Right ventricular stimulation threshold at ICD implant predicts device therapy in primary prevention patients with ischaemic heart disease

Association between routine biomarkers and atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing implantation of a dual-chamber pacemaker

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients having a permanent pacemaker frequently have atrial remodeling. We examined the association between routine biomarkers and atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients receiving a dual-chamber pacemaker for sinus node disease (SND) or second-/third-degree atrioventricular block.

METHODS

We recorded clinical, laboratory, and electrocardiographic parameters as well as pacemaker lead parameters at implantation. The final analysis included 217 patients with SND and 393 patients with atrioventricular block. Notably, 102/217 (47%) of the SND patients (median age: 77 years, 54% men) and 54/393 (14%) of the atrioventricular block patients (median age: 79 years, 54% men) had AF history (paroxysmal or persistent).

RESULTS

Multivariable analysis showed that red blood cell distribution width (RDW) (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.05-1.36; P = .05) and serum γ-glutamyl transferase (γGT) levels (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.03-1.28; P = .04) were independently associated with AF history in patients with SND. In ROC curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.648; P < .01 for RDW, and 0.753; P < .01 for γGT. A RDW cut-off point of 14 was associated with AF with a sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 68%, while a γGT cut-off point of 21 was associated with AF with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 65%. In patients with second-/third-degree atrioventricular block, there were no significant independent correlations between AF and the parameters studied.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients with SND, RDW and γGT have an independent association with AF history. Our study failed to show any corresponding associations in patients with advanced disorders of atrioventricular conduction.

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.

Shock or no shock - a question of philosophy or should intraoperative implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing be recommended?

OBJECTIVES

Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with a high risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias is a standard therapy. The development of new ICD leads, shock algorithms, high-energy defibrillators and rapid energy supply has improved the devices. Nevertheless, the discussion regarding 'shock or no shock' to test the system intraoperatively has not silenced yet.

METHODS

In this study, all 718 patients (60.0 ± 14.2 years old, 570 male) who were treated with a first ICD at our institution since 2005 were analysed. The indication for implantation was primarily prophylactic in 511 patients (71.3%). Underlying diseases included ischaemic cardiomyopathy (358 patients, 50%), dilated cardiomyopathy (270 patients, 37.7%) and others (12.3%). Mean ejection fraction was 27.4 ± 11.8%. Intraoperative ventricular fibrillation was induced with a T-wave shock or burst stimulation. The primary end-point was failing the initial intraoperative testing.

RESULTS

During the initial testing, 28 patients (3.9%) had a defibrillation threshold (DFT) >21 J. The mean age of these patients was 51 ± 14 years, ranging from 22 to 71 years, 20 were male, and the ejection fraction was 23.8 ± 11.8%. The indication for ICD implantation was prophylactic in 13 patients. Twenty-one of the 28 patients suffered from dilated cardiomyopathy, whereas seven patients had ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Twenty-four ICDs were implanted on the left side and four on the right side. None of the patients had been treated with amiodarone at the time of implantation. All patients achieved a sufficient DFT ≤ 21 J by changing the ICD leads, device repositioning and/or optimizing the shock configuration.

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of care intraoperative ICD testing remains necessary.