Incidence of lead system malfunction detected during implantable defibrillator generator replacement

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.

Innovative Techniques for Placement of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads in Patients with Limited Venous Access to the Heart

BACKGROUND

Because of venous occlusion, intracardiac shunting, previous surgery, or small size placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads may not be possible using traditional methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and describe innovative methods of placing ICD leads.

METHODS

The records of all patients undergoing ICD implantation at our institution were reviewed to identify patients with nontraditional lead placement. Indications for ICD, method of lead and coil placement, defibrillation thresholds, complications, and follow-up results were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Eight patients (aged 11 months to 29 years) were identified. Six patients with limited venous access to the heart (four extracardiac Fontan, one bidirectional Glenn, one 8 kg 11-month-old) underwent surgical placement of an ICD coil directly into the pericardial sac. A second bipolar lead was placed on the ventricle for sensing and pacing. Two patients with difficult venous access had a standard transvenous ICD lead inserted directly into the right atrium (transatrial approach) and then positioned into the ventricle. All patients had a defibrillation threshold of <20 J, although one patient required placement of a second coil due to an elevated threshold. There have been no complications and two successful appropriate ICD discharges at follow-up (median 22 months, range 5-42 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Many factors may prohibit transvenous ICD lead placement. Nontraditional surgical placement of subcutaneous ICD leads on the pericardium or the use of a transatrial approach can be effective techniques in these patients. These procedures can be performed at low risk to the patient with excellent defibrillation thresholds.

Prevalence of central venous occlusion in patients with chronic defibrillator leads

BACKGROUND

Many patients with previously implanted ventricular defibrillators are candidates for an upgrade to a device capable of atrial-ventricular sequential or multisite pacing. The prevalence of venous occlusion after placement of transvenous defibrillator leads is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of central venous occlusion in asymptomatic patients with chronic transvenous defibrillator leads.

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients with a transvenous defibrillator lead underwent bilateral contrast venography of the cephalic, axillary, subclavian, and brachiocephalic veins as well as the superior vena cava before an elective defibrillator battery replacement. The mean time between transvenous defibrillator lead implantation and venography was 45 +/- 21 months. Sixteen patients had more than 1 lead in the same subclavian vein. No patient had clinical signs of venous occlusion.

RESULTS

One (3%) patient had a complete occlusion of the subclavian vein, 1 (3%) patient had a 90% subclavian vein stenosis, 2 (7%) patients had a 75% to 89% subclavian stenosis, 11 (37%) patients had a 50% to 74% subclavian stenosis, and 15 (50%) patients had no subclavian stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The low prevalence of subclavian vein occlusion or severe stenosis among defibrillator recipients found in this study suggests that the placement of additional transvenous leads in a patient who already has a ventricular defibrillator is feasible in a high percentage of patients (93%).

Prevention of ventricular arrhythmias in the congenital long QT syndrome

Life-long therapy is necessary for patients with symptomatic long QT syndrome to prevent arrhythmic death. The merits and limitations of the different therapeutic modalities are discussed. beta-blockers remain the mainstay of therapy, but this medication may not be sufficient for cardiac arrest survivors and for those with the LQT3 genotype. "Genotype-specific" therapy, like potassium-channel openers for patients with inadequate potassium outflow (LQT1 and LQT2 genotypes) or sodium-channel blockers for patients with excessive sodium inflow (LQT3), significantly shortens the QT interval, but the effects of these drugs on arrhythmia prevention is less well established. Cardiac pacemakers may be especially beneficial for patients with LQT2 or LQT3 and for those with pause-dependent torsade de pointes. More important is to recognize that device programming for preventing tachyarrhythmias in patients with long QT differs from the standard pacemaker programming. Finally, implantable defibrillators with dual-chamber pacing capability are indicated for patients at high risk for arrhythmic death, including all cardiac arrest survivors.

Replacing abdominally implanted defibrillators: effect of procedure setting on cost

Although most ICDs are currently placed using a pectoral approach, there exists a large population of patients with abdominally implanted ICDs who will require device replacement due to a depleted battery. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost, convalescence, and complication rate of replacing abdominally implanted ICDs in the OR versus the EP laboratory. Between August 1993 and September 1994, we prospectively enlisted nine consecutive patients who presented for their second ICD generator replacement and who had a prior generator replacement in the OR 3-4 years earlier. The mean age of the patients was 63 +/- 17 years and their mean ejection fraction was 37% +/- 15%. ICD replacement was performed in the EP laboratory and consisted of explanting the old device, electronic interrogation of the lead system, and confirmation of defibrillation thresholds prior to implanting a new device. Local anesthesia was provided by lidocaine infiltration and sedation was achieved with intravenous (i.v.) midazolam and fentanyl. Following the procedure, the patients were returned to an outpatient monitored setting for 4 hours and were then discharged. Comparisons of the health care charges for the same procedure performed in the two different settings revealed a significant reduction in physician fees (from $3,621 +/- $556 to $2,179 +/- $577, P < 0.05), in hospital charges (from $5,811 +/- $1,102 to $2,306 +/- 696, P < 0.05), and in total charges (from $9,431 +/- $1,375 to $4,541 +/- $1,010, P < 0.05), exclusive of ICD cost, when the procedure was performed on an outpatient basis in the EP laboratory. Inpatient days averaged 3.0 +/- 0.3 when the procedure was performed in the OR. On long-term follow-up there were no complications following abdominal ICD generator replacement in the OR (mean follow-up, 39 +/- 2 months) or in the EP laboratory (mean follow-up, 42 +/- 4 months). Thus, ICD replacements in the EP laboratory cost less than in the OR due to significantly lower physician fees, hospital charges, and a shorter postprocedural convalescence.

Long-term evaluation of the ventricular defibrillation energy requirement

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation energy requirements in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillators may increase within several months after implantation. However, the stability of the defibrillation energy requirement beyond 1 year has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to characterize the defibrillation energy requirement during 2 years of clinical follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-one consecutive patients with a biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillation system underwent defibrillation energy requirement testing using a step-down technique (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 J) during defibrillator implantation, and then 24 hours, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years after implantation. The mean defibrillation energy requirement during these evaluations was 10.9+/-5.5 J, 12.3+/-7.3 J, 11.7+/-5.6 J, 10.2+/-4.0 J, and 11.7+/-7.4 J, respectively (P = 0.4). The defibrillation energy requirement was noted to have increased by 10 J or more after 2 years of follow-up in five patients. In one of these patients, the defibrillation energy requirement was no longer associated with an adequate safety margin, necessitating revision of the defibrillation system. There were no identifiable clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who did and did not develop a 10-J or more increase in the defibrillation energy requirement.

CONCLUSION

The mean defibrillation energy requirement does not change significantly after 2 years of biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillator system implantation. However, approximately 15% of patients develop a 10-J or greater elevation in the defibrillation energy requirement, and 3% may require a defibrillation system revision. Therefore, a yearly evaluation of the defibrillation energy requirement may be appropriate.

Polymorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the absence of organic heart disease: classification, differential diagnosis, and implications for therapy

Different polymorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmias may cause syncope or cardiac arrest in patients with no heart disease: (1) Catecholamine-sensitive polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) presents during childhood: the hallmark is the reproducible provocation of atrial and polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias during exercise, despite a normal QT. Beta-blockers are the treatment of choice. (2) In the long QT syndromes (LQTS), malfunction of ion channels leads to prolonged ventricular repolarization, early afterdepolarizations, and triggered ventricular arrhythmias. Therapeutic options include: beta-blockers, genotype-specific therapy, cardiac sympathetic denervation, and implantation of pacemakers or defibrillators. (3) The "short-coupled variant of torsade de pointes" is a malignant disease that shares several characteristics with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. Although verapamil is frequently recommended, mortality rates remain high. (4) Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (VF) with normal electrocardiogram (ECG) strikes young adults of both genders. In contrast to other polymorphic tachyarrhythmias, idiopathic VF is not generally related to stress. Also, familial involvement is rare. Therapeutic options include implantation of defibrillators and therapy with class 1A drugs. (5) The "Brugada syndrome" and the "syndrome of nocturnal sudden death" strike males almost exclusively. Right bundle branch block (RBBB) with ST elevation in the right precordial leads-the "Brugada sign"--is seen in the ECG of both patient populations. Implantation of defibrillators is recommended.

Incidence and implications of abrasion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads

Severe abrasion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads is frequently found during abdominal generator replacement and occasionally results in lead system failure. Careful inspection of leads at the time of generator replacement will identify such abrasions, and, in some cases, lead repair or replacement may be indicated.