Total pectoral implantation: a new technique for implantation of transvenous defibrillator lead systems and implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Evidence-Based Strategies to Promote Long-Term Cardiac Implant Site Health: Review of the Literature

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are commonly used nowadays. The association between CIED placement and infections is responsible for the high mortality and device explantation rate. Since CIED placement has increased in the past decade, CIED-related complications have risen. In order to reduce the CIED-related complications rate, the prevention of device infection represents the main goal. Over time, many different studies have proven the importance of the measures to prevent CIED-related infections. This review aims to collect the actual recommendations for CIED infection prevention, providing an overview of the main evidence-based strategies.

Subpectoral Implantation of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Device: A Reasonable Alternative for the Conventional Prepectoral Approach

BACKGROUND

The prepectoral implantation technique has been the standard procedure for cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED). However, it cannot be performed in such patients with thin skin or patients with cosmetic concerns. This study was designed to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the subpectoral compared to the prepectoral approach.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, nonrandomized comparison of the prepectoral (234 cases) and subpectoral approach (32 cases) in patients who received CIED implantation at a tertiary center between July 2012 and May 2015. We compared lead characteristics, procedure time and complications between the subpectoral and prepectoral approach.

RESULTS

In the subpectoral group, two complications were observed, whereas six complications were found in the prepectoral group (2/32 vs. 6/234, respectively, p=0.25). In the subpectoral group, one patient developed wound infection and the others were safely conducted without any complications. In the prepectoral group, two patients developed hemopericardium, three developed pocket hematoma requiring surgical revision, and one developed a pneumothorax. Procedure time in the subpectoral group took longer than that in the prepectoral group (150±50 min versus 91±49 min, p=0.06). In lead characteristics, there were no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The subpectoral approach is technically feasible and non-inferior to the prepectoral approach, in the aspect of complication and lead characteristics, but seemed to take more procedure time. The subpectoral approach is a more reasonable choice for selected patients in whom the prepectoral approach is not feasible or in individuals who have cosmetic concerns.

Perioperative management for the prevention of bacterial infection in cardiac implantable electronic device placement

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have become important in the treatment of cardiac disease and placement rates increased significantly in the last decade. However, despite the use of appropriate antimicrobial prophylaxis, CIED infection rates are increasing disproportionately to the implantation rate. CIED infection often requires explantation of all hardware, and at times results in death. Surgical site infection (SSI) is the most common cause of CIED infection as a pocket infection. The best method of combating CIED infection is prevention. Prevention of CIED infections comprises three phases: before, during, and after device implantation. The most critical factors in the prevention of SSIs are detailed operative techniques including the practice of proper technique by the surgeon and surgical team.

[Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?]

Due to bulky generator size, abdominal pocket preparation and epicardial defibrillator lead placement, cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation was initially an extensive surgical intervention, which had to be performed in the operating room by cardiac surgeons under general anesthesia. The development of transvenously applicable endocardial defibrillator leads rendered thoracotomy unnecessary. The decrease in generator size enabled pectoral implantation. As a consequence of the simplified surgical procedure, implantation by cardiologists or electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory under local anesthesia and brief deep sedation with preserved spontaneous respiration was made possible. As a result, the implantation techniques of ICDs and pacemakers are converging. The present article illustrates the still existing significant differences between ICD and pacemaker treatment with regard to implantation and follow-up.

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.

Late complications in patients with pectoral defibrillator implants with transvenous defibrillator lead systems: high incidence of insulation breakdown

As the majority of ICDs with transvenous leads are now implanted in the pectoral region, complications associated with the technique are being identified. To determine the incidence of lead complications in patients with transvenous defibrillator leads and ICDs implanted in the pectoral region, 132 unselected consecutive patients with transvenous defibrillator leads had ICDs implanted in the pectoral region. Three lead systems were used: (1) lead system 1 (45 patients) consisted of a transvenous pacing sensing lead and a superior vena cava coil with a submuscular patch used for defibrillation; (2) lead system 2 (36 patients) utilized a CPI Endotak lead system; and (3) lead system 3 (51 patients) utilized a Medtronic Transvene lead system. Patients were followed for 3-54 months (cumulative 2,269, mean 18 months). The average duration of follow-up with the three systems was 32, 12 and 11 months, respectively. At 30 months follow-up, all three lead systems had a low incidence of complications. However, there was a 13% overall incidence (45% actuarial incidence) of erosion of the insulation of the pacing sensing lead of system 1 at 50 months of follow-up. All lead complications were seen in patients with ICDs whose weights were > 195 g and volumes > 115 cc. The erosion was probably a consequence of the pressure by the large ICD against the lead in the pectoral pocket. Follow-up with lead systems 2 and 3 is relatively short (average 12 months) but no lead erosions were seen. Pectoral implantation of ICDs with long transvenous leads and large generators is associated with a moderate risk of late complications in the form of insulation breaks caused by pressure of the generator against the leads. The use of less redundant leads coupled with smaller ICDs will probably eliminate this complication.

Submuscular versus subcutaneous pectoral implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators: effect on high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation efficacy

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators are now routinely positioned in a pectoral location, either submuscularly (under the pectoralis muscles) or subcutaneously (over the pectoralis muscles). Furthermore, in current ICDs, the generator shield usually participates in the defibrillation energy pathway ("hot can"). Consequently, the precise generator location could affect defibrillation system efficacy. To assess this issue, we compared high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation threshold (DFT) in 20 patients undergoing submuscular and 46 patients undergoing subcutaneous pectoral implantation of an Angeion Sentinel ICD and an AngeFlex dual-coil defibrillation lead. Measurements were performed at time of ICD implant, pre-hospital discharge, and 1, 3 and/or 6 months later. Following induction of ventricular fibrillation, 569 biphasic waveform shocks were delivered between the generator shield and either the distal defibrillation coil (RV/can configuration) or both proximal and distal coils (RV/SVC/can configuration). Impedance differences between submuscular and subcutaneous implants were approximately 3-4 Ohms (p value of 0.132 to < 0.001 depending on time of follow-up and lead configuration). A significant increase in impedance over time was noted independent of implant location and lead configuration. The DFT at implant or pre-discharge was assessed in 27 individuals, and was 9.9 +/- 3.8 J in 8 patients in the submuscular group, and 7.4 +/- 3.3 J in 19 patients in the subcutaneous group (p = 0.057). In conclusion, anatomic location of a "hot can" ICD generator (submuscular versus subcutaneous) influences impedance to defibrillation current, but the impact is of small magnitude and does not appear to result in clinically important differences in DFT.

Initial clinical experience with a new small sized third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator: results of a multicenter study. European Ventak Mini Investigator Group

This study reports the acute clinical experience with the new CPI VENTAK MINI: a small sized (68 cc), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with 33 J stored energy. Implantation of the device was attempted in 113 patients (90 men, mean age 57 +/- 16 years, 64 with coronary artery disease, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 41%) with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VF). All 113 patients (100%) were ultimately implanted, 12% of them for ICD replacement. Transvenous lead implantation was accomplished in all 104 patients (100%) receiving new leads, 95% of them with a single lead configuration. The safety criteria for implantation (2 consecutive VF conversions at 15 J or 3 at 20 J, in both cases without failures to convert) were demonstrated in all but 7 patients (6%). In 6 of these, safety criteria were not fully assessed while in the last patient defibrillation efficacy was not determined. Of the 104 patients with new leads, 90% underwent pectoral implantation. Of the 9 patients (9%) abdominally implanted, only 4 (4%) (3 children) were judged small sized for pectoral implant. At predischarge testing, reliable VF detection and conversion were noted in 96 of 97 patients tested. There was no perioperative mortality. At a 3.6 +/- 1.3 months follow-up, 34% of the patients had a spontaneous arrhythmic event, and 24% of the patients received shocks. Clinically inappropriate therapies occurred in 8% of the episodes in which any kind of therapy was delivered. This study demonstrates the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of the new device, and that pectoral implantation can be performed in the large majority of patients.

Long-term follow-up of cardioverter-defibrillator implanted under conscious sedation in prepectoral subfascial position

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with intravenous electrode systems and downsized generators can be implanted by use of operative techniques similar to those employed for the insertion of permanent pacemakers. However, the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up of simplified implantation procedures remain to be evaluated. This report is a prospective long-term evaluation of nonselected patients receiving ICDs in the prepectoral subfascial position under conscious sedation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Clinical characteristics of the 231 consecutive patients included a mean age of 63 years, a male-to-female ratio of 6.4, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.34, a mild-to-moderate heart failure in 91%, coronary artery disease in 84%, and a history of aborted sudden cardiac death or refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Insertion of transvenous leads and prepectoral subfascial ICD implantation were performed in electrophysiology laboratories under local anesthesia and conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and propofol. Successful implantation in all patients (operation time, 80 +/- 32 minutes, mean +/- SD) irrespective of body size and skin thickness was free of major complications, including need for emergency intubation. After surgery, 1 pocket hematoma, 1 seroma, and 1 pneumothorax required treatment. There was no operative or first-month mortality. During long-term follow-up averaging 453 +/- 296 days, six leads required repositioning, but pocket erosions or infections did not occur. First-year total survival was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation under conscious sedation of ICDs in the prepectoral subfascial position is a safe and effective procedure with low operative and postoperative morbidity and favorable long-term outcome.

Biphasic defibrillation using a single capacitor with large capacitance: reduction of peak voltages and ICD device size

The volume of current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is not convenient for pectoral implantation. One way to reduce the size of the pulse generator is to find a more effective defibrillation pulse waveform generated from smaller volume capacitors. In a prospective randomized crossover study we compared the step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) of a standard biphasic waveform (STD), delivered by two 250-microF capacitors connected in series with an 80% tilt, to an experimental biphasic waveform delivered by a single 450-microF capacitor with a 60% tilt. The experimental waveform delivered the same energy with a lower peak voltage and a longer duration (LVLD). Intraoperatively, in 25 patients receiving endocardial (n = 12) or endocardial-subcutaneous array (n = 13) defibrillation leads, the DFT was determined for both waveforms. Energy requirements did not differ at DFT for the STD and LVLD waveforms with the low impedance (32 +/- 4 omega) endocardial-subcutaneous array defibrillation lead system (6.4 +/- 4.4 J and 5.9 +/- 4.2 J, respectively) or increased slightly (P = 0.06) with the higher impedance (42 +/- 4 omega) endocardial lead system (10.4 +/- 4.6 J and 12.7 +/- 5.7 J, respectively). However, the voltage needed at DFT was one-third lower with the LVLD waveform than with the STD waveform for both lead systems (256 +/- 85 V vs 154 +/- 51 V and 348 +/- 76 V vs 232 +/- 54 V, respectively). Thus, a single capacitor with a large capacitance can generate a defibrillation pulse with a substantial lower peak voltage requirement without significantly increasing the energy requirements. The volume reduction in using a single capacitor can decrease ICD device size.

Internal defibrillation with smaller capacitors: a prospective randomized cross-over comparison of defibrillation efficacy obtained with 90-microF and 125-microF capacitors in humans

INTRODUCTION

The size of current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is still large in comparison to pacemakers and thus not convenient for pectoral implantation. One way to reduce ICD size is to defibrillate with smaller capacitors. A trade-off exists, however, since smaller capacitors may generate a lower maximum energy output.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a prospective randomized cross-over study, the step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) of an experimental 90-microF biphasic waveform was compared to a standard 125-microF biphasic waveform. The 90-microF capacitor delivered the same energy faster and with a higher peak voltage but provided only a maximum energy output of 20 instead of 34 J. DFTs were determined intraoperatively in 30 patients randomized to receive either an endocardial (n = 15) or an endocardial-subcutaneous array (n = 15) defibrillation lead system. Independent of the lead system used, energy requirements did not differ at DFT for the experimental and the standard waveforms (10.3 +/- 4.1 and 9.5 +/- 4.9 J, respectively), but peak voltages were higher for the experimental waveform than for the standard waveform (411 +/- 80 and 325 +/- 81 V, respectively). For the experimental waveform the DFT w as 10 J or less using an endocardial lead-alone system in 10 (67%) of 15 patients and in 12 (80%) of 15 patients using an endocardial-subcutaneous array lead system.

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter duration waveform delivered by smaller capacitors does not increase defibrillation energy requirements and might reduce device size. However, the smaller capacitance reduces the maximum energy output. If a 10-J safety margin between DFT and maximum energy output of the ICD is required, only a subgroup of patients will benefit from 90-microF ICDs with DFTs feasible using current defibrillation lead systems.

Optimizing defibrillation through improved waveforms

Defibrillation of the heart is achieved if an electrical current depolarizes the majority of the unsynchronized fibrillating myocardial cells. The applied current or the corresponding voltage described as a function of time is called the waveform. In pacing, to stimulate myocardial cells close to the electrode, a relatively low voltage is needed for a relatively brief duration. However, in defibrillation, approximately a 100-fold higher voltage is needed and achieved by the use of capacitors. The exponential voltage decay of a capacitor during its discharge determines the basic waveform for defibrillation. In an attempt to lower the energy needed for defibrillation, the steepness of the decay (different capacitances), the duration (fixed duration waveforms) or tilt (fixed tilt waveforms), or the initial polarity can be changed. Additionally, the polarity of the electrodes can be reversed during the discharge of the capacitor once (biphasic waveform) or twice (triphasic waveform). If two capacitors and defibrillation pathways are available, bidirectional defibrillation pulses can be delivered sequentially. In humans, the original standard waveform used with endocardial leads was a single monophasic pulse delivered by a 125-microF capacitor using the endocardial right ventricular electrode as cathode. It is now known that a reversal of the initial polarity and a reversal of polarity during capacitor discharge may significantly lower the energy needed for defibrillation, thereby preventing formerly frequent failures of defibrillation with endocardial lead systems. The use of sequential pulses showed no or only slight reductions of energy requirements and was abandoned due to the additional electrode needed. The use of a smaller capacitance (60-90 microF reduced maximum energy output but generally did not reduce energy requirements for defibrillation. However, with more efficient electrodes, smaller capacitances that will help to reduce the size of the defibrillator might be used. Thus, today defibrillation is optimized with respect to energy, capacitor size, and ease of implantation if an approximately 90-microF capacitor is used to deliver a biphasic pulse via a bipolar lead system using the right ventricular electrode as anode.

Technique for implantation of cardioverter defibrillators in the subpectoral position

The downsized cardioverter defibrillators in early clinical trials in the United States are smaller and lighter than approved cardioverter defibrillators, but they remain relatively bulky. Prepectoral implantation of these devices may increase the risk of erosion, particularly in those patients with cardiac cachexia. This report describes a versatile technique for submuscular pectoral cardioverter defibrillator implantation using a lateral approach to the subpectoral space that has been used in 6 patients. Alternative surgical approaches for pectoral cardioverter defibrillator implantation and potential problems with these techniques are discussed.

Subpectoral implantation of ICD generators: long-term follow-up

A nonthoracotomy surgical approach using an endocardial electrode and combined implantation of a subcutaneous patch and the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator in a subpectoral pocket has been described. We report the long-term follow-up results in patients undergoing implantation using this approach. The patient population consisted of 28 patients (22 men and 6 women) with a mean age of 59 +/- 12 years. The underlying heart disease consisted of coronary artery disease in 20 patients and dilated cardiomyopathy in 8 patients. Sustained ventricular tachycardia was the mode of presentation in 16 patients and sudden cardiac death in 12 patients. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31% +/- 6%. The lead system consisted of an 8 French bipolar passive fixation rate sensing lead positioned at the right ventricular apex, an 11 French spring coil electrode positioned at the superior vena cava-right atrial junction (surface area 700 mm2), and submuscular placement of a large patch (surface area 28 cm2) on the anterolateral chest wall near the cardiac apex via a submammary incision. A defibrillation threshold of < or = 15 joules (J) was required for implantation. This criterion was not satisfied in five patients; thus, a limited thoracotomy was performed via the submammary incision, and the large patch was placed epicardially. The mean R wave amplitude was 12 +/- 3 mV, the mean pacing threshold was 1.0 +/- 0.5 V at 0.5 msec, and the mean defibrillation threshold was 12.6 +/- 3 J. ICD generators implanted were the Ventak-P in 17, PCD-7217 in 5, and the Cadence V-100 in 6 patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Radiological appearances of implantable defibrillator systems

Implantable defibrillator systems have been used in over 20,000 patients worldwide. Such systems use a variety of different electrodes and the identification of these and the recognition of associated problems with them presents a challenge to the radiologist. The appearance of currently available implantable defibrillation systems and the use of radiological examination in patient follow-up and system troubleshooting is discussed based on our experience with a large population of patients receiving these devices. Radiological examination is excellent for demonstrating displacement of distortion of defibrillation electrodes, but in our experience is ineffective for the identification of lead conductor fractures.

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.

Electrophysiological laboratory, electrophysiologist-implanted, nonthoracotomy-implantable cardioverter/defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) have conventionally been implanted in the operating room by surgeons. However, technological developments have reduced size and increased simplicity, bringing the procedure into the realm of the electrophysiologist. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of implantation of the entire ICD system by electrophysiologists in an electrophysiology laboratory.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between July 1993 and February 1994, 23 patients (21 men; age, 64 +/- 11 years) underwent transvenous ICD implantation by electrophysiologists working alone, entirely in the electrophysiology laboratory. Indications for ICD were sudden death in 10 patients, uncontrolled life-threatening ventricular tachycardia in 12, and syncope with cardiomyopathy and familial sudden death in 1. Seventeen patients had coronary artery disease and a past history of acute myocardial infarction. Four patients had idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, 1 had coronary ectasia and poor left ventricular function, and another had poor left ventricular function related to valvular dysfunction. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 34 +/- 10% (range, 20% to 50%). General anesthesia was administered in 22 cases, and deep sedation was used in 1 elderly patient. After positioning of transvenous leads and subcutaneous patch/array lead positioning, defibrillation testing was performed. After transvenous and subcutaneous lead tunneling, all generators were placed subcutaneously in an abdominal pocket. The mean total time in the electrophysiology laboratory was 254 +/- 68 minutes (range, 150 to 375 minutes), with 104 +/- 42 minutes for anesthetic and other preparation, 159 +/- 45 minutes for implantation, and 8.7 +/- 5 minutes (range, 3 to 25 minutes) of fluoroscopy required for positioning of transvenous and subcutaneous lead systems. Implant times showed a significant improvement when the first 10 cases (188 +/- 44 minutes) were compared with the last 10 in the series (124 +/- 44 minutes, P < .01). The mean defibrillation threshold was 17 +/- 5 J (range, 5 to 25 J). There were 5 complications (22%): 1 patch-site hematoma, 1 pneumothorax related to subclavian venous puncture, 1 pulmonary embolism, and 2 patients requiring overnight ventilation after hemodynamic deterioration following defibrillation testing. There were no deaths, and there were no infections. The mean time to hospital discharge after the implant was 5.1 +/- 3.5 days. After 11.6 +/- 9 weeks of follow-up, all devices were functioning satisfactorily, all patients had successfully defibrillated at postimplant predischarge checkup with 29 +/- 5 J, and there had been no late complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first report to show that nonthoracotomy ICD implantation may be successfully carried out by electrophysiologists working alone in the electrophysiology laboratory, with a high rate of success and few complications, even in high-risk patients. This high rate of success and safety probably relates to the availability of high-quality fluoroscopy and familiarity with electrophysiology laboratory equipment and personnel.