A Prospective Randomized Trial of Defibrillation Thresholds from the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract and the Right Ventricular Apex

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is a routine practice in some Asian countries for patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, there are few long-term data about the necessity of intraoperative DFT testing in an Asian population. We investigated the safety of DFT testing and the long-term clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing ICD implantation.

METHODS

All patients undergoing de novo transvenous ICD implantation were randomized to undergo periprocedural DFT testing. The study included 67 patients (50 males; 51.5 ± 16.9 years) who underwent ICD implantation with (n = 33) or without (n = 34) intraoperative DFT testing between March 2012 and February 2014. We compared first-shock success, composite safety end points (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days), arrhythmic death, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical characteristics and the procedural-related adverse event rate (3.0% with DFT vs. 0% with non-DFT, p = 0.214) did not differ between groups. The programmed output of the first shock was lower in the DFT testing group (22.9 ± 4.4 J vs. 25.3 ± 5.4 J, p = 0.007). However, there were no significant differences between groups for all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.526) or first-shock success rate for ventricular arrhythmia (100% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.471).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no between-group differences in periprocedural safety, complications, and long-term clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that DFT testing in Asian patients allows reduction of the programmed output of the first shock, but does not affect long-term clinical outcomes.

Apical versus Non-Apical Lead: Is ICD Lead Position Important for Successful Defibrillation?

INTRODUCTION

We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2,475 of 2,500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in a lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, P < 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 ohm vs. 728 ohm, P < 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70 V vs. 0.66 V, P = 0.01). Single-coil leads and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity score matched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, P = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.66), or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% P = 0.35) according to lead location.

CONCLUSION

We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead.

[ICD leads]

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads have to fulfill particular requirements: safe pacing and sensing, detection, and termination of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, if necessary by (multiple) high-energy shocks. At the same time, their implantation has to be simple, they need to provide excellent long-term stability and they must be completely and safely extractable. Numerous technical developments have enabled currently available ICD leads to fulfill these expectations to a high extent. However, some changes of lead design, materials, and manufacturing processes have led to increased lead failure, especially in two lead models (Medtronic Sprint Fidelis®, St. Jude Medical Riata®). The high rate of lead failure was identified only several years after market release, in part because there are no appropriate registries of ICD leads. This review presents background and developments of ICD lead technology and their association with the clinical usage of ICD therapy. To also benefit patients with only slightly-to-moderately increased risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia, optimum ICD therapy requires optimal leads and sufficiently experienced implanters.

Predictors of high defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibillator using a transvenous dual-coil lead

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing (DT) is considered a standard procedure during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. However, little is known about the factors that are significantly related to patients with high defibrillation threshold (DFT) using the present triad system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 286 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation with a transvenous dual-coil lead and DT from December 2000 to December 2011. We defined patients who required 25 J or more by the implanted device as the high DFT group, and those who required less than 25 J as the normal DFT group. For each patient, assessment parameters included underlying disease, comorbidities, NYHA functional class, drugs, and echocardiographic measures. The high DFT group consisted of 12 patients (4.2%). Multivariate analysis identified 3 independent predictors for high DFT: atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-22.33, P=0.023), hypertension (OR 4.01, 95% CI 1.08-15.96, P=0.039), thickness of interventricular septum (IVS) >12 mm (OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.17-20.31, P=0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation, hypertension and IVS hypertrophy were significantly associated with high DFT. Identification of such patients could help to lower the risk of complications with DT.

Focus on right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing

Experimental and clinical studies have shown that right ventricular apical pacing may result in long-term deleterious effects on account of its negative impact on left ventricular remodeling through desynchronization. This risk appears more pronounced in patients with even moderate left ventricular dysfunction and generally occurs after at least 1 year of pacing. As right ventricular apical pacing may be associated with the development of organic mitral insufficiency, other sites that allow for more physiological stimulation, such as right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing, have been developed, with good feasibility and reproducibility. However, the prospective randomized studies and meta-analyses to date have only demonstrated a modest effect on ejection fraction in the medium term, without any significant effect on quality of life and morbimortality. However, the absence of a favorable effect for right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing compared with right ventricular apical pacing in terms of clinical manifestations and patient prognosis appears to be more associated with the designs of these studies, which were not homogeneous with regard to methodology used, judgment criteria, follow-up and, especially, statistical power. Two randomized prospective multicentre studies are currently ongoing in order to evaluate the favorable effect of infundibular septal pacing, when considering the indirect negative effects of right ventricular apical pacing as reported in the literature.

A randomized study of defibrillator lead implantations in the right ventricular mid-septum versus the apex: the SEPTAL study

INTRODUCTION

The study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and performance of right ventricular (RV) mid-septal versus apical implantable defibrillator (ICD) lead placement.

METHODS AND RESULTS

SEPTAL is a randomized, noninferiority trial, which randomly assigned patients to implantation of ICD leads in the RV mid-septum versus apex, with a primary objective of comparing the implant success rate of implant at each site, based on strict electrical predefined criteria. We also compared the (1) pacing lead characteristics, (2) rates of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapies, and (3) all-cause mortality between the 2 sites at 1 year. The trial enrolled 215 patients (mean age = 59.7 ± 12.4 years, mean LVEF = 34.0 ± 14.2%, 84.2% men), of whom 148 (68.8%) presented with ischemic heart disease. The ICD indication was primary prevention in 117 patients (54.4%). The lead was successfully implanted in 96/107 patients (89.7%) assigned to the RV mid-septum, and in 99/108 (91.7%) assigned to the apex (ns). The 1-year rate of lead-related adverse events was similar in both groups. A total of 8 first inappropriate ICD therapies (7.9%) were delivered in the RV mid-septal group, versus 8 (7.8%) in the apical group (ns), while first appropriate therapies were delivered to 22 (21.4%) and 24 patients (23.8%), respectively (ns). All-cause mortality was 7.9% in the RV mid-septal versus 2.9% in the RV apical group (ns).

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the technical feasibility and noninferior performance of ICD leads implanted in the RV mid-septum versus the apex.

Pacing the right ventricular outflow tract septum: time to embrace the future

Transvenous pacing has revolutionized the management of patients with potentially life-threatening bradycardias and at its most basic level ensures rate support to maintain cardiac output. However, we have known for at least a decade that pacing from the right ventricle (RV) apex can induce left ventricle (LV) dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and maybe an increased mortality. Although pacemaker manufacturers have developed successful pacing algorithms designed to minimize unnecessary ventricular pacing, it cannot be avoided in a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients. Just as there is undoubted evidence that RV apical pacing is injurious, there is emerging evidence that pacing from the RV septum is associated with a shorter duration of activation, improved haemodynamics, and less LV remodelling. The move from traditional RV apical pacing to RV septal pacing requires a change in mindset for many practitioners. The anatomical landmarks and electrocardiograph features of RV septal pacing are well described and easily recognized. While active fixation is required to place the lead on the septum, shaped stylets are now available to assist the implanter. In addition, concerns about the stability and longevity of steroid-eluting active fixation leads have proven to be unfounded. We therefore encourage all implanters to adopt RV septal pacing to minimize the potential of harm to their patients.

An observational registry on efficacy and safety of the right ventricular outflow tract as a site for ICD leads: results of the EFFORT (EFFicacy Of Right ventricular outflow Tract as site for ICD leads) registry

BACKGROUND

Although pacing from the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) has been shown to be safe and feasible in terms of sensing and pacing thresholds, its use as a site for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads is not common. This is probably due to physicians' concerns about defibrillation efficacy. To date, only one randomized trial, involving 87 enrolled patients, has evaluated this issue.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this observational study has been to compare safety (primary combined end point: efficacy of a 14-J shock in restoring sinus rhythm, R wave amplitude >4 mV and pacing threshold <1 V at 0.5 ms) and efficacy (in terms of effectiveness of a 14-J shock in restoring sinus rhythm after induction of VF, secondary end point) of two different sites for ICD lead positioning: RVOT and right ventricular apex (RVA).

METHODS

The study involved 185 patients (153 males; aged 67 ± 10 years; range, 28-82 years). Site of implant was left to physician's decision. After implant, VF was induced with a 1-J shock over the T wave or--if this method was ineffective--with a 50-Hz burst, and a 14-J shock was tested in order to restore sinus rhythm. If this energy was ineffective, a second shock at 21 J was administered and--eventually--a 31-J shock followed--in case of inefficacy--by a 360-J biphasic external DC shock. Sensing and pacing thresholds were recorded in the database at implant, together with acute (within 3 days of implant) dislodgement rate.

RESULTS

The combined primary end point was reached in 57 patients in the RVOT group (0.70%) and in 81 patients in the RVA group (0.79%). The 14-J shock was effective in 159 patients, 63 in the RVOT group (77%) and 86 in the RVA group (83%). Both the primary and the secondary end points are not statistically different. R wave amplitude was significantly lower in the RVOT group (10.9 ± 5.2 mV vs. 15.6 ± 6.4 mV, p < 0.0001), and pacing threshold at 0.5 ms was significantly higher (0.64 ± 0.25 V vs. 0.52 ± 0.20 V, p < 0.01), but these differences do not seem to have a clinical meaning, given that the lower values are well above the accepted limits in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy and safety of ICD lead positioning in RVOT is comparable to RVA. Even if we observed statistically significant differences in sensing and pacing threshold, the clinical meaning of these differences is--in our opinion--irrelevant.