Accidental Entry of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead into the Left Hepatic Vein Detected by Transesophageal Echocardiography

We report a case of accidental entry of an implantable Cardioverter defibrillator lead into the hepatic vein, which was not noted on fluoroscopy but was apparent when transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) was used incidentally. The lead was depicted in the hepatic vein as strongly echogenic, accompanied by an acoustic shadow. Additional bending of the stylet was helpful for successful advancement of the lead. TEE provides additional information in such cases, although indications for its use should be explored because of its possible complications.     

Modified Magnet Test for a Reversed Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

We present the case of a 55-year-old man with atrial septal defect and cardiomyopathy who underwent implantation of an automatic cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) for ventricular tachycardia resulting in collapse. This case demonstrates multiple unusual complications related to AICD, including rotation of the pulse generator unit about its long axis requiring a "left-handed" magnet test to determine the appropriate counts.     

Infections in Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients

Implantable cardioverter de;fibrillators fICDsj have been documented as an effective modality in reducing arrhythmic mortality. A serious complication associated with implantation of the device is infection. Few studies have addressed this issue. Two hundred seven patients with refractory ventricular arrhythmias underwent 207 ICD implantations, and 56 subcutaneous generator changes at our institution. Eight patients developed wound infections, four following ICD implantation (4 out of 207 or 1.9%), and four following a generator change (4 out of 56 or 7.1%). Wound cultures most commonly revealed Staphylococcus aurous and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Infections treated with antibiotics alone, or with only generator removal, frequently recurred (four out of five attempts). There were no recurrences following total patch/lead and generator system removal. In jive patients, the same generator unit was successfully emplaned following ethylene oxide sterilization without infection recurrence. We conclude that treatment of device-associated infection generally requires total generator and patch/lead system removal, and that generator units can be successfully reimplanted yielding substantial cost savings.     

Multiple Inappropriate Shocks Precipitated by Interrogation of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

A 57-year-old man suffered multiple inappropriate shocks from an implantable cardioverter defibrillator that could not be inactivated because the magnet switch feature was deactivated. Attempts to interrogate the defibrillator caused shocks to be delivered. Emergent explantation was performed and a loose sensing lead was discovered. Sensing and defibrillation leads functioned normally, and testing of the explanted generator demonstrated no abnormalities. A new generator was put in place and the patient has been without shocks for 6 months. This case illustrates the need for robust methods of attenuating electromagnetic interference and the importance of multiple methods of device inactivation.     

AutoCapture with Dual-Coil Leads of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

AutoCapture™ (AC) can confirm ventricular capture with true bipolar single coil leads of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). The compatibility of AC with a new, true bipolar, dual-coil ICD lead needed to be evaluated. This multicenter study enrolled 46 patients (69 ± 10 years, 37 men) undergoing ICD implantation. All patients received a true bipolar, dual-coil lead. Evoked response (ER) sensitivity and AC threshold tests were performed using a pulse generator with the AC algorithm. Mean capture threshold was 0.85 ± 0.67 V, pacing impedance 612 ± 225 Ω, R wave amplitude 13.85 ± 6.17 mV, and defibrillation threshold 14.4 ± 5.1 J. AC was recommended in 45 patients (97.8%) with ER and polarization values of 14.86 ± 7.32 mV and 0.87 ± 0.69 mV, respectively. The AC algorithm was highly compatible with true bipolar, dual-coil ICD leads. An AC algorithm specifically designed for an ICD may improve the generator longevity. Further examination of AC compatibility with other leads is warranted.     

The Value of DDD Pacing in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Although the beneficial effects of DDD pacing are well known, currently available ICDs provide only fixed rate ventricular antibradycardia pacing. In a consecutive series of 139 patients with ICDs, we have analyzed the need for antibradycardia pacing and the indications for DDD pacing. We also report our initial experience with the Defender 9001 (ELA Medical, France) DDD-ICD. Out of 139 patients, 25 (18%) were in need of antibradycardia pacing. Ten patients already had a pacemaker at the time of ICD implantation and ten other patients had a conventional pacemaker indication at that time. Five patients became pacemaker dependent during a follow-up of 20 ± 8 months. The disorders necessitating pacemaker therapy were high degree AV conduction disturbances in 72%, sick sinus syndrome in 12%, and AF with a slow ventricular response in 16% of patients. Based upon current indications, DDD pacing was indicated in 20 (80%) of 25 patients. The Defender 9001 DDD-ICD (ELA Medical) was used in two patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and pacemaker syndrome with VVI pacing. Cardiac output during DDD pacing increased by 36% in one patient with an increase in VO₂ max during exercise of 29%. The other patient showed an increase in cardiac output of 50% with DDD pacing, and, while unable to exercise with VVI pacing, had a VO_2max of 24 mL/kg per minute during DDD pacing. Up to 18% of our ICD patients are in need of antibradycardia pacing. Of these pacemaker dependent patients, 80% have an indication for DDD pacing. Our first clinical experience with a DDD-ICD confirms the hemodynamic benefit of AV synchronous pacing in ICD patients with pacemaker syndrome.     

Infection of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Systems: A Preventable Complication?

In a consecutive series of 164 patients undergoing primary implantation of an impJantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), two patients died in the hospital (1.2%) and early system infection developed in one patient requiring expJantation of the device (0.61%). Late infection developed in one additional patient (0.61%) 7 months after transvenous ICD implantation, and was thought to be due to a recent intravascular catheterization. Symptomatic generator pocket hematomas developed in three patients, two of which were treated by simple evacuation and one with temporary generator explantation and subsequent reimplantation of the unit in a new pocket. No infection developed in these three patients during follow-up. Generator erosion without obvious system infection developed in a fourth patient. Guidelines for the prevention of infection in ICD systems are presented.     

Hemiazygous Coil Placement for High‐Defibrillation Thresholds in a Patient with a Right‐Sided Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

A 41‐year‐old man underwent implantation of a right‐sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator after removal of an infected left‐sided system. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing on the right‐sided system failed to convert ventricular fibrillation at maximum device output (35 J) compared with a DFT of less than 15 J on the previous left‐sided system. A single‐coil lead was selectively placed into the hemiazygous vein, which courses leftward of the spine in a posterior‐anterior projection, resulting in an improved shocking vector and reduction in DFTs to less than 25 J. (PACE 2012; 35:e10–e12)     

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Proarrhythmia: Case Report and Review of the Literature

A 31-year-old man who received an automatic cardioverter defibrillator subsequently underwent exercise testing. During exercise, a sinus tachycardia resulted above his device detect rate prompting two shocks, the second of which produced an unstable polymorphous ventricular tachycardia. In this article, we review the literature on automatic cardioverter defibrillator-induced ventricular tachyarrhythmias as well as the management of exercise testing in patients with these devices.     

Pseudo-Oversensing of the T Wave by an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: A Nonclinical Problem

Two patients are described who had pseudo-oversensing of T waves during follow-up testing of the Medtronic PCD. Each patient exhibited appropriate T wave sensing following closely coupled spontaneous QRS complexes to subthreshold stimuli without having T wave sensing following sensed or paced complexes. One patient also revealed T wave sensing following fusion beats. The occurrence of T wave sensing in these unique clinical situations was due to the auto-adjusting sensitivity threshold function used by the PCD. Recognition of this normal sensing function will prevent inappropriate reprogramming of the sensitivity or postpace refractory period, interventions that could potentially lead to ventricular tachyarrhythmia undersensing.     

Predictors of Fracture Risk of a Small Caliber Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead

Introduction: The Sprint Fidelis 6949 implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD; Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) lead has a high rate of fracture. Identification of predictors of subsequent fracture is useful in decision making about lead replacement and for future lead design. We sought to determine if there are clinical, procedural, or radiological features associated with a greater risk of subsequent lead fracture. Methods: Patients with Sprint Fidelis 6949 lead fractures (Fracture group) were identified from our institutional database. Each patient in the Fracture group was matched to two controls, immediately preceeding and succeeding Sprint Fidelis 6949 implant. Clinical and procedural characteristics were compared. Chest radiographs performed 2 weeks after ICD implant were reviewed by an observer blinded to outcomes. The following features were assessed: ICD tip location, lead slack, kinking of the lead body (≥90°), and presence of lead “crimping” within the anchoring sleeve. Results: Twenty‐six patients with Sprint Fidelis 6949 lead fractures were identified and were matched to 52 control patients. On univariate analysis, a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior ipsilateral device implant, history of prior ICD lead fracture, and noncephalic venous access were associated with risk of lead fracture. On multivariate analysis, a higher LVEF was the only independent predictor of lead fracture (P = 0.006). Radiological features were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: In this study, a higher LVEF was associated with a greater risk of lead fracture in patients with Sprint Fidelis 6949 ICD leads. Radiographic features did not predict subsequent risk of lead fracture in our population. (PACE 2010; 437–443)     

The Use and Interaction of Permanent Pacemakers and the Automatic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

The adverse interactions of permanent pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators (AICD) were studied in nine patients in whom both devices were implanted. Both unipolar and bipolar pacemakers were evaluated. The permanent pacemakers were also used to do noninvasive electrophysiological studies and to induce ventricular fibrillation. Undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by the permanent pacemakers caused inappropriate pacemaker stimuli, which caused undersensing of ventricular fibrillation by the AICD in three of four patients with unipolar pacemakers. After an AICD discharge, pacemaker noncapture was seen in eight of 22 episodes for an average 4.9 seconds and inability to sense was seen in 11 of 20 episodes for an average 9.0 seconds. Counting of pacemaker stimuli and QRS by the AICD caused inappropriate discharges. Noninvasive electrophysiological testing by the pacemakers correlated with invasive testing. Furthermore, induction of ventricular fibrillation was successful in four of five patients attempted, though requiring long bursts at high outputs at the shortest cycle lengths obtainable by these pacemakers. Operation of the AICD and permanent pacemakers must be clearly understood to avoid adverse interactions of these devices.     

Successful Management of an Infected Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator with Oral Antibiotics and without Removal of the Device

Infection of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator developed 2 weeks after implantation, presenting with fever, swelling, redness, and tenderness of the skin above the generator site. A cloxacillin resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcus was repeatedly cultured from the abdominal wall pocket fluid. The infection was successfully treated with a combination of two antibiotics, fusidic acid and rifampin, given orally for 3 months. Although the device was not removed, infection did not recur during a 24-month follow-up.     

Total Pectoral Implantation: A New Technique for Implantation of Transvenous Defibrillator Lead Systems and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

We describe a new approach to tolal pectoral implantation of cardioverter defibrillators with an endocardial defibrillation lead system. Endocardial lead configuration used was an FDA approved right atrial-superior vena cavo defibriliation spring electrode, right ventricular bipolar sensing electrode, and a pectoral patch. Endocardial leads were implanted via a cephalic or an axillary venesection. Pectoral patch was placed in a sabmuscular position. In case of failure to obtain satisfactory thresholds, a small intercostal thoracofomy was performed via fhe same skin incision and patch placed over the epicardium instead of submuscular position and used with Ihe right atrial spring electrode. The device was implanted in the pectoral region, submuscularly, over the patch. Sixteen consecutive patients underwent this approach. With a submascular patch, adequate defibrillation thresholds (< 15 joules [J]) were obtained in 14 (87.5%) patients. In the other two, defibrillation thresholds of ≤ 15) were obtained with a epicardial patch. Pectoral implantation of the device was feasible in all 16 patients and none needed repositioning. Average postimplant hospital stay was 5 days. During follow-up period (average 5 months), none of the patients reported any major local symptoms and no problems have been encountered in device interrogation. Thus, total pectoral implantation of the cardioverter defibrillator including the patch, leads, and the device is feasible. Furthermore, in case of foilure to obtain adequate defibrillotjon thresholds with submuscular patch, an epicardial patch can easily be implanted and allows 100% successful defibrillation at energy levels of ≤ 15 J with right atrial patch configuration.     

Shock Anxiety among Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Recipients with Recent Tachyarrhythmia

Background: Shock anxiety has been documented irrespective of shock exposure in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients. The presence of tachyarrhythmia may lead to an anticipation of receiving a shock and thereby give rise to shock anxiety. The aims were to assess: (1) the level of shock anxiety in a sample of ICD recipients, (2) the relationship between such anxiety and shock exposure, and (3) the relationship between recent tachyarrhythmia and shock anxiety. Methods: ICD recipients (n = 167) completed the Florida Shock Anxiety Scale measure of shock anxiety. The recipients were divided into three groups: (1) Recipients with no documented tachyarrhythmia over the previous 12 months (n = 56), (2) recipients with documented tachyarrhythmia over the previous twelve months (n = 54), and (3) recipients with any history of shocks (n = 57). Results: Of the recipients, 44% experienced some form of shock anxiety, whereas 15% reported general shock anxiety. Analyses of covariance revealed that recipients with recent tachyarrhythmia (F = 7.675 df = 9/100, P = 0.007) as well as recipients with a shock history (F = 9.976, df = 9/103, P = 0.002) reported higher levels of shock anxiety than recipients with no recent tachyarrhythmia. Conclusion: This study indicates that although a substantial proportion of the ICD recipients experienced some form of shock anxiety, only a relatively small proportion reported general shock anxiety. ICD recipients with recent tachyarrhythmia, in addition to recipients with shock history, appear to be at greater risk for development of shock anxiety. This implies that these recipients may profit from clinical‐based strategies and interventions targeting shock anxiety (PACE 2012; 35:1369–1376)