Defibrillator Implantation in a Patient with a Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

The implantation of a transvenous cardioverter defibrillator (PCD 7217B) was performed in a patient with a persistent left superior vena cava. The defibrillation electrodes were positioned in the right ventricle and the superior vena cava via the right subclavian vein. A subcutaneous patch had to be implanted at the left lateral chest wall to achieve sufficient defibrillation thresholds. Three weeks later the system had to be removed because of a generator pocket infection. During the second implantation we placed one electrode in the persistent left superior vena cava perpendicular to the electrode in the right ventricle. Using this configuration transvenous defibrillation was possible without an additional subcutaneous patch.     

A Second Defibrillator Chest Patch Electrode Will Increase Implantation Rates for Nonthoracotomy Defibrillators

Nonthoracotomy defibrillator systems can be implanted with a lower morbidity and mortality, compared to epicardial systems. However, implantation may be unsuccessful in up to 15% of patients, using a monophasic waveform. It was the purpose of this study to prospectively examine the efficacy of a second chest patch electrode in a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system. Fourteen patients (mean age 62 ± 11 years, ejection fraction = 0.29 ± 0.12) with elevated defibrillation thresholds, defined as ≥ 24 J, were studied. The initial lead system consisted of a right ventricular electrode (cathode), a left innominate vein, and subscapular chest patch electrode (anodes). If the initial defibrillation threshold was ≥ 24 J, a second chest patch electrode was added. This was placed subcutaneously in the anterior chest (8 cases), or submuscularly in the subscapular space (6 cases). This resulted in a decrease in the system impedance at the defibrillation threshold, from 72.3 ± 13.3 Ω to 52.2 ± 8.6 Ω. Additionally, the defibrillation threshold decreased from ≥ 24 J, with a single patch, to 16.6 ± 2.8 J with two patches. These changes were associated with successful implantation of a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system in all cases. In conclusion, the addition of a second chest patch electrode (using a subscapular approach) will result in lower defibrillation thresholds in patients with high defibrillation thresholds, and will subsequently increase implantation rates for nonthoracotomy defibrillators.     

Thoracoscopic Approach to Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patch Electrode Implantation

Even if transvenous lead system for automatic implantable Cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has been one of the main surgical advances in the recent past, its major limitation is the high defibrillation thresholds in some cases. Thus, an additional patch may be required and implanted either in a subcutaneous position or in an epicardial position. We describe another possibility: the implantation of extrapericardial patch under video-thoracoscopic control. This new technique allows a deep implantation of the whole material without thoracotomy. Seven patients were included in our preliminary experience. During defibrillation threshold evaluation, two patients required 34 J with the single transvenous lead system, and five patients were not defibrillated with the single lead system; therefore, they required a 300-J external rescue shock. We decided to implant an additional patch in those seven patients with high defibrillation thresholds. This patch was inserted into the pleural cavity through a left subcostal incision. Under video thoracoscopy, it was positioned and stitched onto the pericardium. The defibrillation generator was then implanted through the left subcostal incision in a subdiaphragmatic space. As a result, pre-operative defibrillation thresholds were significantly reduced (14.29 ± 3.45 J, mean ± SD) and remained stable during follow-up controls (eighth day and second month). Long-term follow-up (14 ± 4.5 months) was uneventful, with an excellent tolerance for the patients. In conclusion, extrapericardial implantation of defibrillation patches under video thoracoscopy is an easy technique that allows low defibrillation thresholds.     

Implantation of a Nonthoracotomy Defibrillator Using a Second Defibrillator Patch in the Abdominal Pocket

Successful implantation of a biphasic nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillator may not be achieved with a conventional system. We describe a successful device implantation using a pectoral and abdominal patch electrode system.     

Subpectoral Implantation of ICD Generators: Long-Term Follow-Up

A nonthoracotomy surgical approach using an endocardial electrode and combined implantation of a subcutaneous patch and the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator in a Subpectoral pocket has been described. We report the long-term follow-up results in patients undergoing implantation using this approach. The patient population consisted of 28 patients (22 men and 6 women) with a mean age of 59 ± 12 years. The underlying heart disease consisted of coronary artery disease in 20 patients and dilated cardiomyopathy in 8 patients. Sustained ventricular tachycardia was the mode of presentation in 16 patients and sudden cardiac death in 12 patients. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 31%± 6%. The lead system consisted of an 8 French bipolar passive fixation rate sensing lead positioned at the right ventricular apex, an 11 French spring coil electrode positioned at the superior vena cava-right atrial junction (surface area 700 mm²), and submuscular placement of a large patch (surface area 28 cm²) on the anterolateral chest wall near the cardiac apex via a submammary incision. A defibrillation threshold of ≤ 15 joules (J) was required for implantation. This criterion was not satisfied in five patients; thus, a limited thoracotomy was performed via the submammary incision, and the large patch was placed epicardially. The mean R wave amplitude was 12 ± 3 mV, the mean pacing threshold was 1.0 ± 0.5 V at 0.5 msec, and the mean defibrillation threshold was 12.6 ± 3 J. ICD generators implanted were the Ventak-P in 17, PCD-7217 in 5, and the Cadence V-l00 in 6 patients. These patients have been followed for a mean of 14.6 ± 6 months. There was no perioperative mortality, and none of the patients developed an infection during follow-up. Generator migration or significant discomfort requiring ICD repositioning was not observed, although one patient developed an erosion requiring surgical repair.Conclusions: Subpectoral implantation of the ICD generator is feasible and was well tolerated by all patients with an acceptable complication rate (3.5%). As the size of future generation ICDs is reduced, subpectoral implantation may become the preferred approach.     

Implantation of an Automatic Defibrillator Using a New Nonthoracotomy Approach

Most current nonthoracotomy systems for defibrillator implantation use monophasic devices. To determine the safety and efficacy of a new nonthoracotomy lead configuration when used in conjunction with a device that used biphasic waveforms, 38 consecutive patients were taken to the operating room for implantation of a Cadence tiered therapy defibrillator system. The lead system consisted of a transvenous coil electrode positioned at the right atrial-superior vena caval junction, a bipolar endocardial right ventricular lead, and a large patch placed subcutaneously near the cardiac apex. Of the 38 nontboracotomy defibrillator implantations attempted, 36 (95%) were completed with adequate defibriliation thresholds. The mean defibriliation threshold in these 36 patients was ± 563 ± 10 V (± 20 ± 1 J). There was no perioperative mortality. Complications included coil lead migration (5). sensing lead migration (1), infection (3), pneumothorax (2), arterial embolism (1), and folding of the subcutaneous patch with an increase in defibriliation threshold (1). No patient died during a median follow-up period of 22 weeks. Fourteen patients (39%) had spontaneous sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias, which were all successfully terminated by the implanted device. Shocks for nonsustained arrhythmias were aborted in eight patients (22%). Spurious discharges for sinus tachycardia or atrial fibrillation occurred in six patients (17%) and were readily diagnosed by examination of the stored electrograms. Thus, implantation of a biphasic tiered therapy defibrillator system using this nonthoracotomy approach is feasible in the majority of patients. The major complication associated with this procedure is lead dislodgment. The clinical course of these patients compares favorably with that of patients who have undergone defibrillator implantation via an epicardial approach.     

Late Complications in Patients with Pectoral Defibrillator Implants with Transvenous Defibrillator Lead Systems: High Incidence of Insulation Breakdown

As the majority of ICDs with transvenous leads are now implanted in tbe pectoral region, complications associated with the technique are being identified. To determine the incidence of lead complications in patients with transvenous defibrillator leads and ICDs implanted in the pectoral region, 132 unselected consecutive patients with transvenous defibrillator leads had ICDs implanted in the pectoral region. Three lead systems were used:(1) lead system 1(45 patients) consisted of a transvenous pacing sensing lead and a superior vena cava coil with a submuscular patch used for defibrillation;(2) lead system 2(36 patients) utilized a CPI Endotak lead system: and(3) lead system 3(51 patients) utilized a Medtronic Transvene lead system. Patients were followed for 3–54 months(cumulative 2,269, mean 18 months). The average duration of follow-up with the three systems was 32, 12, and 11 months, respectively. At 30 months follow-up, all three lead systems had a low incidence of complications. However, there was a 13% overall incidence(45% actuarial incidence) of erosion of the insulation of the pacing sensing lead of system 1 at 50 months of follow-up. All lead complications were seen in patients with ICDs whose weights were > 195 g and volumes > 115 cc. The erosion was probably a consequence of the pressure by the large ICD against the lead in the pectoral pocket. Follow-up with lead systems 2 and 3 is relatively short(average 12 months) but no lead erosions were seen. Pectoral implantation of ICDs with long transvenous leads and large generators is associated with a moderate risk of late complications in the form of insulation breaks caused by pressure of the generator against the leads. The use of less redundant leads coupled with smaller ICDs will probably eliminate this complication.     

Resolution of High Initial Epicardial Patch Defibrillation Thresholds Following Chronic Implantation

To determine what effect chronic implantation of automatic implantable car-dioverter defibrillator epicardial patch electrodes had on initial high defibrillation thresholds at implant, six patients were studied. There were five men, one woman, mean age 61 years. Three had coronary artery disease and three had dilated cardiomyopathies. Mean ejection fraction was 20%. Two patients underwent concomitant coronary artery revascularization and one underwent mitral valve replacement. No patient was on antiarrhythmic drugs. At the time of initial implant, adequate defibrillating thresholds could not be obtained in any patch configuration despite the use of up to 40 joules. Further testing was precluded in each patient due to the development of profound hypotension ( 70 mmHg systolic) that was poorly responsive to pressors. The patch electrodes were then implanted in an arbitrary anterior-posterior position and the leads were tunneled to an abdominal pocket. After 10–15 days (mean 11), the lead ends were exposed and defibrillation testing was performed again. In all six patients, adequate defibrillation thresholds were obtained (mean 18 joules). We conclude that if adequate defibrillation thresholds cannot be obtained at implant and if further testing cannot be performed without jeopardizing the life of the patient, the patch electrodes should be implanted and retesting performed at 10–15 days.     

A Patch in the Pectoral Position Lowers Defibrillation Threshold

Implantable pacemaker cardioverter defibrillators are now available with biphasic waveforms, which have been shown to markedly improve defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). However, in a number of patients the DFT remains high. Also, DFT may increase after implantation, especially if antiarrhythmic drugs are added. We report on the use of a subcutaneous patch in the pectoral position in 15 patients receiving a transvenous defibrillator as a method of easily reducing the DFT. A 660-mm² patch electrode was placed beneath the generator in a pocket created on the pectoral fascia. The energy required for defibrillation was lowered by 56% on average, and the system impedance was lowered by a mean of 25%. This maneuver allowed all patients to undergo a successful implant with adequate safety margin.     

Alternative Locations for Internal Defibrillator Electrodes

Successful defibrillation is described in two patients in whom the defibrillating electrode was positioned in the coronary sinus and right ventricular outflow tract as alternative sites. Internal cardiac defibrillation has been successful with single or multiple endocardial electrodes, epicardial patch electrodes, and subcutaneous surface electrodes (patch, array) in varying combinations and recently with an active can electrode. While the traditional location of the endocardial electrode has been the right ventricular apex, we describe two patients in whom defibrillation was successful in alternate locations, the coronary sinus and the right ventricular outflow tract.     

Implantable Defibrillator Electrode Systems: A Brief Review

Since the first report of a defibrillation attempt with an intracardiac catheter electrode nearly 30 years ago, investigators have developed implantable electrode systems consisting of metal disks, endocardial catheters, and epicardial patches. These early efforts demonstrated the feasibility of low-energy reversion of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and also provided some insight into the mechanisms of fibrillation and defibrillation. This review describes the evolution of implantable defibrillator electrode systems. Early investigators attempted defibrillation with submuscularly implanted metal disks or a disk electrode paired with an endocardial catheter electrode. Electrode design emphasis turned to transvenous catheter systems with electrodes placed in the right ventricle and right atrium. A more successful configuration placed the proximal electrode in the superior vena cava. In an effort to ensure proper placement of the distal electrode in humans, the catheter was replaced with an epicardial patch. More recently, a combination of electrodes and multiple pulses has substantially reduced the energy required to defibrillate. Effective electrode systems that can convert lethal arrhythmias with a minimum of energy will aid in making implantable cardioverters and defibrillators the therapy of choice in patients at high risk of sudden coronary death.     

Clinical Experience with a New Cardioverter Defibrillator Capable of Biphasic Waveform Pulse and Enhanced Data Storage: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Study

A recently introduced cardioverter defibrillator was implanted in 162 patients with refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias and/or aborted sudden cardiac death. The new device is capable of delivering monophasic and biphasic defibrillation waveform pulses, arrhythmia detection, and therapy in two independently programmable zones, antibradycardia and postshock pacing. Additionally, the device provides enhanced data logs by storing intracardiac “far-field” electrograms of spontaneous arrhythmic episodes. One hundred sixty-two patients (mean age 55.5 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36%) were enrolled in this multicenter investigation; coronary artery disease was the primary cardiac disease in 63.6% of the patients, idiopathic cardiomyopathy in 23.8%. Ventricular fibrillation was present in 49.7% of the patients; 29.3% of the patients experienced ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia; monomorphic ventricuiar tachycardia alone was present in 19.1% of the patients. In 26 patients the device was implanted with standard epicardial defibrillation leads (mean defibrillation threshold 11.5±3.7J). One hundred thirty-nine patients underwent testing for implantation of a nonthoracotomy system and in 136 (98%), a nonthoracotomy system could be implanted. Defibrillation thresholds with a biphasic waveform (mean 10.2 ± 4.3 J) were lower than with a monophasic waveform (mean 17.4 ± 5.7 J). Two patients (1.2%) died perioperatively (< 30 days). During study time period follow-up, there were 338 device discharges in 49 patients. Analysis of stored electrograms classified 25% of discharges as inappropriate and due to supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. At a mean follow-up of 10.8 months, cumulative survival from sudden cardiac death was 98.8%, and survival from all-cause mortality was 96.3%. This study demonstates the effectiveness of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator in preventing arrhythmic death and the superior defibrillation efficacy of biphasic waveform pulses, which results in a higher implantation rate of nonthoracotomy systems, as well as the accurate arrhythmia classification made possible by the stored electrograms.     

Pectoral cardioverter defibrillators: comparison of prepectoral and submuscular implantation techniques

The purpose of this study was to compare the two techniques of pectoral ICD implantation, prepectoral and submuscular, performed by an electrophysiologist in the catheterization laboratory with use of general or local anesthesia in 45 consecutive patients. Over a period of 30 months, we implanted pectoral transvenous ICDs in 43 men and 2 women, aged 59 +/- 12 years, with use of general (n = 20) or local (n = 25) anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory. Patients had coronary (n = 30) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 10) or no organic disease (n = 1), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 31%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 40) or fibrillation (n = 5). One-lead ICD systems (18 Endotak, 10 Transvene/8 Sprint, 2 EnGuard) were used in 38 patients, 2-lead (5 Transvene, 1 EnGuard) systems in 6 patients, and 1 atrioventricular lead ICD system in 1 patient. The prepectoral technique was employed in 29 patients with adequate subcutaneous tissue, while the submuscular technique was used in 16 patients who had a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9-10 J in both groups and there were no differences in pace/sense thresholds. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. Active or hot can devices were used in 39 patients. There were no complications, operative deaths, or infections. Patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predis-charge testing. Over 14 +/- 8 months, 20 patients received appropriate device therapy (antitachycardia pacing or shocks). No late complications occurred. One patient died at 3 months of pump failure; there were no sudden deaths. In conclusion, for exclusive pectoral implantation of transvenous ICDs, electrophysiologists should master both prepectoral and submuscular techniques. One can thus avoid potential skin erosion or need for abdominal implantation in patients with a thin layer of subcutaneous tissue. Finally, there are no differences in pacing or defibrillation thresholds between the two techniques.     

Unipolar Pectoral Defibrillation Systems

Over the past 15 years, the implantation of automatic defibrillators has evolved from an obscure, impractical, and often morbid procedure to nearly a routine therapy. Initial large abdominally implanted generators with multiple epicardial leads have given way to much smaller, pectorally implanted systems utilizing only a single lead. These systems are better accepted by physicians and patients and rival recent-generation pacemakers in their implantation simplicity. Outcomes with single lead defibrillator implantation have been excellent. They are 99% effective at eliminating sudden death in large cohorts of patients, with overall survival of 94.4% at 18 months. Previously significant perioperative complications and mortality associated with epicardial systems have been virtually eliminated. Transvenous single lead systems now provide defibrillation efficacy at a level that makes epicardial leads unnecessary in most patients. Although inappropriate shocks are not a morbid complication, they still occur in approximately 15%–30% of patients. This is an area for improvement in defibrillator therapy, which, though invisible in total mortality statistics, is significant in terms of patient comfort and acceptance. Incremental improvements in pulse generator design and defibrillator lead technology are being made. Perhaps the most interesting new development will be the dual chamber device, incorporating an atrial electrode for sensing, pacing, and perhaps, atrial defibrillation. Such improvements will continue to make device therapy of all arrhythmias more versatile and improve patient comfort both in terms of device size and inappropriate shocks. It is unlikely, however, that further technological advances can further diminish the already small complication rate or improve the already excellent efficacy of current pectoral single lead systems. Defibrillator technology has already reached a maturity where technological improvements are less significant than efforts to better define the patient population who will benefit from the therapy.     

A Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of a Nonthoracotomy Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead System

Nonthoracotomy lead systems for ICDs have been developed that obviate the need for a thoracotomy and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with implantation. However, an adequate DFT cannot be achieved in some patients using transvenous electrodes alone. Thus, a new subcutaneous "array" electrode was designed and tested in a prospective, randomized trial that compared the DFT obtained using monophasic shock waveforms with a single transvenous lead alone that has two defibrillating electrodes, the transvenous lead linked to a subcutaneous/submuscular patch electrode, and the transvenous lead linked to the investigational array electrode. There were 267 patients randomized to one of the three nonthoracotomy ICD lead systems. All had DFTs that met the implantation criterion of ≤ 25 J. The resultant study population was 82% male and 18% female, mean age of 63 ± 11 years. The indication for ICD implantation was monomorphic VT in 70%, VF in 19%, monomorphic VT/VF in 6%, and polymorphic VT in 4% of the patients, respectively. The mean LVEF was 0.33 ± 0.13. The mean DFT obtained with the transvenous lead alone was 17.5 ± 4.9 J as compared to 16.9 ± 5.5 J with the lead linked to a patch electrode (P = NS), and 14.9 ± 5.6 with the lead linked to the array electrode (array versus lead alone, P = 0.0001; array versus lead/patch, P = 0.007). The results of this investigation suggest that the subcutaneous array may be superior to the standard patch as a subcutaneous electrode to lower the DFT and increase the margin of safety for successful nonthoracotomy defibrillation.     

Patient Discomfort Following Pectoral Defibrillator Implantation Using Conscious Sedation

Background: The miniaturization of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has made pectoral implantation possible. However, postoperative pain following the procedure has not been systematically studied. The aim of the current study was to prospectively assess patient discomfort and identify factors influencing pain perception during follow-up. Methods: Pain related to device implantation was quantified in 21 consecutive patients (age, 61 ± 11 years; 17 men and 21 women; 16 of 21 had coronary artery disease; left ventricular ejection fraction, 32%± 15%) undergoing pectoral ICD implantation with conscious sedation (fentanyl 118 ± 72 μg, midazolam 14 ± 9 mg). Patients completed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0–100) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire 24 hours and 1 month postoperatively. Regression analysis was used to define clinical and procedure related variables affecting patient discomfort and frequency of postoperative analgesic use. Results: The mean VAS score was 34 ± 20 24 hours postoperatively. A single (4.8%) patient described postoperative pain as severe. Pain was reported to be moderate by 10 (47.6%) patients and mild by 10 (47.6%) patients. Intraoperative fentanyl requirement was a predictor of postoperative pain (R = 0.51, P = 0.036), and procedural duration was a strong predictor of postoperative analgesic use (R = 0.75, P < 0.001). Pain at 1 month decreased to a VAS score of 19 ± 18 (P = 0.002 vs 24 hours) and was rated to be severe, moderate, and mild by 1, 3, and 17 patients, respectively. Late pain was related to a VAS score at 24 hours (R = 0.67, P = 0.004). Conclusions: (1) Pectoral ICD implantation using conscious sedation is well tolerated. (2) Postoperative discomfort correlates with longer procedural times and larger intraoperative narcotic requirements.     

Setting of Relatively Low Energy Outputs May Permit Implantation of a Nonthoracotomy Automatic Cardioverter Defibrillator System When High Energy Outputs Prove Ineffective

At intraoperative testing of defibrillation thresholds during implantation of internal Cardioverter defibrillators, standard step-down approaches of energy outputs are used. If relatively high energy outputs are not successful at defibrillating the heart, the electrodes are frequently reconfigured. When attempting implantation of a nonthoracotomy lead system, high defibrillation thresholds may warrant opening of the chest cavity to place one or more epicardial electrodes. A case is presented where a nonthoracotomy system was able to be implanted using relatively low energy outputs which were reproducibly successful at terminating ventricular fibrillation when higher energy outputs were unsuccessful. Mechanisms for this phenomenon and alternate recommendations for defibrillation testing are presented.     

Effects of Antiarrhythmic Drugs on Epicardial Defibrillation Energy Requirements and the Rate of Defibrillator Discharges

Antiarrhythmic drugs are commonly used with the implantable cardioverter/defibrillator to treat recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Since various antiarrhythmic drugs have been reported to alter defibrillation threshold, an important question is whether the device will provide adequate energy for defibrillation during long-term follow-up and to what extent antiarrhythmic drug treatment will affect defibrillation energy requirements. To answer these questions, the defibrillation thresholds were determined in 20 patients using an epicardial patch-patch lead configuration at the time of implantation and at the time of pulse generator replacement. During a mean follow-up period of 24 ± 6 months, the defibrillation threshold increased significantly from 14.2 ± 3.7 joules to 18.3 ± 5.5 joules in the entire group (P < 0.05). This increase in defibrillation threshold was due to a marked elevation of defibrillation energy requirements in the subgroup of patients taking amiodarone compared with patients receiving mexiletine. Based on these results it is mandatory to retest defibrillation threshold at any time of pulse generator replacement to guarantee continued effectiveness. In particular, if amiodarone treatment is initiated after implantation of a defibrillator, it is recommended to reevaluate defibrillation threshold to ensure an adequate margin of safety.     

Comparison of Three Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation Techniques: Initial Results with Transvenous Pectoral Implantation

A total of 121 patients underwent epicardial (n = 32), transvenous abdominal (n = 30), and transvenous pectoral (n = 59) ICD implants. Perioperative complications were defined as those occurring within 30 days after surgery. Hospital costs were calculated with $750 per day as a fixed charge. Duration of surgery was the time between the first skin incision and the last skin suture. Severe perioperative complications that were life-threatening or required surgical intervention occurred in the epicardial (6%) and transvenous (10%) abdominal groups, but not in the pectoral group. Perioperative mortality occurred only in the epicardial abdominal group, predominantly in patients with concomitant surgery (18%), and in 5% of patients without concomitant surgery. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter for transvenous pectoral implantation (58 ± 15 rain, P < 0.05) compared to transvenous abdominal implantation (115 ± 38 min). Epicardial abdominal ICD implantation had the longest procedure time (154 ± 31 min). The postimplant hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for pectoral implantation (5 ± 3 days, P < 0.05) compared to transvenous (13 ± 5) and epicardial (19 ± 5) abdominal implantation. Total hospitalization costs significantly decreased in the pectoral implantation group ($4,068 ±$2,099 for the pectoral group vs $14,887 ±$4,415 and $9,975 ±$3,657 for the epicardial and the transvenous abdominal group, respectively, P < 0.05). These initial results demonstrate the advantage of transvenous pectoral ICD implantation in terms of perioperative complications, procedure time, hospital length of stay, and hospitalization costs.     

Implantation of Active Can Implantable Defibrillators in the right Pectoral Region

Routinely the active can ICD is placed in the left side pectoral position, which theoretically gives optimal conditions for a low defibrillation threshold. Some patients, bowever, demand a right pectoral position, which possibly could result in a bigger defibrillation threshold. A right pectoral position was used in 3 of 85 active can ICDs implanted in our institution from 1994. the DFT was 12 J in two and 18 f in one patient. Thus, right pectoral implantation is feasible and offers an alternative approach in selected patients.