Factors associated with successful implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems

[Is intraoperative ICD-testing still necessary?]

Intraoperative ICD-testing is traditionally performed in many hospitals in order to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation of induced ventricular fibrillation. The technical progress of defibrillators allows rapid detection and delivery of high energy shocks which defibrillates effectively in the vast majority all patients at implant. This review describes arguments pro and contra of systematic testing of the defibrillation threshold in all patients. Many reasons argue against testing in all patients: experimental considerations, patients' specific and nonspecific factors, e.g., underlying severity of cardiac disease, ischemia, and medication, as well as factors specific to the ICD system, e.g., implanted type and location of electrodes and active cans. Finally, the testing method is very important, since it bears the risk of false negative test results because the a priori probability of a positive test result is >95%. Therefore, data from prospective randomized studies are necessary in order to abandon the tradition of ICD-testing on an evidence-based background.

The dilemma of ICD implant testing

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been induced at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation. Despite its risks, the value was self-evident for early ICDs: failure of defibrillation was common, recipients had a high risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF, and the only therapy for rapid VT or VF was a shock. Today, failure of defibrillation is rare, the risk of VT/VF is lower in some recipients, antitachycardia pacing is applied for fast VT, and vulnerability testing permits assessment of defibrillation efficacy without inducing VF in most patients. This review reappraises ICD implant testing. At implant, defibrillation success is influenced by both predictable and unpredictable factors, including those related to the patient, ICD system, drugs, and complications. For left pectoral implants of high-output ICDs, the probability of passing a 10 J safety margin is approximately 95%, the probability that a maximum output shock will defibrillate is approximately 99%, and the incidence of system revision based on testing is < or = 5%. Bayes' Theorem predicts that implant testing identifies < or = 50% of patients at high risk for unsuccessful defibrillation. Most patients who fail implant criteria have false negative tests and may undergo unnecessary revision of their ICD systems. The first-shock success rate for spontaneous VT/VF ranges from 83% to 93%, lower than that for induced VF. Thus, shocks for spontaneous VT/VF fail for reasons that are not evaluated at implant. Whether system revision based on implant testing improves this success rate is unknown. The risks of implant testing include those related to VF and those related to shocks alone. The former may be due to circulatory arrest alone or the combination of circulatory arrest and shocks. Vulnerability testing reduces risks related to VF, but not those related to shocks. Mortality from implant testing probably is 0.1-0.2%. Overall, VF should be induced to assess sensing in approximately 5% of ICD recipients. Defibrillation or vulnerability testing is indicated in 20-40% of recipients who can be identified as having a higher-than-usual probability of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin based on patient-specific factors. However, implant testing is too risky in approximately 5% of recipients and may not be worth the risks in 10-30%. In 25-50% of ICD recipients, testing cannot be identified as either critical or contraindicated.

Clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with standard implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads.

BACKGROUND

Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems. If clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation efficacy with these lead systems were identified, they could be used to predict which patients may require more complex lead systems for atrial defibrillation, such as a coronary sinus electrode.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 135 consecutive patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. The lead system evaluated was a transvenous defibrillation lead with coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular apex (RV), and a left pectoral pulse generator emulator (CAN). The shocking pathway was RV-->SVC+CAN. Atrial DFT was measured using a step-up protocol. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated as predictors of atrial DFT and multiple linear regression was performed.

RESULTS

Mean atrial DFT was 4.6 +/- 3.8 J. Atrial DFT was < or =3 J in 70 patients (52%) and < or = 10 J in 97% of patients. The highest atrial DFT was 20 J (one patient). Left atrial size (r = 0.21, P = .01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (r = 0.19, P = .02) were independent predictors of atrial DFT. However, these two predictors accounted for only 6% of the variability in atrial DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical parameters are of limited use in predicting atrial DFT with a dual-coil, active pectoral ICD lead system. Because the RV--> SVC + CAN shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.

Placement of a defibrillation lead in the left subclavian vein from the right cephalic vein

This case report highlights the feasibility and stability of transvenous placement of a second defibrillation lead in the left subclavian vein from a right cephalic vein approach. This was undertaken in a right-sided implant of an active can cardioverter defibrillator to lower defibrillation thresholds that would have otherwise precluded implant.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

Concomitant device and drug therapy: current trends, potential benefits, and adverse interactions

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has decreased over the last 10 years. This trend, primarily seen with class I agents, has occurred mainly in patients with a cardiac arrest. However, despite this overall decrease, antiarrhythmic drug therapy remains an important adjuvant to ICD therapy. In addition to primary prevention of ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular tachycardia, antiarrhythmic drug therapy may potentiate tachycardia rate slowing and make ventricular tachycardia more tolerated hemodynamically and possibly more amendable to pacing therapy. Some of the class III antiarrhythmic drugs may actually lower defibrillation threshold. Unfortunately, these drugs may have adverse interactions with ICDs. An increase in defibrillation threshold or rate-dependent increase in pacing threshold may interfere with the effectiveness of device therapy. Proarrhythmic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs may enhance the frequency of device use. The bradycardic effects of antiarrhythmic drug therapy may similarly enhance the requirements for persistent bradycardia pacing and lead to early battery depletion and other adverse consequences. An awareness of potential benefits and adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drug therapy along with careful electrophysiologic assessment are necessary for optimum combination drug and device therapy.

Short- and long-term performance of a tripolar down-sized single lead for implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment: a randomized prospective European multicenter study. European Endotak DSP Investigator Group

A new, thinner (10 Fr) and more flexible, single-pass transvenous endocardial ICD lead, Endotak DSP, was compared with a conventional lead, Endotak C, as a control in a prospective randomized multicenter study in combination with a nonactive can ICD. A total of 123 patients were enrolled, 55 of whom received a down-sized DSP lead. Lead-alone configuration was successfully implanted in 95% of the DSP patients vs 88% in the control group. The mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined by means of a step-down protocol, and was identical in the two groups, 10.5 +/- 4.8 J in the DSP group versus 10.5 +/- 4.8 J in the control group. At implantation, the DSP mean pacing threshold was lower, 0.51 +/- 0.18 V versus 0.62 +/- 0.35 V (p < 0.05) in the control group, and the mean pacing impedance higher, 594 +/- 110 omega vs 523 +/- 135 omega (p < 0.05). During the follow-up period, the statistically significant difference in thresholds disappeared, while the difference in impedance remained. Tachyarrhythmia treatment by shock or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) was delivered in 53% and 41%, respectively, of the patients with a 100% success rate. In the DSP group, all 28 episodes of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were converted by the first shock as compared to 57 of 69 episodes (83%) in the control group (p < 0.05). Monomorphic ventricular tachycardias were terminated by ATP alone in 96% versus 94%. Lead related problems were minor and observed in 5% and 7%, respectively. In summary, both leads were safe and efficacious in the detection and treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. There were no differences between the DSP and control groups regarding short- or long-term lead related complications.

Simplified implantation of single-lead pectoral cardioverter defibrillators using device-based testing

Device-based testing of single-lead pectoral defibrillators (defibrillation efficacy testing without an external defibrillation system after complete implantation of the device) resulted in an adequate defibrillation threshold (< or = 20 J) in 45 of 50 study patients (90%). Mean surgical implantation time (skin to skin) was 62 +/- 29 minutes without perioperative mortality and without implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection during follow-up. Thus, device-based testing appears to be a simple and safe method to test defibrillation efficacy of single-lead pectoral defibrillators.

Arrhythmias and sudden death in heart failure

Survival of patients with heart failure has improved over the past decade due to advances in medical therapy. Sudden death continues to cause 20 to 50% of deaths. Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with heart failure. Ventricular hypertrophy, scars from prior myocardial infarction, sympathetic activation, and electrolyte abnormalities contribute. Some sudden deaths are due to bradyarrhythmias and electromechanical dissociation rather than ventricular arrhythmias. The risks and benefits of antiarrhythmic therapies continue to be defined. Class I antiarrhythmic drugs should be avoided due to proarrhythmic and negative inotropic effects that may increase mortality. For patients resuscitated from sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) amiodarone or an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be considered. ICDs markedly reduce sudden death in VT/VF survivors, but in advanced heart failure, this may not markedly extend survival. Catheter or surgical ablation can be considered for selected patients with bundle branch reentry VT or difficult to control monomorphic VT. For patients who have not had sustained VT/VF antiarrhythmic therapy should generally be avoided, but may benefit some high risk patients. Amiodarone may be beneficial in patients with advanced heart failure and rapid resting heart rates. ICDs may improve survival in selected survivors of myocardial infarction who have inducible VT.

Clinical predictors of transvenous biphasic defibrillation thresholds

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator placement. However, previous studies of clinical predictors of an adequate nonthoracotomy defibrillation threshold (DFT) evaluated monophasic waveforms or more complex lead systems, including subcutaneous patches. Accordingly, this study is a prospective evaluation of the predictors of an adequate biphasic DFT in 114 consecutive patients undergoing cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a single transvenous lead. For each subject, 38 parameters were assessed, including standard demographic, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and radiographic measurements. An adequate DFT (< or =20 J) was achieved in 92% of patients. Multivariable analysis revealed 2 independent factors predictive of a high threshold: echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular dilation (odds ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.53, p = 0.003) and body size (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.73; p = 0.005). No patient with a normal left ventricular end-diastolic dimension had a high DFT, whereas 14% (9 of 66) of those with left ventricular dilation had elevated thresholds. When the DFT cutoff was lowered to 15 J, as is necessary with some downsized pulse generators, an adequate threshold was observed in 84% of patients and the same 2 independent predictors of high thresholds were found. These results indicate that an adequate transvenous DFT can be predicted from simple clinical parameters.

Clinical predictors of transvenous defibrillation energy requirements

Nonthoracotomy and, more recently, transvenous lead systems have become routine for initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Previous studies of clinical predictors of nonthoracotomy defibrillation energy requirements evaluated multiple complex lead systems that included subcutaneous patches. However, the predictors of an adequate transvenous defibrillation threshold (DFT) have not been assessed previously. Accordingly, the present study is a prospective evaluation of DFT using a uniform testing protocol in 119 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation with a single transvenous lead. For each patient, 38 parameters were assessed including standard clinical, echocardiographic, and radiographic measures. An adequate monophasic DFT (< or =20 J) was achieved in 76% of patients. Multivariable analysis revealed 3 independent factors predictive of a high threshold: preoperative amiodarone use (odds ratio = 5.8, p < or =0.002), echocardiographic measures of left ventricular dilation (odds ratio = 0.47, p < or =0.005) and body size (odds ratio = 0.51, p < or =0.006). Patients receiving amiodarone who also had left ventricular dilation constitute a group at considerable (69%) risk for having a high DFT. In contrast, patients with neither of these risk factors have only an 11% chance of having a high threshold. We conclude that an adequate transvenous DFT can be predicted from simple clinical parameters.