The 'modern' implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: comparing it to those of the late 1980s

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Primary and Secondary Prevention of SCD-What We Still Don't Know

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) all around the globe. In almost 40 years of technological advances and multiple clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in the implantation rate. The purpose of this review is to highlight the grey areas related to actual ICD recommendations, focusing specifically on the primary prevention of SCD. We will discuss the still-existing controversies strongly reflected in the differences between the international guidelines regarding ICD indication class in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, and also address the question of early implantation after myocardial infarction in the absence of clear protocols for patients at high risk of life-threatening arrhythmias. Correlating the insufficient data in the literature for 40-day waiting times with the increased risk of SCD in the first month after myocardial infarction, we review the pros and cons of early ICD implantation.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator management: an update

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the cornerstone of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. In 35 years of technologic improvement and clinical trials, there has been a continuous increase in implantation rate. Purpose of this review is to point out and discuss every aspect related to actual ICD management, investigating implantation procedure and predischarge care, office and remote monitoring follow-up, diagnostic evaluations, management of patients with suspected therapies or malfunctions, heart failure, surgery, radiotherapy and endoscopic procedures. Also, ICD backface such as infections and other complications will be discussed. Finally, we will focus on interesting future perspectives for this setting of patients.

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Ventricular arrhythmias remain a major cause of cardiovascular mortality. Therapy for serious ventricular arrhythmias has evolved over the past decade, from treatment primarily with antiarrhythmic drugs to implanted devices. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the best therapy for patients who have experienced an episode of ventricular fibrillation not accompanied by an acute myocardial infarction or other transient or reversible cause. It is also superior therapy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) causing syncope or hemodynamic compromise. Controlled clinical trials have confirmed the utility of these devices. As primary prevention, the ICD is superior to conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients who have survived a myocardial infarction and who have spontaneous, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, a low ejection fraction, inducible VT at electrophysiologic study, and whose VT is not suppressed by procainamide. The effect of the ICD on survival of other patient populations remains to be proven. The device is costly, but its price is generally accepted to be reasonable. The ICD has been a major advance in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children

The use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children presents several unique challenges for the pediatric cardiologist. Size considerations and hardware limitations are important in the current generation of devices that are not designed with children in mind. Defibrillator devices are used to prolong life, which may have significant implications for leads and electrodes that are affixed to the heart in a child who has continued growth potential. A greater number of children with congenital heart defects are surviving into adulthood, many of whom have a risk of late sudden death following repair. These patients may also have unique anatomic considerations that may affect device placement. This article will address some of the issues faced when considering the use of implantable-defibrillator therapy in the pediatric population.

Utilization and outcomes of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator, 1987 to 1995

BACKGROUND

The patterns of adoption of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and the outcomes of its use have not been well documented in general, unselected populations. The purpose of this study was to document the impact of the ICD in widespread clinical practice.

METHODS

We identified ICD recipients by use of the hospital discharge databases of Medicare beneficiaries for 1987 through 1995 and of California residents for 1991 through 1995. The index admission for each patient was linked to previous and subsequent admissions and to mortality files to create a longitudinal patient profile.

RESULTS

The rate of ICD implantations increased >10-fold between 1987 and 1995, as both the number of hospitals performing the procedure and the volume of ICD implantations per hospital rose. Mortality rates within 30 days of ICD implantation decreased from 6.0% to 1.9%, and mortality rates within 1 year fell from 19.3% to 11.4%. Surgical interventions to revise or replace the ICD within the first year remained about 5%, however, and cumulative expenditures at 1 year ($46,000-$51,000) changed very little. ICD implantation rates varied >3-fold among different regions of the United States.

CONCLUSIONS

ICD use has expanded markedly during the study period, with improved mortality rates, but medical expenditures and rates of surgical revision remain high for ICD recipients.

Subpectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation using a lateral approach

INTRODUCTION

Third-generation cardioverter-defibrillators have revolutionized management of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Implantation can be performed in the electro-physiology laboratory, with minimal morbidity. Generator size has shrunk to the point that subcutaneous implantation is feasible and safe, even under local anesthesia. The prepectoral technique, however, is associated with increased mechanical stress to the subcutaneous tissue and can predispose to device erosion or infection. These complications may be avoided by submuscular placement. Among subpectoral techniques, the lateral approach offers unrestricted ability to deploy patches or array electrodes, should the need arise, and may represent the optimal implant technique under some circumstances.

METHODS

We studied 29 male patients, aged 29-78 years, who presented with syncope or sustained ventricular tachycardia, and underwent subpectoral defibrillator implantation under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. All devices were third-generation active can systems with biphasic shock capability. Six dual-chamber defibrillators were used.

RESULTS

Subpectoral implantation was successful in all cases, with an estimated blood loss of 28+/-17 mL and no immediate complications. Except for one patient who developed twiddler's syndrome and ultimately required revision to a subcutaneous pocket, the implant site was tolerated well, and no limitation in the range of motion of the upper limb was observed during 20 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpectoral implantation using a lateral approach is technically straightforward and can be applied globally, with modest additional resource and equipment requirements. Familiarity with this approach can maximize the likelihood of successful defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory.

Single-chamber versus dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators: indications and clinical results

The clinical benefit of standard (single-chamber) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy in elderly patients or in subjects with moderate or severe heart failure who had ventricular tachyarrhythmias has been debated. We studied the follow-up of 450 patients who underwent standard ICD implantation at our institution in relation to the functional status of heart failure (New York Heart Association Class) or patient's age. During a mean follow-up of 24 +/- 28 months (range, < 1-114 months), 90 patients (23%) died: 9 patients (2%) from sudden arrhythmic death and 5 patients (1%) suddenly, but probably not from arrhythmic causes; 55 patients (14%) died from congestive heart failure and/or myocardial reinfarction and 21 patients (5%) from noncardiac causes. We could clearly demonstrate that ICD therapy was able to prevent sudden cardiac death, both in patients with severely depressed left ventricular function and in patients aged > or = 65 years. An important step forward in ICD technology was the introduction of dual-chamber pacing possibilities to improve left ventricular dysfunction and to allow a more individualized ICD therapy. At our institution, we have implanted a dual-chamber ICD in 15 patients. Preliminary results showed that heart failure improved in 5 patients (33%) and remained unchanged in 10 patients (67%, p = not significant). There were no patients who had a lesser degree of heart failure after implant. Based on our experience so far, in addition to the hemodynamic benefits of dual-chamber ICDs, dual-chamber sensing and wave-form storage capabilities are very helpful and promising diagnostic tools for the detection and handling of inappropriate ICD therapies.

[Defibrillator therapy 1997. Prerequisites--results--prospects]

BACKGROUND

The first human cardioverter defibrillator implant was performed in 1980. Since then, significant technological improvement has been performed and today, ICDs with multiple diagnostic and therapeutic features are available. We report on 541 patients who underwent ICD implantation between January 1984 and March 1997. Epicardial ICD implant was performed in 209 patients (39%) and 332 patients (61%) received transvenous ICDs.

PATIENTS AND RESULTS

Perioperative mortality was 2% (13 patients), significantly more frequent after epicardial (12/209 patients, 6%) than after transvenous implantation (1/332 patients) (p < 0.01). During a mean follow-up of 28 +/- 23 months, 104 patients died (20%), 15 of them (3%) suddenly. 8407 arrhythmic episodes were observed and terminated by antitachycardia pacing in 6655 (79%). Infections occurred in 13 patients (2%), electrode complications in 43 patients (8%) and inappropriate shocks in 84 patients (16%).

CONCLUSION

The ICD is an effective approach to treat patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias leading to a low incidence of sudden death. Today, there is a low operative risk and modern ICDs have multiple diagnostic and therapeutic features that allow individual ICD therapy.