Italian multicenter clinical experience with endocardial defibrillation: acute and long-term results in 307 patients. The Italian Endotak Investigator Group

Consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association: updated recommendations for driving by patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have an ongoing risk of sudden incapacitation that might cause harm to others while driving a car. Driving restrictions vary across different countries in Europe. The most recent recommendations for driving of ICD patients in Europe were published in 1997 and focused mainly on patients implanted for secondary prevention. In recent years there has been a vast increase in the number of patients with an ICD and in the percentage of patients implanted for primary prevention. The EHRA task force on ICD and driving was formed to reassess the risk of driving for ICD patients based on the literature available. The recommendations are summarized in the following table and are further explained in the document. [table: see text] Driving restrictions are perceived as difficult for patients and their families, and have an immediate consequence for their lifestyle. To increase the adherence to the driving restrictions, adequate discharge of education and follow-up of patients and family are pivotal. The task force members hope this document may serve as an instrument for European and national regulatory authorities to formulate uniform driving regulations.

The dilemma of ICD implant testing

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been induced at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation. Despite its risks, the value was self-evident for early ICDs: failure of defibrillation was common, recipients had a high risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF, and the only therapy for rapid VT or VF was a shock. Today, failure of defibrillation is rare, the risk of VT/VF is lower in some recipients, antitachycardia pacing is applied for fast VT, and vulnerability testing permits assessment of defibrillation efficacy without inducing VF in most patients. This review reappraises ICD implant testing. At implant, defibrillation success is influenced by both predictable and unpredictable factors, including those related to the patient, ICD system, drugs, and complications. For left pectoral implants of high-output ICDs, the probability of passing a 10 J safety margin is approximately 95%, the probability that a maximum output shock will defibrillate is approximately 99%, and the incidence of system revision based on testing is < or = 5%. Bayes' Theorem predicts that implant testing identifies < or = 50% of patients at high risk for unsuccessful defibrillation. Most patients who fail implant criteria have false negative tests and may undergo unnecessary revision of their ICD systems. The first-shock success rate for spontaneous VT/VF ranges from 83% to 93%, lower than that for induced VF. Thus, shocks for spontaneous VT/VF fail for reasons that are not evaluated at implant. Whether system revision based on implant testing improves this success rate is unknown. The risks of implant testing include those related to VF and those related to shocks alone. The former may be due to circulatory arrest alone or the combination of circulatory arrest and shocks. Vulnerability testing reduces risks related to VF, but not those related to shocks. Mortality from implant testing probably is 0.1-0.2%. Overall, VF should be induced to assess sensing in approximately 5% of ICD recipients. Defibrillation or vulnerability testing is indicated in 20-40% of recipients who can be identified as having a higher-than-usual probability of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin based on patient-specific factors. However, implant testing is too risky in approximately 5% of recipients and may not be worth the risks in 10-30%. In 25-50% of ICD recipients, testing cannot be identified as either critical or contraindicated.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) represents an important development in the effort to reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death (almost 400,000 yearly in the United States). Early generation ICDs, which required epicardial lead systems and abdominal placement of the pulse generator, have been replaced by transvenous leads and pectoral implants. Other important refinements, which include biphasic waveforms, extensive memory capability, antitachycardia pacing, and enhanced sensing algorithms, have greatly improved patient tolerance. Ongoing trials and those in the planning stages will continue to expand the indications for ICDs and will focus on cost-effectiveness.

Permanent explantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Although ICD therapy is seen as an irrevocable mode of therapy in most patients, a small number of patients do have their devices permanently explanted. The long-term outcome in these patients has not been described. The purpose of this single center study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of patients whose ICD was explanted and not replaced and to propose clinical variables that can be considered when making the decision to discontinue therapy. Ten of 323 (3.1%) patients in our ICD registry had their devices permanently explanted or turned off between 1986 and December 1998. The devices had been in place for 39 +/- 31 months preexplant. No patient had received appropriate therapy prior to surgery, which was indicated for infection or lead fracture. All patients are alive and well 75 +/- 30 months postexplant with 1 (10%) patient requiring late reimplantation. We reviewed the English language literature describing ICD explanation without replacement. A total of 151 patients were reported in eight studies and were followed for up to 30 months postexplant. Excluding patients with terminal illness or heart transplantation 57.6% survived without reimplantation. In selected patients, after not using an ICD for a long period and when clinical circumstances justify, device therapy may be discontinued with some degree of safety.

Morphology discriminator feature for enhanced ventricular tachycardia discrimination in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The morphology discriminator (MD) feature is an electrogram template matching algorithm that intends to improve tachycardia discrimination in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of this feature during spontaneously occurring ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and exercise induced sinus tachycardia. Twenty-three patients (20 men, 3 women; mean age 54.3 +/- 13.8 years) with pectorally implanted Ventritex Contour MD, Angstrom MD, and Profile MD ICDs were studied. The stability of the acquired morphology template and performance of the algorithm during spontaneous tachyarrhythmias were evaluated at follow-up. A treadmill exercise test was performed in 16 patients along with continuous telemetric monitoring of matching scores. A satisfactory template could be acquired at baseline in 22 (96%) patients. Variations in electrogram morphology necessitated new template acquisition in seven (30%) patients at first follow-up (6-8 weeks postimplant). During a mean follow-up of 9.1 +/- 3.7 months, 56 ventricular tachycardia (VT) and 15 supraventricular tachycardia episodes (sinus tachycardia in two-thirds) in 11 patients were all appropriately discriminated by the MD feature. Exercise testing showed appropriate discrimination of sinus tachycardia in 15 (94%) of 16 patients. A common observation was postshock changes in electrogram morphology that resulted in transient mismatch with the template. In conclusion, the recently introduced MD feature in ICDs has a high sensitivity for detection of VT and high specificity for rejection of sinus tachycardia. Postshock changes in electrogram morphology have been observed that may cause inappropriate redetection. Marked variations of electrogram morphology over time may be a concern in some patients, especially during lead maturation.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

The potential for inappropriate ventricular tachycardia confirmation using the Intracardiac Electrogram (EGM) Width Criterion

The "Intracardiac Electrogram (EGM) Width Criterion," the first digital signal processing feature used in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), is a detection enhancement algorithm that intends to improve ventricular tachycardia (VT) detection specificity by rejecting inappropriately detected supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. The algorithm may be activated after setting the optimal EGM source, slew, and width thresholds based on EGM width testing during sinus rhythm. This study evaluates the accuracy of the EGM width measurements during exercise testing. Twenty-one patients with Medtronic Micro Jewel II Model 7223 ICDs underwent treadmill exercise testing. EGM width testing was repeatedly performed during exercise and recovery to detect potential inappropriate measurements. In seven (33%) patients the EGM Width Criterion inappropriately confirmed VT detection. Eleven patients had inappropriately wide EGM width measurements, but did not satisfy the EGM Width Criterion. The causes of wide EGM width measurements were an actual increase in EGM width and/or inappropriate detection of the baseline irregularities as EGM onset or offset points. Based on our observations, we recommend to test the EGM Width Criterion during exercise testing for optimal ICD programming.

Short- and long-term performance of a tripolar down-sized single lead for implantable cardioverter defibrillator treatment: a randomized prospective European multicenter study. European Endotak DSP Investigator Group

A new, thinner (10 Fr) and more flexible, single-pass transvenous endocardial ICD lead, Endotak DSP, was compared with a conventional lead, Endotak C, as a control in a prospective randomized multicenter study in combination with a nonactive can ICD. A total of 123 patients were enrolled, 55 of whom received a down-sized DSP lead. Lead-alone configuration was successfully implanted in 95% of the DSP patients vs 88% in the control group. The mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined by means of a step-down protocol, and was identical in the two groups, 10.5 +/- 4.8 J in the DSP group versus 10.5 +/- 4.8 J in the control group. At implantation, the DSP mean pacing threshold was lower, 0.51 +/- 0.18 V versus 0.62 +/- 0.35 V (p < 0.05) in the control group, and the mean pacing impedance higher, 594 +/- 110 omega vs 523 +/- 135 omega (p < 0.05). During the follow-up period, the statistically significant difference in thresholds disappeared, while the difference in impedance remained. Tachyarrhythmia treatment by shock or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) was delivered in 53% and 41%, respectively, of the patients with a 100% success rate. In the DSP group, all 28 episodes of polymorphic ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation were converted by the first shock as compared to 57 of 69 episodes (83%) in the control group (p < 0.05). Monomorphic ventricular tachycardias were terminated by ATP alone in 96% versus 94%. Lead related problems were minor and observed in 5% and 7%, respectively. In summary, both leads were safe and efficacious in the detection and treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. There were no differences between the DSP and control groups regarding short- or long-term lead related complications.

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.

Comparison of three different automatic defibrillator implantation approaches: pectoral implantation using conscious sedation reduces procedure times and cost

Recent technological advances in implantable defibrillator systems (ICD) have changed implantation approaches. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of these improvements on procedure times, implant-related charges, patient recovery, and morbidity. Ninety-six consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a nonthoracotomy ICD were studied. Implantation was performed under general anesthesia with the generator placed abdominally in 22 patients (group I) and pectorally in 40 patients (group II). Thirty-four patients underwent pectoral implantation using conscious sedation (group III). Groups were comparable with respect to clinical variables. Implantation duration and total procedure duration were shorter in group III (67 +/- 21 minutes and 117 +/- 30 minutes) when compared with group I (100 +/- 25 minutes and 157 +/- 39 minutes) and group II (86 +/- 24 minutes and 153 +/- 34 minutes, P < 0.05). Patients in group III did not require admission to the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. In contrast, patients in groups I and II spent 92 +/- 28 minutes and 91 +/- 31 minutes in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. Implantation-related charges were reduced in patients having pectoral implantation using conscious sedation ($1451 +/- 217 vs. $2354 +/- 550 and $2796 +/- 384, P < 0.05). Patients in group III had a lower frequency of postoperative oral analgesic use (3.2 +/- 2.7 doses, P < 0.05) and a shortened post-operative length of stay (1.9 +/- 1.6 days, P < 0.05) when compared with groups I (5.7 +/- 4.0 doses and 3.3 +/- 1.4 days) and II (5.2 +/- 3.5 doses and 2.6 +/- 1.1 days). The overall complication rate was low (6.3%), with no differences between groups. Advances in ICD technology have simplified implantation, leading to shorter, less painful, and less expensive procedures.

Predictors of arrhythmic death and cardiac arrest in the ESVEM trial. Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electromagnetic Monitoring

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine if the presenting ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation/cardiac arrest) predicted the type of arrhythmia recurrence in patients treated with antiarrhythmic drugs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the previously reported Electrophysiologic Study Versus Electrocardiographic Monitoring (ESVEM) trial, there were 486 patients who were randomized to antiarrhythmic drug testing guided by electrophysiological study or by ambulatory ECG monitoring. Use of a defibrillator (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, ICD) without stored electrograms among 81 patients precluded determination of the type of arrhythmia recurrence; thus these patients were censored at the time of ICD implantation. Of the 486 patients, 381 presented with ventricular tachycardia and 105 with cardiac arrest. Over a 6-year follow-up period, 285 of the 486 patients had an arrhythmia recurrence; of these, 97 had an arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest as a first recurrence. In the current analysis, all 129 arrhythmic deaths/cardiac arrests that occurred any time during follow-up were evaluated as end points.

CONCLUSIONS

Although univariate analysis suggested that there was an association between the presenting arrhythmia and outcome, multivariate analysis failed to substantiate the predictive value of the presenting arrhythmia. Left ventricular ejection fraction was the single most important predictor of arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest. This information may be an important factor in deciding whether to advise ICD therapy.

Temporary transvenous cardioversion and defibrillation: a new method for practical tachyarrhythmia management

The use of transvenous ICD systems and the recent advances in atrial defibrillation techniques have heightened interest in internal defibrillation. However, most shocks for induced or spontaneous arrhythmias in patients without devices are still delivered transthoracically using high energy. We describe the history of temporary internal defibrillation techniques and report the initial clinical results with a custom built disposable catheter for internal cardioversion and defibrillation. This prototype successfully converted more than 95% of 109 episodes of VT or VF in 28 patients, with biphasic energies < or = 20 J. A newer disposable catheter, using 40-wire Matrix technology as the defibrillating electrode, has design features that provide high surface area, low impedance, and low current density when compared to other leads used for similar purposes. Temporary internal cardioversion-defibrillation of induced and spontaneous arrhythmias using such catheter designs is likely to be widely applicable to patients undergoing electrophysiology procedures and to those in critical care units prone to tachyarrhythmias.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indications in 1996: have they changed?

The recent progress in the technology of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and the excellent clinical results achieved with ICD treatment in the prevention of sudden death have facilitated the wide-spread acceptance and diffusion of this therapeutic modality. However, ICD implantation is a costly therapy and its use is still associated with some important unresolved issues. In particular, owing to the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials, it is not yet known whether ICD really reduces overall mortality. Thus, at the present time, it appears logical to exercise restraint in expanding the use of ICDs as first-choice therapy in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. ICD treatment should be restricted to those well-defined categories of high-risk patients who are most likely to benefit from device implantation in terms of life prolongation. Basically, this means patients with hemodynamically poorly tolerated ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation that are not inducible at electrophysiologic study and those who do not respond to, or do not tolerate, drug therapy with amiodarone, sotalol, or beta blockers. Patients with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation also seem to be suitable candidates for ICD implantation. Other indications for ICD therapy are, as yet, more controversial and should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Transvenous defibrillation lead systems

The use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator has grown dramatically over the past 10 years. One of the major advances in defibrillation technology is the development of transvenous lead systems. Compared with traditional epicardial lead systems, transvenous defibrillation leads reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs. Transvenous lead systems provide reliable sensing of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, although redetection of ventricular fibrillation can be prolonged, especially with integrated lead systems. Both ramp and burst adaptive pacing are equally effective for the termination of ventricular tachycardia and are successful in up to 90% of spontaneous events. Defibrillation thresholds are higher with transvenous leads than with epicardial patches. These thresholds are reduced with the use of multiple transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, or with reversing shock polarity. However, the development of biphasic waveforms has made the largest impact on the efficacy of these lead systems, allowing dual coil transvenous systems to be effective in about 90% of patients. Defibrillation efficacy is further enhanced and implantation simplified by the incorporation of an active pulse generator located in the left pectoral region. Active pectoral pulse generators with biphasic waveforms will be the primary lead system for new implants.