Comparison of the effects of active left and right pectoral pulse generators on defibrillation efficacy

Balloon venoplasty opens the road for an implantable defibrillator patient with complex stenosis

There is an increasing need for physicians to handle venous obstructions in pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implants. Venoplasty performed by an experienced operator is a simple, safe, and fast way to manage this situation and proceed to implant. Compared to other approaches, this strategy may offer particular advantages.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society 2016 Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Guidelines

Sudden cardiac death is a major public health issue in Canada. However, despite the overwhelming evidence to support the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the prevention of cardiac death there remains significant variability in implantation rates across Canada. Since the most recent Canadian Cardiovascular Society position statement on ICD use in Canada in 2005, there has been a plethora of new scientific information to assist physicians in their discussions with patients considered for ICD implantation to prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. We have reviewed, critically appraised, and synthesized the pertinent evidence to develop recommendations regarding: (1) ICD implantation in the primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in patients with and without ischemic heart disease; (2) when it is reasonable to withhold ICD implantation on the basis of comorbidities; (3) ICD implantation in patients listed for heart transplantation; (4) implantation of a single- vs dual-chamber ICD; (5) implantation of single- vs dual-coil ICD leads; (6) the role of subcutaneous ICDs; and (7) ICD implantation infection prevention strategies. We expect that this document, in combination with the companion article that addresses the implementation of these guidelines, will assist all medical professionals with the care of patients who have had or at risk of sudden cardiac death.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Who Doesn't Get It?

Defibrillation testing has been routinely performed as part of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedure, and is currently supported by practice guidelines; however, more recently, this practice has been called into question. Such testing is safe, and serious complications are rare. With modern ICD systems, physicians will rarely encounter a patient in whom defibrillation will fail. This article reviews the literature regarding the utility, necessity, complications, and cost of routine operative and follow-up defibrillation testing, and, it is hoped, clarifies the issue of "Who doesn't get it?"

Significance of intraoperative testing in right-sided implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Background

Implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) from the left pectoral region is the standard therapeutical method. Increasing numbers of system revisions due to lead dysfunction and infections will consecutively increase the numbers of right-sided implantations. The reliability of devices implanted on the right pectoral side remains controversially discussed, and the question of testing these devices remains unanswered.

Methods

In a prospectively designed study all 870 patients (60.0±14 years, 689 male) who were treated with a first ICD from July 2005 until May 2012 and tested intraoperatively according to the testing protocol were analyzed. The indication for implantation was primary prophylactic in 71.5%. Underlying diseases included ischemic cardiomyopathy (50%), dilative cardiomyopathy (37%), and others (13%). Mean ejection faction was 27±12%. Implantation site was right in 4.5% and left in 95.5%.

Results

Five patients supplied with right-sided ICD (13%, p = 0.02 as compared to left-sided) failed initial intraoperative testing with 21 J. 3 patients were male. The age of the patients failing intraoperative testing with right-sided devices appeared higher than of patients with left-sided devices (p = 0.07). The ejection fraction was 28±8%. All patients reached a sufficient DFT ≤ 21 J after corrective procedures.

Conclusion

Implantation of ICDs on the right side results in significantly higher failure rate of successful termination of intraoperatively induced ventricular fibrillation. The data of our study suggest the necessity of intraoperative ICD testing in right-sided implanted ICDs.

Left-sided ICD implantation via right-sided venous access in a patient with left hemodialysis fistula

A sufficient patency of the central vein ipsilateral to atriovenous fistula is the lifeline for hemodialysis patients. We describe a case with left dialysis fistula who underwent left-sided pectoral implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator via right subclavicular venous access in order to avoid the possibility of development of left subclavian stenosis or occlusion and to achieve lower defibrillation thresholds. This approach may serve as an alternative choice in patients unsuitable for left-sided venous access and with higher defibrillation thresholds on right-positioned implantable cardioverter defibrillator.

Comparison of defibrillation efficacy and survival associated with right versus left pectoral placement for implantable defibrillators

The preferred location for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) generator is the left pectoral region as a result of the shock vector formed by the active can and the lead system. However, a right pectoral site is necessary when left-sided implantation is contraindicated. The Low Energy Safety Study was a prospective, randomized trial conducted to assess chronic defibrillation efficacy in 627 patients, including 37 (5.9%) who received right pectoral implants and 590 (94.1%) who received left pectoral implants. Patients were followed for a mean of 24 +/- 13 months. There were no significant differences observed between patients who received left versus right pectoral implants in age, gender, indications, New York Heart Association classification, or ejection fraction. Patients who received a right pectoral implant had higher defibrillation thresholds at implantation (10.6 +/- 3.8 J) than those who received a left pectoral implant (8.9 +/- 4.2 J, p = 0.01) despite similar shock impedances. The conversion efficacy for spontaneous arrhythmia episodes among patients who received right and left pectoral implants were not significantly different (33 of 33 [100%] vs 255 of 263 [97%], respectively; p = 0.31). In addition, the conversion efficacy for induced ventricular fibrillation episodes were also similar (187 of 188 [99%] on the right vs 2429 of 2475 [98%] on the left, p = 0.18). However, the all-cause mortality rate was higher for patients who received right-sided implants (hazard ratio 1.93, p <0.004). In conclusion, defibrillation thresholds are higher with right pectoral implants compared with left-sided implants, but with a proper energy safety margin, there are no significant differences in spontaneous or induced shock conversion efficacy. However, the near doubling of the mortality rate among patients with right-sided implants needs to be considered when recommending such device therapy.

Effect of an active abdominal pulse generator on defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have older lead systems, which are usually not replaced at the time of pulse generator replacement unless a malfunction is noted. Therefore, optimization of defibrillation with these lead systems is clinically important. The objective of this prospective study was to determine if an active abdominal pulse generator (Can) affects chronic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population consisted of 39 patients who presented for routine abdominal pulse generator replacement. Each patient underwent two assessments of DFT using a step-down protocol, with the order of testing randomized. The distal right ventricular (RV) coil was the anode for the first phase of the biphasic shocks. The proximal superior vena cava (SVC) coil was the cathode for the Lead Alone configuration (RV --> SVC). For the Active Can configuration, the SVC coil and Can were connected electrically as the cathode (RV --> SVC + Can). The Active Can configuration was associated with a significant decrease in shock impedance (39.5 +/- 5.8 Omega vs. 50.0 +/- 7.6 Omega, P < 0.01) and a significant increase in peak current (8.3 +/- 2.6 A vs. 7.2 +/- 2.4 A, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in DFT energy (9.0 +/- 4.6 J vs. 9.8 +/- 5.2 J) or leading edge voltage (319 +/- 86 V vs. 315 +/- 83 V). An adequate safety margin for defibrillation (> or =10 J) was present in all patients with both shocking configurations.

CONCLUSION

DFTs are similar with the Active Can and Lead Alone configurations when a dual-coil, transvenous lead is used with a left abdominal pulse generator. Since most commercially available ICDs are only available with an active can, our data support the use of an active can device with this lead system for patients who present for routine pulse generator replacement.