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

Do abandoned leads pose risk to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator patients?

BACKGROUND

With the increased number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading, lead malfunction is a concern, but the optimal approach to managing nonfunctioning leads is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the rate and characteristics of complications related to abandoned ICD leads.

METHODS

Patients with abandoned leads were identified by retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic ICD database from August 1993 to May 2002. We reviewed the medical records to assess long-term follow-up for venous thromboembolic complications, device sensing malfunction, appropriateness of delivered shocks, defibrillation threshold (DFT) values before and after lead abandonment, and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads.

RESULTS

We identified 78 ICD patients (81% males; mean age 63 +/- 14 years) with 101 abandoned leads (69 in the right ventricle, 31 in the right atrium or superior vena cava, 1 in the coronary sinus). During a mean follow-up of 3.1 +/- 2.0 years, neither sensing malfunction nor venous thromboembolic complications were detected. DFT values were high in 13 patients (17%), but there was no significant increase in mean DFT values before and after lead abandonment in 43 patients for whom both values were available (16.2 +/- 9.2 J before abandonment vs 14.1 +/- 5.5 J after; P = .24). Fourteen patients (18%) required further ICD-related surgery; none of these operations were attributed to abandoned leads. Five-year rates of appropriate and inappropriate shocks were 25.9% and 20.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Abandoning a nonfunctioning lead appears to be safe and does not pose a clinically significant additional risk of future complications.

The body electric: a review of literature on implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The number of scientific research studies expounding the efficacy and effectiveness of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is prolific. The results from clinical trials that have led to the acceptance of implanting the human heart with an ICD are not as convincing as medical science would have health-care consumers believe. There are many other scientific studies that deal with the hazards involved in heart implantation with an ICD. It is argued in this paper that the impact of heart implantation with an ICD is hazardous to a person's being in significant ways. Heart implantation with an ICD is hazardous to physiological wellbeing, to psychosocial wellbeing, and to quality-of-life wellbeing. It is also argued that although humanistic studies are beginning to filter through the maze of scientific studies, many gaps remain in ICD research. Scientific researchers agree that there remains much needed knowledge for cardiac patients, their family members, and for health professionals.

Subthreshold test pulses versus low energy shock delivery to estimate high energy lead impedance in implanted cardioverter defibrillator patients

The high energy lead impedance is valuable for detecting lead failure in ICDs, but until recently shock delivery was necessary for high energy impedance measurement. This study compared the use of subthreshold test pulses and low energy test shocks to estimate the high energy impedance. Immediately after implantation of Ventak Prizm ICDs in 29 patients, the lead impedance was measured with five subthreshold (0.4 microJ) test pulses, 5 low energy (1.1 J) shocks, and two to three high energy (16 +/- 4.5 J) shocks. The mean impedances measured using high energy shocks, low energy shocks, and subthreshold pulses were 42.0 +/- 7.3 omega, 46.5 +/- 8.1 omega, and 42.4 +/- 7.1 omega, respectively. The impedances measured using high and low energy shocks differed significantly (P < 0.0001), while those obtained by high energy shocks and low energy pulses did not (P = 0.63). According to the Pearson correlation coefficient, the impedance measurements with subthreshold pulses and low energy shocks were both closely correlated (P < 0.0001) with impedance values determined with high energy shocks. However, while the impedance values tended to be higher when measured with low energy shocks, the concordance correlation coefficient (c) was higher for subthreshold test pulse versus high energy shock (c = 0.92) than for low versus high energy shock (c = 0.73). Furthermore, the intraindividual variability of impedance measurements was lower with subthreshold pulse measurements than with low energy shocks. Compared with low energy shocks, impedance measurement with subthreshold pulses has higher reproducibility and a higher correlation with the impedance obtained by high energy shock delivery. Safe and painless high energy impedance estimation with subthreshold pulses might, therefore, help to detect ICD lead failure during routine follow-up.

Should all implantable cardioverter defibrillators for ventricular arrhythmias be dual-chamber devices?

The advantages of a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) over a single-chamber ICD include physiologic pacing capability, atrial electrogram storage, enhanced arrhythmia discrimination algorithms, and a potential to treat atrial arrhythmia by pacing or defibrillation. Current evidence supports the supposition that dual-chamber ICDs are definitely indicated in patients who have a concomitant indication for physiologic pacing, such as bradycardia or bradycardia-dependent ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Refined dual-chamber arrhythmia discrimination algorithms and enhanced atrial therapies are probably required for patients with frequent supraventricular arrhythmias. Furthermore, in patients with systolic heart failure, low ejection fraction, and intraventricular conduction delay, triple-chamber ICDs with biventricular pacing may improve their functional status and prevent sudden arrhythmic death. Careful patient selection is required to optimize the cost-effectiveness of these sophisticated technologies.