Initial experience with a new transvenous defibrillation system

Preliminary clinical results of a biphasic waveform and an RV lead system

Biphasic defibrillation waveforms have provided a reduction in defibrillation thresholds in transvenous ICD systems. Although a variety of biphasic waveforms have been tested, the optimal pulse durations and tilts have yet to be identified. A multicenter clinical study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a new ICD biphasic waveform and new RV active fixation steroid eluting lead system. Fifty-three patients were entered into the study. Mean age was 63 years with a mean ejection fraction of 36.8%. Primary indication for implantation was monomorphic ventricular tachycardia alone (54.7%). Forty-eight patients (90.6%) were implanted with an RV shocking lead and active can alone as the anodal contact. The ICD can was the cathode. In four cases (7.5%), an additional SVC or CS lead was used due to a high DFT with the RV lead alone. In an additional case, a chronic SVC lead was used although the RV-Can DFT was acceptable. DFT for all cases at implant was 9.8 +/- 3.7 J. Repeat testing at 3 months for a subset of patients showed a reduction in DFT (7.4 +/- 3.0 J), P value = 0.03. Sensing and pacing characteristics of the RV lead system remained excellent during the study period (acute 0.047 +/- 0.005 ms at 5.4 V and 9.9 +/- 6.2 mV R wave; chronic 0.067 +/- 0.11 ms at 5.4 V and 9.3 +/- 5.4 mV R wave). It is concluded that this lead system provides good acute and chronic sensing and pacing characteristics with good DFT values in combination with this waveform.

A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation: analysis of costs and outcomes

Traditionally cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed by surgeons under general anesthesia. However, with advances in lead and pulse generator technology, the surgical implantation technique has been simplified and routine pectoral pulse generator placement without general anesthesia is now possible. To assess the economic benefit of pectoral implantation, we analyzed 43 consecutive initial transvenous defibrillator implantations. The patients were grouped according to whether the implant was abdominal by a surgeon in the operating room (n = 23) or pectoral by an electrophysiologist in a laboratory (n = 20). The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the operating room than in the laboratory group (8.1 +/- 3.4 vs 5.8 +/- 2.4 days, p = 0.01), which was due primarily to the postoperative stay which averaged 1.9 days longer. Total costs were $40,274 +/- 6,861 for the operating room cohort and $32,546 +/- 3,634 for the lab group (p < 0.001). This reduction was due to a 32% lowering of professional costs and an 18% lowering of facility costs. We conclude that pectoral defibrillator implantation is cost effective and results in significant reductions of hospital stay.

Oversensing in a cardioverter defibrillator system caused by interaction between two endocardial defibrillation leads in the right ventricle

A 53-year-old male patient underwent implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation with a single lead (Endotak) transvenous system due to recurrent episodes of drug refractory ventricular tachycardia. After pulse generator replacement, inappropriate ICD shocks were observed due to muscle potential sensing. Intraoperatively, the old Endotak lead could not be extracted; therefore, it was transsected and capped. A new lead was inserted and tested without any problems. At the predischarge test, VF was induced and was followed by ICD shocks during sinus rhythm. In another surgical procedure, the old Endotak lead was explanted using a special instrument. The present report demonstrates that two endocardial Endotak leads should be avoided, because the leads may disturb each other and be followed by inappropriate ICD discharges.

Infections with nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillators: can these be prevented? Endotak Lead Clinical Investigators

Nonthoracotomy ICDs are believed to be the best therapeutic modality for treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Little is known about the risk of infection with initial implantation of these devices. We studied the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors associated with infections in 1,831 patients with nonthoracotomy ICD from the Endotak-C nonthoracotomy lead registry of Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. A transvenous lead was implanted in 950 patients (51.9%) and a combination transvenous plus subcutaneous patch was used in 881 patients (48.1%). Nine preselected data variables were studied, and all investigators identified as having patients with infections were personally contacted. Infections occurred in 22 (1.2%) of 1,831 patients receiving this nonthoracotomy ICD system. The mean time to infection was 5.7 +/- 6.5 months (range 1-25 months). Staphylococci were isolated in 58% of patients with reported infection. The presence of a subcutaneous defibrillator patch system was associated with the development of infection. Six of 950 patients (0.63%) with a totally transvenous lead system developed infection versus 16 of 838 (1.9%) patients with a transvenous lead plus subcutaneous patch system configuration (P = 0.015, Chi-square test), with an unadjusted estimated odds ratio of 3.06 (CI 1.19-7.86). The risk of infection encountered with the nonthoracotomy ICD is low, estimated from our data to be 1.2%. Placement of a subcutaneous defibrillator patch appears to be an independent risk factor for development of infection.

Right side implant of the unipolar single lead defibrillation system

The active can defibrillator has been designed for implantation in the left prepectoral region. Whether this system can be successfully implanted on the right side is unknown. We describe six cases in which placement of the unipolar single lead defibrillation system was successfully attempted in the right prepectoral region due to impediments on the left side. The mean age of the patients was 62 +/- 12 years. Five patients had ischemic heart disease and one idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. The endocardial defibrillation electrode was placed in the right ventricle through the right subclavian vein and positioned at the apex in two patients and in the septal position in four patients. Defibrillation threshold testing was performed using a step-up/step-down protocol beginning at 12 J with 3-J increments or decrements. Defibrillation threshold was defined as the lowest energy of the first shock able to terminate ventricular fibrillation. The generator models used were the Medtronic 7218C in 1 patient, the Medtronic 7219C in 3 patients, and the Ventritex Cadet 115 AC in 2 patients. The mean defibrillation threshold was 15 +/- 3 J. The defibrillation thresholds were retested at 1, 3, and 6 months, and showed no significant change in five patients but decreased from 15 J to 12 J in one patient. The presence of impediments on the left side should not preclude attempts to place the unipolar active can system in the right prepectoral region.

Simulated internal defibrillation in humans using an anatomically realistic three-dimensional finite element model of the thorax

INTRODUCTION

Determination of the optimal electrode configuration during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation remains largely an empirical process. This study investigated the feasibility of using a finite element model of the thorax to predict clinical defibrillation metrics for internal defibrillation in humans. Computed defibrillation metrics from simulations of three common electrode configurations with a monophasic waveform were compared to pooled metrics for similar electrode and waveform configurations reported in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A three-dimensional finite element model was constructed from CT cross-sections of a human thorax. Myocardial current density distributions for three electrode configurations (epicardial patches, right ventricular [RV] coil/superior vena cava [SVC] coil, RV coil/SVC coil/subcutaneous patch) and a truncated monophasic pulse with a 65% tilt were simulated. Assuming an inexcitability threshold of 25 mA/cm2 (10 V/cm) and a 75% critical mass criterion for successful defibrillation, defibrillation metrics (interelectrode impedance, defibrillation threshold current, voltage, and energy) were calculated for each electrode simulation. Values of these metrics were within 1 SD of sample-size weighted means for the corresponding metrics determined for similar electrode configurations and waveforms reported in human clinical studies. Simulated myocardial current density distributions suggest that variations in current distribution and uniformity partially explain differences in defibrillation energy requirements between electrode configurations.

CONCLUSION

Anatomically realistic three-dimensional finite element modeling can closely simulate internal defibrillation in humans. This may prove useful for characterizing patient-specific factors that influence clinically relevant properties of current density distributions and defibrillation energy requirements of various ICD electrode configurations.

Long-term survival and complications in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias: treatment with a nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillator with or without a subcutaneous patch

The Endotak lead system and ICD has been used to treat patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of 1,053 patients who underwent implantation of the Endotak lead system with or without a subcutaneous patch. Group A consisted of 567 patients receiving the Endotak lead with a subcutaneous patch; group B consisted of 486 patients receiving the Endotak lead alone. The 2-year survivals from sudden death, cardiac death, and total death in groups A and B were 97.6%/98.2% (P = 0.38), 88.6%/92.7% (P = 0.09), and 84.7%/86.8% (P = 0.06), respectively. Minimum tested effective defibrillation energy at implantation was 17.2 +/- 5.2 J for group A and 15.8 +/- 5.1 J for group B (P < 0.01). The operative mortality was 1.8% in group A and 0.6% in group B (P = 0.09). The incidence of lead dislodgment, malfunction, and infection was 6.7% for group A and 3.5% for group B (P < 0.01). Sudden death survival was excellent in both groups with less lead complications in group B. The Endotak lead alone may be the preferred choice of lead configuration in those patients who have adequate defibrillation thresholds at implant.

Transvenous defibrillation leads: is there an ideal position of the defibrillation anode?

A potential benefit of two-lead transvenous defibrillation systems is the ability to independently position the defibrillation electrodes, changing the vector field and possibly decreasing the DFT. Using the new two-lead transvenous TVL lead system, we studied whether DFT is influenced by SVC lead position and whether there is an optimal position. TVL leads and Cadence pulse generators were implanted in 24 patients. No intraoperative or perioperative complications were observed. In each patient, the DFTs were determined for three SVC electrode positions, which were tested in random order: the brachiocephalic vein, the mid-RA, and the RA-SVC junction. The mean DFTs in the three positions were not statistically different, nor was any single lead position consistently associated with lower DFTs. However, an optimal electrode position was identified in 83% of patients, and the DFT from the best lead position for each patient was significantly lower than for any one of the electrode positions (P < 0.01). The mean safety margin for the best SVC lead position was approximately 27 J. These results demonstrate the advantage of a two-lead system, as well as the importance of testing multiple SVC lead positions when the patient's condition permits. Both of these factors can decrease the DFT and maximize the defibrillation safety margin. This will become increasingly important as pulse generator capacitors become smaller (as part of the effort to decrease generator size) and the energy output of the generators consequently decreases.

Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator implantation. A reduction of pulse generator size has made pectoral placement possible and enabled the pulse generator shell to become an active part of the defibrillation pathway. To directly assess the effect of the addition of an active generator on defibrillation thresholds to a transvenous lead system, we prospectively measured paired, randomized defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) in 21 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. A dual coil lead (Endotak C, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Corp., St. Paul, Minnesota) was used with the distal coil as the cathode for all shocks. The DFT was 8.4 +/- 3.2 J with the active shell, compared with 13.1 +/- 6.9 J with the lead alone (p < 0.01). This reduction was greatest in those patients with higher thresholds with the lead-alone configuration and resulted in DFT < or = 15 J with the active shell configuration in all patients. Shock impedance was reduced from 49 +/- 5 to 42 +/- 4 ohms (p < .001), but peak current at defibrillation threshold was unaffected by the addition of the active pectoral shell. We conclude that the addition of an active pectoral shell to a 2-coil transvenous lead system resulted in a marked reduction of defibrillation energy requirements. The uniformly low DFT ( < or = 15 J) observed suggests that an active pulse generator with a 25 J maximum output could be implanted in most patients while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin.

First experience with a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system

The clinical efficacy and safety of a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system (TVL lead system, Ventritex, inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) was studied in patients with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Implantation of the TVL lead system and a Cadence pulse generator (Ventritex, Inc.) was attempted in 27 patients. A subcutaneous patch lead was added if required to achieve adequate defibrillation energy. Patients were monitored for an average of 6 +/- 4 months (range 1 week to 14 months). Implantation was successful in 26 patients (96%). Twenty-three of those patients (88%) were implanted in a lead-alone configuration; the remaining three (12%) required a subcutaneous patch lead. The mean defibrillation threshold was 401 +/- 120 V (12 +/- 7 J) at implantation, 467 +/- 134 V (15 +/- 8 J) at predischarge testing, and 452 +/- 151 V (14 +/- 9 J) at 4-month follow-up. The mean defibrillation threshold at 4 months was not significantly different from that at implant. No deaths, sensing anomalies, infections, lead fractures, or lead dislodgments occurred. One patient required addition of a subcutaneous patch 4 months after device implantation because of an elevated defibrillation threshold. Eight patients (31%) experienced 545 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes, and all episodes were successfully terminated by the device. In conclusion, the TVL lead system combined with Cadence tiered-therapy defibrillator has a high success rate and low complication rate, and it can be recommended for treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Influence of malpositioned transvenous leads on defibrillation efficacy with and without a subcutaneous array electrode

Some patients cannot receive a transvenous lead system because of high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). We hypothesized that a right ventricular (RV) catheter electrode not extending as far as possible into the RV apex could cause high DFTs. Recently, a subcutaneous array (SQA) electrode has been shown to lower DFTs substantially. We compared the influence of a malpositioned RV catheter electrode on defibrillation efficacy for endocardial lead systems with and without a SQA. In eight anesthetized pigs, defibrillation catheters were placed in the RV apex and near the junction of the superior vena cava (SVC) and right atrium. SQA, formed by three elements, each 20 cm in length, was placed in the left thorax. DFTs were determined for a biphasic waveform using an up/down protocol with the RV catheter at the apex and with it repositioned 1-cm and 2-cm proximal to the apex. The mean DFT energies for the configurations with a SQA were less than those without a SQA for every catheter position. The placement of the RV catheter away from the apex caused an increase in defibrillation energy for the configurations without a SQA (apex: 17.1 +/- 3.8 J [mean +/- SD]; 1 cm: 20.1 +/- 4.6 J; 2 cm: 27.6 +/- 9.5 J; P < 0.05), but not for the configurations with a SQA (apex: 12.2 +/- 2.2 J; 1 cm: 12.3 +/- 2.9 J; 2 cm: 12.1 +/- 0.9 J: P = NS). These results suggest that a malpositioned RV catheter electrode, at the time of implantation or by late dislodgment, significantly elevates DFTs for a total endocardial system but not for a system that includes a SQA.

Transvenous versus transthoracic cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. A comparative analysis of morbidity, mortality, and survival

The hypothesis that transvenous implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator is associated with less morbidity than use of a transthoracic approach was investigated in a retrospective series of 146 patients. None of these patients had concomitant heart procedures, and the preoperative characteristics of the two groups were similar. When analyzed by actual technique used (transvenous, 57 patients; transthoracic, 89 patients) and by the intention-to-treat method (transvenous, 65 patients, 8 of whom actually underwent thoracotomy; thoracotomy, 81 patients), transvenous implantation was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory complications and atrial fibrillation. Total cardiac mortality and freedom from sudden cardiac death in the transvenous and transthoracic groups were comparable at 2 years.

Implantation and follow-up of a third-generation cardioverter defibrillator: comparison of epicardial and nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system

OBJECTIVE

The intraoperative and follow-up results were compared in 67 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent implantation of the Ventritex Cadence defibrillator with either epicardial patch (EPI, 25 patients) or nonthoracotomy CPI Endotak (ENDO, 42 patients) defibrillation lead systems.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between groups in age, sex, structural heart disease, ejection fraction, arrhythmia history, or drug therapy. Successful implantation was accomplished in all patients using either lead system. In the ENDO group, 35 patients (83%) had a defibrillation threshold < or = 550 V and did not require a subcutaneous patch. Intraoperatively, the defibrillation threshold was 453 +/- 139 V (13 +/- 9 J) for EPI and 490 +/- 113 V (15 +/- 8 J) for ENDO (P = NS). There were no perioperative deaths in either group. At predischarge testing, the defibrillation threshold was 445 +/- 183 V (14 +/- 12 J) for EPI and 439 +/- 133 V (13 +/- 7 J) for ENDO (P = NS). During a mean follow-up of 16 +/- 8 months, there were no sudden deaths, and four patients died from congestive heart failure (3 EPI, 1 ENDO). During follow-up, 916 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes occurred in 16 of 25 EPI patients (64%) and 967 episodes occurred in 31 of 42 ENDO patients (74%) (P = NS). The number of episodes detected as ventricular fibrillation were 192 for EPI (21%) and 232 for ENDO (24%), with first shock success in 76% and 75%, respectively; all episodes were successfully terminated by the device. In the remaining episodes detected as ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing was attempted and was successful in 672 of 724 episodes (93%) with EPI and 666 of 735 episodes (91%) with ENDO lead systems (P = NS). Acceleration of ventricular tachycardia with antitachycardia pacing occurred in 21 episodes (3%) with EPI and in 37 episodes (5%) with ENDO leads (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

A nonthoracotomy approach using the third generation cardioverter defibrillator Cadence V-100 is safe and effective and has clinical results that are not significantly different from epicardial defibrillation lead systems.

The left subclavian vein as an alternative site for implantation of the second defibrillation lead

The optimal placement for the second defibrillation lead in a two-lead system has never been addressed. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 33 patients with an average age of 59.2 years (range 41-78 years), predominantly male (n = 29), who underwent implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for treatment of ventricular tachycardia (n = 19) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 14). In all patients an attempt was made to implant an endovenous ICD device (leads only, no subcutaneous patch). In group I (n = 18) the defibrillation anode, a separate unipolar lead, was placed in the common position, the superior vena cava. In group II (n = 15) the lead was placed in the left subclavian vein. At least two consecutive shocks reverting ventricular fibrillation at energies < or = 24 J were required for implantation of the ICD device. All shocks were monophasic. The success rate of endovenous defibrillation was significantly higher in group II than in group I (67% vs 28%, P < 0.05). Thus, it could be demonstrated that the position of the defibrillation anode can influence the defibrillation efficacy in transvenous ICD systems. Prospective randomized trials are needed to investigate the optimal position for the second defibrillation electrode, which may gain increasing importance as soon as dual chamber ICDs become available.

Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory: initial experiences in 48 patients

The exponential increase in cardioverter-defibrillator implantations has resulted in a need for safe implantations that do not require long waiting periods. We report intraoperative and follow-up results in 48 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory. Twenty-six (54%) patients had their first cardioverter-defibrillator implant (group 1), and 22 (46%) patients underwent pulse-generator replacement (group 2). In all patients, cardioverter-defibrillator implant or pulse-generator replacement was performed with the patient under general anesthesia. In 25 (96%) of 26 patients in group 1, cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was possible with a mean defibrillation threshold of 13 +/- 8 J. One patient had a defibrillation threshold of > 25 J, and therefore cardioverter-defibrillator implant was not achieved. This patient underwent epicardial device implantation 1 day later. Another patient in group 1 had vessel rupture (vena subclavia) intraoperatively. During a mean follow-up of 2 +/- 1 months, two patients died from congestive heart failure 2 and 4 months after device implantation. An infection occurred in one patient in group 2, 3 months after generator replacement. In conclusion, these data show that in the majority of patients cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory is safe and has a low complication rate and therefore can generally be recommended.

Comparison of initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation in a transvenous defibrillator system with automatic gain control

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate postshock redetection of ventricular fibrillation by a system that coupled an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with an automatic gain control sense amplifier and a transvenous lead system.

BACKGROUND

Redetection of ventricular fibrillation after an unsuccessful first shock has not been systematically evaluated. Previous studies have suggested that sensing performance of some lead systems may be adversely affected by the delivery of subthreshold shocks.

METHODS

The time required for both initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation was compared in 22 patients. These times were estimated by subtracting the capacitor charge time from the total event time.

RESULTS

A total of 113 successful and 57 unsuccessful initial shocks were delivered during induced ventricular fibrillation. The mean +/- SD initial time to detection of ventricular fibrillation was 5.5 +/- 1.7 s (range 2.4 to 10.8); the time to redetection ranged from 1.5 to 18.5 s (mean 4.5 +/- 2.8, p = NS vs. detection time). Abnormal redetection episodes, defined as a redetection time > 10.2 s (i.e., > 2 SD above the mean redetection time), were observed in 4 (18%) of 22 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Redetection of ventricular fibrillation after a subthreshold first shock may be delayed. Device testing with intentional delivery of subthreshold shocks to verify successful postshock redetection of ventricular fibrillation should be performed routinely in all patients.

Infections after cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: observations in 335 patients over 10 years

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of infection after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator and the management of this complication.

SUBJECTS

335 consecutive patients who had a cardioverter-defibrillator implanted between January 1984 and December 1993.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incidence of infection within the first month after implantation (early infection) and after the first month (late infection).

RESULTS

Infections associated with cardioverter-defibrillator devices occurred in 13 patients (3.9%) during a mean follow up of 22 (11) months. All patients had general signs of inflammation, fever (> 37.5 degrees C), and leucocytosis (> 10,000/ml) with or without purulent drainage. Five patients (38%) had infections during the first implantation, whereas eight patients (62%) had infections after replacement of the pulse generator. Early infection was observed in four patients (31%) and late infection in nine (69%). Incidence of infection was higher in patients who underwent epicardial cardioverter-defibrillator implantation (12/207 patients, 5.8%) than in those who received nonthoracotomy lead systems (1/125 patients, 0.8%) (P < 0.05). Infections were caused by staphyloccocus in 10 patients, pseudomonas in two patients, and streptococcus in one patient. The whole device had to be removed in all patients. During a mean follow up of 39 (29) months seven patients died: six of congestive heart failure and one of myocardial reinfarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Infection, one of the most serious complications after cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. When infection occurs the system must be removed to avoid a fatal outcome.

Initial clinical experience with a dual lead endocardial defibrillation system with atrial pace/sense capability. United States and Canada Enguard Investigations

Ninety-three patients underwent implants of the Telectronics Model 4211 ICD attached to the Enguard PFX endocardial defibrillation lead system. Eighty-one males and 12 females ranging in age from 25-85 years (mean = 64). Coronary disease was the substrate in the majority (88%); mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 30%. VT was present in 66%, VF in 22%, and both in 7%. Three lead configurations were used in the study: ventriculo-atrial (U1, 86%); bidirectional (B2, 12%); and ventricular to patch (U2, 2%). Mean RV pacing thresholds were 0.46 V pre- and 0.54 V posttesting, with no significant differences between the two. Mean R wave voltage was 11.05 mV pre- and 11.72 mV posttesting, also not significantly different. A subgroup of 13 patients had mean atrial pacing thresholds of 0.59 V at 0.5 msec pulse width, with mean P waves of 4.01 mV. Mean defibrillation threshold for the entire group was 10.6 J using biphasic waveforms. Defibrillation thresholds by configuration were: 399 V (U1); 475 V (U2); and 350 V (B2). All patients but one had thresholds < 550 V in at least one configuration. The 4211/Enguard system was implanted without (86%) or with (14%) a subcutaneous patch electrode. Early postoperative findings related to the ICD system include: one device circuit failure, one early lead dislodgement, and one pacing exist block.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Epicardial and nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems combined with a cardioverter defibrillator

The intraoperative and long-term results were reviewed in 67 patients who underwent implantation of the Ventritex Cadence defibrillator with either epicardial patch (EPI, 25 patients) or nonthoracotomy CPI Endotak (ENDO, 42 patients) defibrillation lead systems. In the ENDO group, 35 patients (83%) had a defibrillation threshold (DFT) of < or = 20 joules and did not require a subcutaneous patch. Intraoperatively, the DFT was 13 +/- 9 joules (mean +/- SD) for EPI and 15 +/- 8 joules for ENDO (P = NS). There was no perioperative death in either group. During a mean follow-up of 12 +/- 8 months, there was no sudden death, and four patients died from congestive heart failure (3 EPI, 1 ENDO). During follow-up, 875 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes (AE) occurred in 15 of 25 EPI patients (60%), versus 652 in 28 of 42 ENDO patients (67%; P = NS). Ventricular tachycardia at a rate > or = 222 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation represented 167 AE for EPI (19%) and 182 AE for ENDO (28%), and was terminated by the first shock in 76% and 75% of attempts, respectively. Ventricular tachycardia at a rate < 222 beats/min represented a total of 1,178 AE and antitachycardia pacing was successful in 660 of 708 AE (93%) with EPI and 414 of 470 AE (88%) with ENDO lead systems (P = NS). Therefore, a nonthoracotomy approach using the Cadence V-100 is safe and effective and has clinical results that are not significantly different from epicardial defibrillation lead systems.

One-incision approach for insertion of implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The placement of a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) system through a single infraclavicular skin incision has been a surgical goal for years. The development of a new investigational model of ICD with substantially reduced dimensions (volume, 83 cm3; mass, 132 g) has made the one-incision approach a clinical reality. Between March and September 1993, 4 female and 19 male patients (mean age, 60 +/- 9.6 years; range, 46 to 73 years) underwent implantation of this device for the treatment of ventricular fibrillation (n = 14) or ventricular tachycardia (n = 9). One transvenous lead was placed in the right ventricular apex and another in the left subclavian vein. A subpectoral pocket was formed in the infraclavicular area from the same incision to house the ICD generator and, if necessary, the subcutaneous patch. The mean operation time (81.5 +/- 32.7 minutes; range, 54 to 195 minutes) was significantly shorter than that noted for a previous series made up of patients undergoing traditional transvenous ICD implantations. In 20 patients (87%), endovenous defibrillation without a subcutaneous patch successfully caused externally induced ventricular fibrillation to revert with a mean minimum energy output of 21.9 +/- 3.5 J (range, 12 to 24 J). Endovenous defibrillation was more successful when biphasic (n = 16/17 [94%]) shocks rather than monophasic shocks (n = 4/6 [67%]) were used. No mortality, morbidity, or surgical complications were observed. These results indicate that the one-incision approach and the small size of the ICD generator can substantially facilitate ICD implantation and result in a reduction in the surgical trauma, the operation time, and the amount of material implanted.

Three-year outcome of a nonthoracotomy approach to cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in 189 consecutive patients

To date, no long-term clinical data have been published in patients undergoing a nonthoracotomy approach to cardioverter-defibrillator system implantation. In the present report, 189 consecutive patients prospectively underwent a standardized approach to cardioverter-defibrillator system implantation in which the nonthoracotomy configurations were tested first. If satisfactory defibrillation thresholds were not obtained, thoracotomy was performed during the same intraoperative session. A nonthoracotomy system was successfully implanted in 149 of 189 patients (79%), with a higher success rate (90%) observed in patients who had more recent implantations. The overall rate of complications associated with these systems was low (11%). Over a mean follow-up of 12.5 +/- 9.3 months, 17 patients (9%) died. Three-year total, cardiac, and sudden death-free actuarial survival for all patients was 83 +/- 11%, 88 +/- 7%, and 94 +/- 2%, respectively. Three-year sudden death-free actuarial survival was higher in the nonthoracotomy than in the thoracotomy patients (97 +/- 2% vs 87 +/- 6%, p = 0.047), although total survival was similar (77 +/- 11% vs 83 +/- 7%, p = 0.77). These data suggest that a majority of patients (> 80%) requiring a cardioverter-defibrillator system can undergo implantation using a nonthoracotomy approach. Patients receiving nonthoracotomy systems have 3-year outcomes comparable to those implanted via thoracotomy. If these results are maintained, a nonthoracotomy approach will supplant thoracotomy-implanted systems as the preferred method because of the simpler implant procedure and lower overall cost involved.

Role of antitachycardia pacing in patients with third generation cardioverter defibrillators

The most effective antitachycardia pacing (ATP) mode is still a matter of debate. Randomized prospective testing of 3 different ATP modes was performed in 65 patients (pts) prior to and after cardioverter defibrillator implantation (Ventak PRx 36 pts, Cadence V 100 29 pts). All 3 ATP modes included 4 stimulation attempts with 4-7 adaptive scanning burst pulses. Adaptive burst coupling interval was 75% in mode A, 81% in mode B and 69% in mode C. Autodecremental scanning within bursts was 8 msec in all, decremental scanning between bursts was 8 msec in modes B and C. Each ATP mode had to be tested 3 times; all 3 ATP modes were randomly applied to each pt. During preoperative testing 91 of 133 VT episodes (68%) could be terminated by ATP. Termination was achieved in 68% with mode A, 68% with mode B and 73% with mode C. During predischarge testing, 251 VTs were induced and ATP was successful in 147 VTs (59%). Termination rate was 56% with mode A, 68% with mode B and 50% with mode C. During the mean follow-up of 12 months, 2301 arrhythmia episodes (AE) occurred. ATP was performed in 2097 AE (91%) and successful in 1920 AE (92%). Acceleration of VT occurred in 65 AE (3%) and unsuccessful ATP was observed in 112 AE (5%). It is concluded that ATP in general is highly effective in pts with sustained VT. None of the tested ATP modes, however, proved to be superior to the other.