONCLUSION

Extensive defibrillation tests during transvenous-subcutaneous ICD implantation in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction are not associated with acute deterioration of cardiac performance.

[Anesthesia and implantable automatic defibrillator]

Since the introduction of first generation automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICD) in 1980, an increasing number of such devices have been inserted in patients at high risk for sudden death by ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VT/VF). With the improvement of technology and implanting techniques, devices may be inserted at present subcutaneously into the abdominal or the thoracic wall, rather than by thoracotomy. The anaesthesist is involved in the primary implantation of the AICD and the secondary testing of efficiency. Implantation generally requires general anaesthesia and the extension of monitoring is guided by the patient's underlying disease(s). The efficiency of the implanted system is tested one to two months later in inducing VT/VF under general anaesthesia and in determining the defibrillation threshold. The anaesthetist may also have to take care of patients with a AICD. For such cases the following recommendations can be made: a) gloves should be worn by doctors and nurses coming into contact with these patients, in order to limit the risk of electrification; b) a ring magnet must be available to inactivate the unit; c) in case of external defibrillation, the external paddles should be oriented perpendicularly to the line joining the two implanted electrodes; d) AICD should be disabled during electrocautery and prior to electroconvulsive therapy; e) the assistance of a electrophysiologist may be helpful for the management of these patients.

Safety of implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator without general anesthesia in an electrophysiology laboratory

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have conventionally been implanted in an operating room under general anesthesia. This study was performed to evaluate ICD implantation without general anesthesia by 2 electrophysiologists in an electrophysiology laboratory. Between February and September 1994, 27 consecutive patients (22 men and 5 women, mean age 59 +/- 15 years) who underwent ICD implantation by 2 electrophysiologists were included in this study. Fourteen patients received biphasic waveform ICDs, and the remaining 13 had monophasic waveform devices. All patients received local anesthesia and intravenous sedation for implantation. Implantation was successful in 23 of 27 patients at first attempt (11 of 11 with biphasic and 12 of 16 with monophasic waveform ICDs, respectively). Of 4 patients in whom implantation was initially unsuccessful, 3 subsequently received biphasic devices and 1 had improved defibrillation threshold ( < or = 26 J) on repeat testing after amiodarone withdrawal. Mean implantation time was 128 +/- 51 minutes, with 132 +/- 35 minutes under sedation. Patients who received biphasic versus monophasic waveform ICDs had no significant differences in mean sedation or implantation time. Minor complications occurred in 2 patients (7%): 1 minor abdominal pocket hematoma and 1 incision-site cellulitis. Mean time from implantation to discharge was 2.5 +/- 2.1 days. During late follow-up (n = 23; mean 12.4 +/- 5.8 weeks), all devices were functioning appropriately. In conclusion, this report demonstrates that ICD implantation can be successfully and safely performed by a team of 2 electrophysiologists using local anesthesia and intravenous sedation.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)