A permanent transvenous lead system for an implantable pacemaker cardioverter-defibrillator. Nonthoracotomy approach to implantation.

A transvenous lead system for implantable defibrillators would obviate a surgical thoracotomy and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with implantation. We evaluated the clinical performance of a new nonthoracotomy lead system that included a defibrillation lead in the coronary sinus. At the time of defibrillator implantation, transvenous defibrillation leads were inserted percutaneously through the left subclavian vein into the right ventricular apex (RVA), superior vena cava (SVC), and distal coronary sinus (CS) under fluoroscopic guidance. A subcutaneous patch electrode (SQ) was also available if required. The first single- or dual-pathway electrode configuration that successfully terminated three of four ventricular fibrillation episodes using 18 J or less was implanted. Eleven men and three women aged 39-77 years (60.0 +/- 10.1 years) with left ventricular ejection fraction ranging from 16% to 63% (33.4 +/- 13.1%) were evaluated. Nine presented with ventricular tachycardia, three had ventricular fibrillation, and two had both. A totally transvenous lead system (RVA/CS/SVC) was implanted in seven patients (50%) with a mean defibrillation threshold of 15.6 +/- 2.9 J (10-18 J). Four patients received a partial transvenous lead system (RVA/CS/SQ). An effective nonthoracotomy lead system was not found in three patients; they received epicardial electrodes. After cumulative follow-up of 73 patient-months, nine patients remain alive and free of problems related to the implanted nonthoracotomy leads. One patient died of respiratory failure 3 months after defibrillator implant, and the leads from another patient were removed at 9 months because of bacterial infection. A transvenous lead system that includes a defibrillation lead in the coronary sinus is a safe, reliable, and, at least in the short term, effective nonthoracotomy approach for automatic defibrillator implantation.     

Transvenous ICD implantation after artificial tricuspid valve replacement A new approach placing a transvenous ICD lead in the mid cardiac vein of the coronary sinus

Implantation of a transvenous device in patients with a tricuspid valve replacement or a complex congenital heart disease with no access to the right ventricle represents problems. The lack of access to the right ventricle might preclude transvenous placement of a defibrillation lead at ICD implantation. A young patient (21 years) with a history of severe chest trauma with rupture of the tricuspid valve as well as the right coronary artery and consecutive inferior myocardial infarction was initially treated with tricuspid valve replacement (St Jude Medical artificial prosthesis, 33 mm) and a bypass graft to the right coronary artery. Four years later, the patient was admitted with a hemodynamically not tolerated ventricular tachycardia (VT: CL 250 ms, LBBB, left axis). The VT could be reproduced during electrophysiological testing. An ICD was implanted subpectorally in combination with a transvenous active fixation ICD lead. The transvenous ICD lead was placed via a guiding catheter into a coronary sinus branch (middle cardiac vein). Acceptable pacing and sensing values could be obtained. The defibrillation threshold was 25 J. In conclusion transvenous ICD lead implantation into a side branch of the coronary sinus in combination with a pectorally implanted “active can” ICD device seems to be an alternative approach. This approach may avoid implantation of additional subcutaneous defibrillation leads or even thoracotomy for ICD implantation.     

Transvenous ICD implantation after artificial tricuspid valve replacement. A new approach placing a transvenous ICD lead in the mid cardiac vein of the coronary sinus

Summary Implantation of a transvenous device in patients with a tricuspid valve replacement or a complex congenital heart disease with no access to the right ventricle represents problems. The lack of access to the right ventricle might preclude transvenous placement of a defibrillation lead at ICD implantation. A young patient (21 years) with a history of severe chest trauma with rupture of the tricuspid valve as well as the right coronary artery and consecutive inferior myocardial infarction was initially treated with tricuspid valve replacement (St Jude Medical artificial prosthesis, 33 mm) and a bypass graft to the right coronary artery. Four years later, the patient was admitted with a hemodynamically not tolerated ventricular tachycardia (VT: CL 250 ms, LBBB, left axis). The VT could be reproduced during electrophysiological testing. An ICD was implanted subpectorally in combination with a transvenous active fixation ICD lead. The transvenous ICD lead was placed via a guiding catheter into a coronary sinus branch (middle cardiac vein). Acceptable pacing and sensing values could be obtained. The defibrillation threshold was 25 J. In conclusion transvenous ICD lead implantation into a side branch of the coronary sinus in combination with a pectorally implanted “active can” ICD device seems to be an alternative approach. This approach may avoid implantation of additional subcutaneous defibrillation leads or even thoracotomy for ICD implantation.     

Nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillator placement in children: use of subcutaneous array leads and abdominally placed implantable cardioverter defibrillators in children

INTRODUCTION: The need to access the right ventricle might preclude transvenous placement of a defibrillation lead at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement, especially in small children or children with complex congenital heart defects. We investigated a subcutaneous array lead in addition to an abdominally placed "active can" ICD device in two children to avoid a thoracotomy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The first child (age 12 years, 138 cm, 41 kg) had transposition of the great arteries with a subsequent surgical intra-atrial correction by the Mustard technique. The second child (age 14 years, 161 cm, 54 kg) had a single atrium and a single ventricle, d-transposition of the aorta, and atresia of the main pulmonary artery with a surgical anastomosis between the aorta and the right pulmonary artery by the Cooley technique. The defibrillation threshold was 18 J and <20 J at initial implantation and at generator replacement in the first patient and 20 J in the second patient. During follow-up of 6 years and 1 month, respectively, no ICD-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: In children in whom endocardial, right ventricular placement of a defibrillation lead is precluded, defibrillation is possible and safe between an abdominally placed "active can" ICD device and a subcutaneous array lead. This approach may avoid a thoracotomy in children with no possibility for transvenous ICD placement.     

Evolution of extravascular implantable defibrillator technologies

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been successfully treating patients with lethal ventricular arrhythmias for decades. The main acute and chronic complications of this therapy modality are related to the use of a transvenous lead. An entirely extravascular ICD concept was developed over the last 20 years, with emergence of the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). This device was approved for clinical use seven years ago, and accumulating real-life experience confirms its safety and efficacy. The main limitations related to this system include the lack of pacing capabilities for bradycardia, tachycardia or resynchronization therapy, a large size, and relatively high energy requirements for effective defibrillation. This review article summarizes current knowledge and potential future developments of the extravascular ICD technologies.     

Ist die DFT-Testung noch ein Muss?

The automatic detection and termination of ventricular fibrillation is still the key function of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy. The progress in generator and lead technology has overcome limitations in defibrillation efficacy in early transvenous defibrillator devices. Current, active pectoral biphasic devices provide a high defibrillation efficacy. More than 90% of all patients will meet accepted implantation criteria without any intraoperative system modifications. Is this enough to abandon the intraoperative assessment of defibrillation efficacy? Arguments for abandoning intraoperative device testing include: reduction of perioperative complications, time and cost saving, no worse prognosis for defibrillator patients with borderline defibrillation efficacy, DFT testing might be a barrier to an easy access to ICD implantation. Abandoning intraoperative assessment of defibrillation efficacy may result in inadequate defibrillation safety in up to 9% of all patients. The noninferior outcome of patients with nonadequate defibrillation efficacy is not already proven. Intraoperative device testing could be limited to a small number of VF inductions, the safety of these protocols is well established. A significant time and cost reduction is not really existing. The abandoning of defibrillation testing will not lead to an increase in ICD implant capacity. The intraoperative assessment of defibrillation efficacy should be an important part of ICD implantation.     

全皮下植入式心律转复除颤器——仅仅是权宜之举?

植入式心脏转复除颤器(ICD)是预防心脏性猝死最重要的手段。尽管电极导线设计在不断创新,功能逐渐完善,但静脉植入电极导线仍存在一定的风险和相关并发症,三尖瓣病变有时使得电极导线难以植入,而植入的电极导线亦会发生断裂、脱位和穿孔。需要拔除或导线故障需要更换时往往带来额外风险,甚至导致死亡。全皮下植入ICD适合不需要起搏支持的ICD适应证患者,其安全有效性已得到越来越多的证实。     

经静脉置入埋藏式心律转复除颤器的临床随访

对 1 0例经静脉置入埋藏式心律转复除颤器 (ICD)的恶性室性心律失常患者进行随访 ,观察ICD的治疗效果。男 6例、女 4例 ,年龄 5 6.9± 1 3.3( 30～ 70 )岁。基础心脏病为冠心病 6例、心肌病 3例、先天性长QT综合征 1例。所有患者均经临床证实有室性心动过速或 /和心室颤动。ICD具有多项治疗及信息储存记忆功能。随访时通过体外程控仪调出ICD储存的资料进行分析。结果 :随访 2 9.3± 2 0 .4( 8～ 64)个月 ,7例患者分别接受了抗心动过速起搏、电转复及电除颤治疗。 2例患者因窦性心动过速、阵发性心房颤动 ,ICD给予误治疗。 1例患者术后 3年发生电极断裂。结论 :常规进行随访和设定合适的诊断和治疗参数 ,对保证ICD及时有效的治疗至关重要。     

Elevated Defibrillation Threshold When Right-Sided Venous Access is Used for Nonthoracotomy Implantable Defibrillator Lead Implantation

Right/Left-Sided ICD Implantation. Introduction: Although myriad factors influence the defibrillation threshold, the relation between the site of transvenous lead entry into the vascular system and the defibrillation threshold has not been reported. This study examines the influence that venous entry site has on defibrillation success for a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead with two defibrillating coils. Methods and Results: The study population comprised 345 patients. Their mean age was 61 ± 13 years and, left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.33 ± 0.13. A left-sided approach was used in 324 (93.9%) of the patients, and a right-sided approach was used in the remaining 21 (6.1%) patients. There was no difference in the gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, or underlying cardiac disease in the two groups. For all patients, with a transvenous lead used either alone or with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch, the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.9 ± 4.8 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.0 ± 7.3 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.02). When a transvenous lead was used with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (115 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.5 ± 4.3 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 12.0 ± 10.0 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.98). When a transvenous lead was used without a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (230 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 10.1 ± 5.0 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.6 ± 6.6 J when a right-sided approach was used (P < 0.01). For the entire group of patients and for each specific lead arrangement, there was no significant difference in the defibrillating lead system impedance when right-sided versus left-sided approaches were compared. Conclusion: Left-sided approaches to implant transvenous leads with two coils for defibrillation result in lower biphasic defibrillation thresholds than when right-sided approaches are used.     

Early Experience with the Subcutaneous ICD

The Subcutaneous Internal Cardiac Defibrillator (S-ICD) represents a major advance in the care of patients who have an indication for an internal cardiac defibrillator without pacing indications. Its main advantage is that it can deliver a shock to cardiovert ventricular arrhythmias utilising a tunnelled subcutaneous lead, negating the risks associated with conventional transvenous systems. Initial studies have shown comparable efficacy in cardioversion of induced and spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) and ventricular fibrillation (VF) when compared to conventional transvenous systems. In addition, inappropriate shocks occurred in a similar percentage of patients to conventional ICD studies. Complication rates are low and relate largely to localised wound infections, treated successfully with antibiotics. The long term efficacy of the device is yet to be ascertained, however, a randomised trial & prospective registries are currently in progress to enable direct comparison with transvenous ICDs. This article summarises the early clinical experience and trials in the implantation of the S-ICD.     

Transvenous Defibrillation Lead Systems

Transvenous Defibrillation. The use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator has grown dramatically over the past 10 years. One of the major advances in defibrillation technology is the development of transvenous lead systems. Compared with traditional epicardial lead systems, transvenous defibrillation leads reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs. Transvenous lead systems provide reliable sensing of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, although redetection of ventricular fibrillation can be prolonged, especially with integrated lead systems. Both ramp and burst adaptive pacing are equally effective for the termination of ventricular tachycardia and are successful in up to 90% of spontaneous events. Defibrillation thresholds are higher with transvenous leads than with epicardial patches. These thresholds are reduced with the use of multiple transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, or with reversing shock polarity. However, the development of biphasic waveforms has made the largest impact on the efficacy of these lead systems, allowing dual coil transvenous systems to be effective in about 90% of patients. Defibrillation efficacy is further enhanced and implantation simplified by the incorporation of an active pulse generator located in the left pectoral region. Active pectoral pulse generators with biphasic waveforms will be the primary lead system for new implants.     

A multicenter experience with novel implantable cardioverter defibrillator configurations in the pediatric and congenital heart disease population

INTRODUCTION: In pediatric and congenital heart disease patients, transvenous ICD implantation may be limited secondary to patient size, venous, or cardiac anatomy. Epicardial patches require a thoracotomy, and may lead to a restrictive pericardial process. Because of these issues, we have explored novel ICD configurations. METHODS: Retrospective review at 10 centers implanting ICDs without a transvenous shocking coil or epicardial patches. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent implant at a mean age of 8.9 years (range: 0.3-43.5), with a mean weight of 25.5 kg (range: 5.2-70). Diagnoses included complex CHD, intracardiac tumors, cardiomyopathy, idiopathic VT, LV noncompaction, and long QT syndrome. Three configurations were used: subcutaneous array, a transvenous design ICD lead placed on the epicardium, or a transvenous design ICD lead placed subcutaneously. Difficulties were found at implant in 8 patients: 4 had difficulty inducing VT/VF, and 4 had high DFTs. Over a mean follow-up of 2.2 years (range: 0.2-10.5), 7 patients had appropriate shocks. Inappropriate shocks occurred in 4 patients. System revisions were required in 7 patients: 2 generator changes (in 1 patient), 3 pace-sense lead replacement, 1 additional subcutaneous coil placement due to increased DFT, 1 upgrade to a transvenous system, and 1 revision to epicardial patch system. CONCLUSIONS: ICD implantation can be performed without epicardial patches or transvenous high-energy leads in this population, using individualized techniques. This will allow ICD use in patients who have intracardiac shunting or are deemed too small for transvenous ICD leads. The long-term outcome and possible complications are as yet unknown in this population, and they should be monitored closely with follow-up DFTs.     

Comparison of the efficacy of a subcutaneous array electrode with a subcutaneous patch electrode, a prospective randomized study

The patch electrode and the array electrode are the two types of subcutaneous leads available as an adjunct to a transvenous lead system in patients with high defibrillation thresholds. A prospective randomized study was conducted in 30 consecutive patients comparing the efficacy and the long-term performance of a patch electrode with an array electrode. After determination of the defibrillation threshold for the transvenous lead alone, a subcutaneous patch or an array electrode was implanted in random order. Adding a patch electrode decreased the defibrillation threshold in seven out of 15 patients (47%) from 13.2+/-6.6 to 10.5+/-5.1 J (P<0.05). In 13 out of 15 patients (87%), the implantation of an array electrode caused a significant lowering of the defibrillation threshold from 15.4+/-6.6 to 8.2+/-5.0 J (P<0.0001). The array electrode was significantly more effective in lowering the defibrillation threshold than the patch electrode (P<0.01). Complications during follow-up associated with the subcutaneous patch electrode were observed in four patients whereas no complications were associated with the array electrode (P<0.01). The additional implantation of an array electrode is more effective and associated with fewer complications compared to a patch electrode.     

Transvenous defibrillator systems implanted by electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory

Background: A significantly lower perioperative mortality has established the nonthoracotomy approach as the preferred technique in implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) implantation. With the currently available transvenous endocardial leads in combination with the expanded use of biphasic ICD devices, the need for use of an additional subcutaneous lead has almost been eliminated. Thus, implantation of these systems has been simplified and reports have appeared in the literature that the procedure can now be performed by an electrophysiologist alone without surgical assistance in the electrophysiology or catheterization laboratory. Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of ICD implantation by an electrophysiologist in a procedure performed entirely in the catheterization laboratory without the assistance of a surgeon. Methods: Over a period of 28 months, we implanted transvenous ICDs in 40 consecutive patients with (n = 34) and without (n = 6) use of general anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory with minor surgical assistance in abdominal pocket fashioning for the first two cases and then working alone for the remainder. The study included 36 men and 4 women, aged 59 ± 12.5 years, with coronary artery (n = 22) or valvular heart disease (n = 4), cardiomyopathy (n = 12), and long QT syndrome (n = 1) or idiopathic ventricular tachycardia (n = 1), and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%, who presented with ventricular tachycardia (n=30) or ventricular fibrillation (n= 10). Results: One-lead ICD systems (Endotak®, n = 21; Transvene®, n = 8; or EnGuard®, n = 1) were used in 30 patients, and 2-lead (EnGuard, n = 5 or Transvene, n = 5) systems in 10 patients. Generators were implanted in an abdominal (n = 17) or pectoral (n = 23) pocket. Active can devices were employed in 17 patients. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9 J. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. There were three complications (8%): one pulmonary edema that responded to drug therapy, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on the third day, and one pocket hematoma in a patient receiving anticoagulation, with no need for evacuation. There were no operative deaths and no infections. After implant, patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. During follow-up (12 ± 8 months), 20 patients received appropriate and 5 patients inappropriate shocks. Three patients died of pump failure at 3,7, and 19 months, respectively; they had received 0,42, and 15 appropriate shocks, respectively, over these months. Another patient succumbed to a myocardial infarction at 9 months. At 6 months, one patient developed subacute subclavian vein thrombosis which resolved with anticoagulation therapy. Conclusions: Current transvenous biphasic ICD systems allow experienced electrophysiologists to implant them safely alone in the catheterization laboratory without surgical assistance, even for abdominal implants, with a high success rate and no need for use of a subcutaneous patch.     

胸前植入埋藏式心律转复除颤器——一种简易的植入方法

以往的开胸植入ICD系统手术操作繁琐,并发症多,非开胸植入ICD系统的应用降低了手术相关的并发症.本文介绍了新一代的经静脉胸前植入ICD.25例恶性室性心律失常患者应用了第三代非开胸植入ICD系统,其中18例为单极除颤系统.25例患者中24例(96%)除颤阀值≤24焦耳,而成功地植入了ICD.另一例由于阈值偏高而改用了开胸植人.所有患者的ICD均埋藏于患者的左胸前的皮下组织或胸大肌下的束袋中,除一例患者术后发生束袋血肿外,无明显并发症.经静脉胸前植入ICD手术切口少,操作简单,并发症较少,临床应用效果满意,将逐渐取代开胸植入系统.     

Long-term follow-up of transvenous defibrillation leads: high incidence of fracture in coaxial polyurethane lead.

BACKGROUND: As a result of longer follow-up after implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICD), fatigue of the leads has become a concern. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and clinical presentation of ICD lead failures. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 241 patients with 249 ICD leads who underwent implantation of an ICD with a transvenous lead system. After device implantation, the patients were routinely followed up every 4 months. Five lead failures (2.0%) occurred as an oversensing of artifact during the follow-up period (2.6+/-2.1 years); 4 of those 5 patients received inappropriate shocks and 1 case of lead failure was identified in a patient with frequent episodes of non-sustained ventricular fibrillation. In particular, the right ventricular polyurethane transvenous lead in the Medtronic model 6936 failed in 4 (13%) of 31 cases. Percutaneous lead extraction was not available in all cases, so an additional ICD lead was inserted through the same site of the subclavian vein. CONCLUSIONS: Lead failures may occur 5 years after ICD implantation and polyurethane leads have an especially high incidence of failure. However, there were no follow-up parameters observed that predicted lead failures.     

Clinical experience with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators for treatment of malignant ventricular arrhythmias

The need for thoracotomy has previously limited the use of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Prior investigators have shown the efficacy and reduced risk of the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. In this study, we report our experience with the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as a first-line system. Thirty-four patients with mean age 63.2 +/- 10.3 years and mean ejection fraction 32.6 +/- 11.4% underwent implantation of a transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator using an Endotak lead with or without a subcutaneous patch. Twenty-one patients received a biphasic device and the remainder a monophasic device. Thirty-three of 34 patients (97%) were successfully implanted. The mean defibrillation threshold was than < or = 15.3 +/- 3.6J. Overall, 25 of 34 (74%) patients were implanted with a single endocardial lead alone. In the group receiving a biphasic device 19 of 21 (90%) were successfully implanted with a single endocardial lead alone whereas in the group receiving a monophasic device only 6 of 12 (50%) were successfully implanted with single endocardial lead alone (p < 0.05). There were no serious complications. One postoperative death was a result of end-staged congestive heart failure. We conclude that the transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is safe and efficacious and that incorporation of biphasic waveform may lead to higher rates of implantation of single transvenous lead alone without the need for subcutaneous patch.     

Management of complications associated with a first-generation endocardial defibrillation lead system for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

An automatic cardioverter-defibrillator could be implanted using an endocardial defibrillation lead system (consisting of a tripolar defibrillation electrode catheter in conjunction with an epicostal patch electrode) in 9 of 10 patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Six lead system complications were observed during a follow-up period of 51 +/- 36 weeks. Three catheter electrode conductor fractures occurred and manifested as oversensing and subsequent delivery of inappropriate shocks (1 patient), inability to defibrillate during electrophysiologic testing 3 months after implant (1 patient) and sudden cardiac death (1 patient). Asymptomatic patch electrode conductor fractures were detected on a routine chest roentgenogram in 2 patients. Endocardial defibrillation threshold testing performed at the time of implantation resulted in malfunction of a previously implanted permanent pacemaker pulse generator in 1 patient. Catheter and patch electrode replacement procedures were performed in 3 consenting patients under local anesthesia. Endocardial defibrillation thresholds after lead replacement were comparable to those obtained at time of initial implant. Serial clinical, roentgenographic and electrophysiologic evaluation should be included in follow-up procedures for endocardial defibrillation lead systems. Monitoring for deleterious effects of endocardial defibrillation threshold testing on previously implanted pacemaker systems should be performed at the time of implant and during follow-up. Improved lead designs are necessary for long-term use of endocardial defibrillation electrodes, but replacement procedures are feasible without thoracotomy.     

Preliminary experience with a hybrid nonthoracotomy defibrillating system that includes a biphasic device: Comparison with a standard monophasic device using the same lead system

Objectives. This study analyzed the advantage of combining a biphasic device with a transvenous system and compared the results with those obtained with a standard monophasic device.Background. Available lead system use monophasic pulses and may require lengthy intraoprative testing to achieve adequate defibrillation threshold in a conspicuous number of patients. The option of biphasis waveform may provide further benefits. However, clinical experience with a permanent implant is lacking.Methods. Fifty-five patients underwent testing and received a permanent implant using the Endotak lead system associated with a CPI monophasic device. The remaining 36 patients received a permanent implant with the Endotak lead system connected to a biphasic device. In both groups a subcutaneous patch was combined when needed to obtain acceptable defibrillation thresholds.Results. Biphasic pulses resulted in lower mean (±SD) defibrillation threshold (monophasic 15 ± 4.7 J vs. biphasic 12 ± 5 J, p = 0.03) and a better implantation rate (100% biphasic vs. 89% monophasic, p = 0.07). Biphasic pulses allowed implantation with less ventricular fibrillation induction (7.4 ± 3.2 vs. 3.5 ± 1.8, p < 0.01) and a mean shorter procedure time (168 ± 39 vs. 111 ± 30 min, p < 0.01). With the biphasic waveform a grater proportion of patients met the implantation criteria with the lead system alone (83% vs. 45%, p < 0.01). When needed, the left prepectoral location of the patch electrode was always sufficient in patients receiving the biphasic device, whereas placement in the left subscapular position was required in 15 patients in the monophaisic group. Implantation of the biphasic device was associated with a shorter mean hospital stay (3.8 ± 0.8 vs. 5.4 ± 2.2 days, p < 0.01).Conclusions. Incorporation of a biphasic device in a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator uniformly incresses the efficacy of the system and the case of implantation.     

Novel Use of a Vascular Plug to Anchor an Azygous Vein ICD Lead

Vascular Plug for ICD Lead.   We describe the case of a young patient with severe hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and marginal defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) at implant of a standard transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system. The patient subsequently experienced multiple failed ICD shocks during a prolonged episode of spontaneous ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. Placement of a second single-coil shocking lead in the azygous vein resulted in acceptable DFTs, but the new lead migrated superiorly within hours of the procedure. To stabilize the lead position, a vascular plug was placed in the distal azygous vein, and the shocking lead screw was actively fixated to the meshwork of the device. Subsequent testing confirmed both adequate defibrillation and stable lead position. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 99–102, January 2010)