The pacer-cardioverter-defibrillator: function and clinical experience

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have evolved from the treatment of last resort to the gold standard therapy for patients at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. High-risk patients include those who have survived life-threatening arrhythmias, and individuals with cardiac diseases who are at risk for such arrhythmias, but are symptomless. Use of an ICD will affect the patient's quality of life. Some drugs can substantially affect defibrillator function and efficacy, and possible drug-device interactions should be considered. Patients with ICDs may encounter cell phones, antitheft detectors, and many other sources of potential electromagnetic Interference. In addition to treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias, new defibrillators provide full featured dual chamber pacing, and could treat atrial arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure by means of biventricular pacing.

Defibrillator challenges for the new millennium: the marriage of device and patient-making and maintaining a good match

Although it has become clear that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are effective, important challenges remain for the physician. Due to the limitations of available risk stratification tools, patient selection for primary sudden death prevention remains controversial in many populations. Additionally, the proliferation of device choices has led to challenges in matching the appropriate device to the individual patient: device size is balanced against longevity; the advantages of dual chamber systems is weighed against their increased complexity; physician and patient preferences in device implant site are constrained by site-dependent effects on defibrillation effectiveness and lead failure rates; and special consideration must be given to the patient with a preexisting pacemaker. After ICD placement, determination of appropriate follow-up frequency and methodology to assess device function must be considered. This article will review patient selection, device implant site selection, device-device interactions, single versus dual chamber ICD selection, and follow-up.

Factors affecting the frequency of subcutaneous lead usage in implantable defibrillators

Subcutaneous leads (SQ) add complexity to the defibrillation system and the implant procedure. New low output devices might increase the requirement for SQ arrays, although this might be offset by the effects of active can and biphasic technology. This study sought to assess the impact of these technologies on SQ lead usage, and to determine if clinical variables could predict the need for an SQ lead. Patients receiving nonthoracotomy systems (n = 554) at our institution underwent step-down-to-failure DFT testing with implant criteria of a 10-J safety margin. SQ leads were used only after several endovascular configurations failed. Use of biphasic waveforms significantly lowered the frequency of use of SQ leads from 48% to 3.7% (P < 0.000001). SQ leads were required in 4.4% of patients with cold can devices and 2.6% of patients with active can devices (P = NS). There was no increase in SQ lead usage with low energy (< 30-J delivered energy) devices. Clinical variables (including EF, heart disease, arrhythmia, and prior bypass) did not predict the need for an SQ lead. The implant DFT using SQ arrays (14.5 +/- 6.5 J) was not significantly lower than that for SQ patches (16.6 + 6.0 J). We conclude that biphasic waveforms significantly reduce the need for SQ leads. Despite this reduction, 3.7% of implants still use an SQ lead to achieve adequate safety margins. The introduction of lower output devices has not increased the need for SQ leads, and when an SQ lead is required, there is not a significant difference in the implant DFT of patches versus arrays. Clinical variables cannot predict which patients require SQ leads.

Are routine arrhythmia inductions necessary in patients with pectoral implantable cardioverter defibrillators?

INTRODUCTION

The value of ventricular arrhythmia inductions as part of routine implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up in new-generation pectoral ICDs is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database analyzing data from 153 patients with pectoral ICDs who had routine arrhythmia inductions at predismissal, and 3 months and 1 year after implantation. Routine predismissal ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction yielded important findings in 8.8% of patients, all in patients with implantation defibrillation threshold (DFT) > or = 15 J or with concomitant pacemaker systems. At 3 months and 1 year, routine VF induction yielded important findings in 5.9% and 3.8% of tested patients, respectively, all in patients who had high DFT on prior testing. Ventricular tachycardia (VT) induction at predismissal, and 3 months and 1 year after implantation resulted in programming change in 37.4%, 28.1%, and 13.8% of tested patients, almost all in patients with inducible VT on baseline electrophysiologic study and clinical episodes since implantation.

CONCLUSION

Although helpful in identifying potentially important ICD malfunctions, routine arrhythmia inductions during the first year after ICD implantation may not be necessary in all cases. VF inductions have a low yield in patients with previously low DFTs who lack concomitant pacemakers. VT inductions have a low yield in patients without baseline inducible VT and in the absence of clinical events. Definite recommendations regarding patient selection must await larger prospective studies as well as consensus in the medical community about what comprises an acceptable risk justifying avoidance of the costs and inconveniences of routine arrhythmia inductions.

Defibrillation thresholds are increased by right-sided implantation of totally transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Whether an ICD is placed via a left- or right-sided approach depends on venous access, the presence of a preexisting pacemaker, and other factors. Since the DFT is affected by lead position, which in turn is determined in part by the side of access, right-sided venous access could adversely affect DFTs. Furthermore, right-sided active can placement directs electric current toward the right hemithorax, which could further increase DFTs. This study sought to determine whether DFTs were increased by right-sided vascular access, and whether active can technology was beneficial or detrimental with right-sided ICD placement. Stepdown to failure DFTs were found in 290 patients receiving transvenous systems at the time of initial ICD implantation. Of these, 271 (93%) received left-sided systems and 19 (7%) received right-sided systems. The mean DFT in systems placed via left-sided vascular access was 11.3 +/- 5.3 J versus 17.0 +/- 4.9 J for right-sided implantation (P < 0.0001); right-sided DFTs were elevated for both active can and cold can systems. Right-sided active can devices had a lower DFT than right-sided cold can systems (15 +/- 4.1 J vs 19 +/- 4.8 J, P = 0.05). The right-sided implantation of implantable defibrillators results in significantly higher DFTs than the left-sided approach. This may be due to the less favorable distribution of the defibrillating field relative to the myocardium with the devices on the right. When right-sided implantation is clinically mandated, active can devices result in lower thresholds and should be used.