Subclavian Crush Syndrome Complicating Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillator Systems

Subclavian crush syndrome, described with pacemaker leads implanted via subclavian puncture, may occur when conductor fractures and insulation breaches develop by compression of a lead between the first rib and clavicle. We reviewed our experience in 164 patients who underwent intended implantation of transvenous defibrillator systems to determine the clinical relevance of subclavian crush syndrome in defibrillator patients. Venous access was obtained via subclavian puncture in 114 patients (70%) and via cephalic cut-down in 50 patients (30%). Nonthoracotomy lead systems, with or without subcutaneous patch, were successfully implanted in 131 of 164 patients (79.9%). Thoracotomy was required in 32 patients (19.5%) and subxiphoid patch in 1 patient (0.6%). Over a mean of 12.9 months (range 1–62 months), 3 patients (1.8%) required revision of the rate sensing lead/coil or superior vena cava coil after development of lead compression fractures in the region of the clavicle and first rib. In all 3 patients the leads had been implanted via subclavian puncture (2.6% of patients in whom the subclavian technique was utilized). Two patients presented with spurious shocks. One patient was asymptomatic. Conclusions: When venous access is obtained via subclavian puncture, subclavian crush syndrome may develop in patients with transvenous defibrillator systems. Patients may be asymptomatic and lead fractures may go unrecognized. When implanting transvenous defibrillator systems, strong consideration should be given to obtaining venous access primarily via the cephalic cut-down technique.     

Lead Fracture in Cephalic Versus Subclavian Approach with Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Systems

Lead fracture, occurring in approximately 1%–4% of patients, is an infrequent, but potentially catastrophic complication of permanent pacing systems. Its incidence in transvenous defibrillator systems has not been established. We analyzed data from 757 patients undergoing implantation of transvenous Cardioverter defibrillator systems using the Medtronic Transvene Lead® system between October 20, 1989 and June 25, 1992 to determine if site of venous approach influenced incidence of lead fracture. All patients received a 3-lead system in 1 of 3 configurations: (1) right ventricle/superior vena cava/subcutaneous patch; (2) right ventricle/coronary sinus/subcutaneous patch; or (3) right ventricle/superior vena cava/coronary sinus. Of 767 right ventricular leads placed, 523 were placed via the subclavian vein, 221 via cephalic vein, and 18 via the internal jugular (5 leads were implanted using another vein). The total number of leads is greater than the total number of patients, as five patients received a second defibrillator system if the initial system was explanted and reimplanted for any reason. Seven patients (0.9%) had right ventricular lead fracture, presenting with inappropriate defibrillator shocks (1), loss of pacing ability (3), both loss of pacing ability and inappropriate shocks (1), or increased pacing threshold (2). All patients required reoperation. AH had leads placed by the subclavian venous approach, with chest X ray confirming fracture at the clavicle-first rib junction in 6 of 7 cases. Using Fisher's Exact test, the difference in lead fracture between subclavian and cephalic vein implant approached statistical significance (P = 0.08). The trend toward increased lead fracture incidence with leads placed via subclavian vein suggests that cephalic vein approach may be preferable to avoid this complication.     

Combined Third-Generation Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator with Permanent Unipolar Pacemakers: Preliminary Observations

As implantable Cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are strictly contraindicated in the presence of unipolar pacemakers, currently available options in patients having such chronic pacing systems include: abandoning the implanted pacemaker and selecting an ICD with ventricular demand (VVI) pacing; or replacing the chronic (dual chamber) unipolar pacing system with a dedicated bipolar version prior to ICD implantation. In three patients with previously implanted unipolar pacemakers, we challenged the premise that all ICD systems are incompatible by combining with a third-generation transvenous ICD system (Medtronic 7217B PCD® incorporating true bipolar sensing, a self-limiting auto-adjusting sensitivity, and a tolerant VF detection algorithm. The potential for pace-maker-ICD interaction was minimized by separating the tip of the ICDs transvenous right ventricular pace/sense-defihrillation coil lead from that of the chronic pacemaker lead by > 2–3 cm, and by performing “worst case” intraoperative testing. Although ICD double-counting of the dual chamber pacemaker's atrial and ventricular pacing spikes could be provoked at extreme high output settings, it did not occur at clinically appropriate settings. More importantly, continuous high output asynchronous pacing during ventricular fibrillation (VF) did not interfere with ICD detection. During a mean follow-up period of 18 months, one patient has had VF appropriately terminated bv the ICD. In the remaining two patients, proper VF detection and ICD function was reassessed at 3 months and/or at 1 year during noninvasive testing. Conclusion: These preliminary findings demonstrate that this transvenous ICD system's VF sensing and detection features combined with careful implant technique, rigorous “worst case” testing for possible pacemaker-ICD interaction with regular follow-up, may permit implantation of this ICD system in patients with chronic unipolar pacing systems. Further studies are needed to validate the long-term clinical safety of this promising revised approach to a currently contraindicated device combination.     

Upgrade of permanent pacemakers and single chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators to pectoral dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators: indications,surgical approach,and long-term clinical results

The aim of this study was to describe the indications for upgrade of pacemakers (PMs) or single chamber (VVIR) ICDs to dual chamber (DDDR) ICDs, surgical approach, hardware hybridization, and clinical outcome. Patients with preexisting PMs or VVIR ICDs may develop indications for ICD therapy or dual chamber pacing, respectively, that can be served by DDDR ICDs that incorporate preexisting transvenous leads. Fifty-seven patients underwent upgrade from PMs (29/57) or VVIR ICDs (28/57) to pectoral DDDR ICDs. Preexisting transvenous atrial and/or ventricular leads suitable for continued use were incorporated into new DDDR ICDs in 88.5% and 100% of PM and VVIR ICD upgrades, respectively. Acceptable DFTs were achieved in 56 (98.2%) of 57 patients. Appropriate VT/VF therapies were registered among 33.3% of patients during follow-up. No shocks due to lead noise were observed in any patient with hybridized transvenous leads. Atrial far-field R wave (FFRW) oversensing occurred in 24% of DDDR ICD systems incorporating a preexisting atrial lead. FFRW was overcome by programming reduced atrial sensitivity without interfering with the normal ICD system performance in all instances. Upgrade of PMs and VVIR ICDs to pectoral DDDR ICDs is safe and technically feasible in most patients. Preexisting transvenous leads can be successfully incorporated into new DDDR ICDs, simplifying the surgical procedure, minimizing transvenous hardware, and eliminating the possibility of hazardous pacemaker-ICD interactions.     

Implantable cardiac defibrillators

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) represents an important development in the effort to reduce the incidence of sudden cardiac death (almost 400,000 yearly in the United States). Early generation ICDs, which required epicardial lead systems and abdominal placement of the pulse generator, have been replaced by transvenous leads and pectoral implants. Other important refinements, which include biphasic waveforms, extensive memory capability, antitachycardia pacing, and enhanced sensing algorithms, have greatly improved patient tolerance. Ongoing trials and those in the planning stages will continue to expand the indications for ICDs and will focus on cost-effectiveness.     

Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature

The preferred use of dual-coil implantable defibrillator lead systems in current implantable defibrillator therapy is likely based on data showing statistically lower defibrillation thresholds with dual-coil defibrillator lead systems. The following review will summarize the clinical data for dual- versus single-coil defibrillator leads in the left and right pectoral implant locations, and will then discuss the clinical implications of single- versus dual-coil usage for atrial defibrillation, venous complications, and the risks associated with lead extraction. It will be noted that there are no comparative clinical studies on the use and outcomes of single- versus dual-coil lead systems in implantable defibrillator therapy over a long-term follow-up. The limited long-term reliability of defibrillator leads is a major concern in implantable defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy. A simpler single-coil defibrillator lead system may improve the long-term performance of implanted leads. Furthermore, the superior vena cava coil is suspected to increase interventional risk in transvenous lead extraction. Therefore, the need for objective data on extractions and complications will be emphasized.     

Performance of Dedicated Versus Integrated Bipolar Defibrillator Leads with CRT-Defibrillators: Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study

Introduction: Right ventricular (RV) anodal stimulation may occur in cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-D) when left ventricular (LV) pacing is configured between the LV lead and an electrode on the RV defibrillator lead. RV defibrillator leads can have a dedicated proximal pacing ring electrode (dedicated bipolar) or utilize the distal shocking coil as the proximal pacing electrode (integrated bipolar). This study compares the performance of integrated versus dedicated leads with respect to anodal stimulation incidence, sensing, and inappropriate ventricular tachyarrhythmia detection in patients implanted with CRT-D.
Methods: Two hundred ninety-two patients were randomly assigned to receive dedicated or integrated bipolar RV leads at the time of CRT-D implantation. Patients were followed for 6 months.
Results: Patients with dedicated bipolar RV leads exhibited markedly higher rates of anodal stimulation than did patients with integrated leads. The incidence of anodal stimulation was 64% at implant for dedicated bipolar RV leads compared to 1% for integrated bipolar RV leads. The likelihood of anodal stimulation in patients with dedicated leads fell progressively during the 6-month follow-up (51.5%), but always exceeded the incidence of anodal stimulation in patients with integrated leads (5%). Clinically detectable undersensing and oversensing were very unusual and did not differ significantly between lead designs. There were no inappropriate ventricular tachyarrhythmia detections for either lead type.
Conclusion: Integrated bipolar RV defibrillator leads had a significantly lower incidence of RV anodal stimulation when compared to dedicated bipolar RV defibrillation leads, with no clinically detectable oversensing or undersensing, and with no inappropriate ventricular tachyarrhythmia detections for either lead type.     

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.     

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.     

Implantation of Cardioverter Defibrillator and Pacemaker Using the Same Pectoral Quadrant

We implanted a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) together with a pacemaker system in three patients with ventricular tachycardia and bradyarrhythmias. Both systems (ICD and pacemaker) were implanted in the same left pectoral quadrant using a single skin incision and the subclavian and/or the cephalic vein. The ICD was implanted deep to the pectoralis major muscle, the pacemaker was placed subcutaneously in a more medial pocket. There were no technical difficulties during implantation or complications during follow-up.     

Incidence of complications in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillator who receive additional transvenous pace/sense leads

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an additional pace/sense (P/S) lead is commonly used in patients with implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) to overcome P/S defects of integrated defibrillation leads (HV-P/S leads). No information is available about the clinical outcome and the incidence of complications in these patients. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed in 151 patients (125 male, age 54.9 +/- 13.6 years, LVEF 48.1 +/- 17.8%, CAD in 86 [57%], DCM in 24 [16%], ARVCM in 11 [7%]) who received an additional P/S lead between 1990 and 2002 (54 patients with abdominal and 97 patients with pectoral ICD system). Statistical analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS: The average follow-up (FU) after implantation of the additional P/S lead was 43 +/- 27 months. In total 117 patients [77.5%] remain implanted; 22 patients died due to cardiac-related reasons. After a FU of 23 +/- 23 months, 43 patients [28.5%] experienced lead-related problems after implantation of the additional P/S lead: oversensing in 23 [53.5%], insulation defect in 3 [7.0%], fracture in 1 [2.3%], system infection in 4 [9.3%], and defect of the HV-P/S lead in 6 [14.0%] patients. The event-free cumulative survival of the additional P/S lead after 1, 2, and 5 years was 87.0%, 79.8%, and 59.4%, respectively (for pectoral leads: 89.6%, 82.0%, and 60.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of an additional P/S lead in case of failure of an HV-P/S lead is safe. However, it is associated with a substantial rate of complications during FU. Therefore, extraction of damaged defibrillation leads instead of implantation of P/S leads should be favored.     

Low Incidence of Lead Related Complications Associated with Nonthoracotomy Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Systems

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly being implanted without the need for thoracotomy. Long-term lead performance and stability were evaluated in 150 consecutive patients in whom 1 of 3 nonthoracotomy ICD lead systems was implanted over a 3-year period from September 1990. Results: Twelve (8%) patients (7 males, 5 females) experienced 13 lead complications during a follow-up period of 12 ± 10 months. Complications were related to intracardiac leads in 7 (4 dislodgments, 2 fractures, 1 right ventricular perforation) and patch leads in 6 (2 folding, 1 fracture, 1 erosion, and 2 hematomas) cases. Freedom from lead related complications at 1 year was 92% (95% confidence interval, 86%–95%). A significant difference in freedom from lead complications between the two most frequently implanted lead systems was observed (P = 0.02). Complication rates were similar in the initial 75 and the more recent 75 implants (P= 0.5). The median time between lead implant and detection of complications was 37 days (range 3–1,147). Complications were diagnosed before hospital discharge in only two cases. In five patients, complications were asymptomatic and in three of these, reoperation was required due to inadequate defibrillation thresholds. Reoperation was necessary in 9 of 12 patients. Conclusions: Nonthoracotomy ICD lead systems are associated with a low complication rate. Complications may or may not cause symptoms, usually occur after hospital discharge, and require reoperation. Complications are not related to a "learning curve." There is a significant difference in performance between different lead systems.     

Effectiveness of Noninvasive Programmed Stimulation for Initiating Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with Third-Generation Implantable Cardioverter Definrillators

Previous generations of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) required invasive electrophysiological testing to assess defibrillator function. Newer third-generation ICDs include the capability for performing noninvasive programmed stimulation (NIPS) and may reduce the need for invasive studies to assess tachycardia recognition and antitachycardia therapy algorithms. The effectiveness of ICD-based NIPS for the induction of ventricular arrhythmias has not, however, been formally assessed. Third-generation ICDs were implanted in 79 patients, who underwent a total of 166 postoperative defibrillator tests. NIPS with rapid ventricular pacing was performed in all patients in an attempt to induce ventricular fibrillation. In patients with prior sustained uniform ventricular tachycardia, programmed stimulation with up to three extrastimuli was performed in order to attempt to initiate the clinical ventricular tachcardia. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with NIPS in 146 of 166 studies (88%). Ventricular tachycardia was initiated with NIPS in 104 of 123 studies (85%). The type of defibrillator and the use of endocardial or epicardial rate sensing/ pacing leads did not influence the efficacy of NIPS. NIPS with third-generation ICDs is generally effective at inducing ventricular fibrillation and clinically relevant ventricular tachycardias, and reduces the need to perform invasive electrophysiological testing following device implantation. In a minority of patients temporary transvenous pacing catheters must still be used to facilitate arrhythmia induction.     

Effectiveness of excimer laser-assisted pacing and ICD lead extraction in children and young adults

BACKGROUND: High capture thresholds, decreased electrical sensing, and lead fractures continue to be a problem in children undergoing transvenous pacing. The clinician must therefore decide at the time of pacing system revision to either abandon chronically implanted transvenous pacing leads or extract them. METHODS: We report our experience using an excimer laser-assisted (LA) strategy for removing chronically implanted pacing (36) and implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) (7) leads in children and young adults. The study population consisted of 25 patients, in whom 29 procedures were performed. The patients ranged in age from 8.4 to 39.9 years, median age was 13.9 years, at the time of the extraction procedure. In all procedures, a Spectranectics locking stylet and excimer laser sheath were used to assist in lead extraction. RESULTS: Lead removal was complete for 39 (91%) leads, and partial for four leads. In two patients, the pacing lead tip was retained and in two, the ring electrode from a bipolar pacing lead was left in situ. All ICD leads were removed completely. Two major complications occurred--cardiac perforation and tamponade (1), and thrombosis of the left subclavian/innominate vein (1). LA extraction facilitated the implantation of new pacing or ICD leads in three patients with obstructed venous access. CONCLUSIONS: Removal of pacing and ICD leads using an excimer LA technique was highly successful. Lead removal was complete in 91%. The most common indication for lead removal in our study was lead fracture. Complications were few, but may be significant.     

Infections with Nonthoracotomy Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Can These Be Prevented?

Nonthoracotomy ICDs are believed to be the best therapeutic modality for treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Little is known about the risk of infection with initial implantation of these devices. We studied the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors associated with infections in 1,831 patients with nonthoracotomy ICD from the Endotak-C nonthoracotomy lead registry of Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. A transvenous lead was implanted in 950 patients (51.9%) and a combination transvenous plus subcutaneous patch was used in 881 patients (48.1%). Nine preselected data variables were studied, and all investigators identified as having patients with infections were personally contacted. Infections occurred in 22 (1.2%) of 1,831 patients receiving this nonthoracotomy ICD system. The mean time to infection was 5.7 ± 6.5 months (range 1–25 months). Staphylococci were isolated in 58% of patients with reported infection. The presence of a subcutaneous defibrillator patch system was associated with the development of infection. Six of 950 patients (0.63%) with a totally transvenous lead system developed infection versus 16 of 838 (1.9%) patients with a transvenous lead plus subcutaneous patch system configuration (P = 0.015, Chi-square test), with an unadjusted estimated odds ratio of 3.06 (CI 1.19–7.86). The risk of infection encountered with the nonthoracotomy ICD is low, estimated from our data to be 1.2%. Placement of a subcutaneous defibrillator patch appears to be an independent risk factor for development of infection.     

A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

ICD implantation is standard therapy for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The advantage of dual and single coil defibrillator leads in the successful conversion of arrhythmias is unclear. This study compared the effectiveness of dual versus single coil defibrillation leads. The study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study comparing a dual with a single coil defibrillation system as part of an ICD using an active pectoral electrode. Seventy-six patients (64 men, 12 women; age 61 +/- 11 years) were implanted with a dual (group 1, n = 38) or single coil lead system (group 2,n = 38). The patients represented a typical ICD cohort: 60% presented with ischemic cardiomyopathy as their primary cardiac disease, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.406 +/- 0.158. The primary tachyarrhythmia was monomorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia in 52.6% patients and ventricular fibrillation in 38.4%. There was no significant difference in terms of P and R wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and lead impedance at implantation and follow-up in the two groups. There was similarly no difference in terms of defibrillation thresholds (DFT) at implantation. Patients in group 1 had an average DFT of 10.2 +/- 5.2 J compared to 10.3 +/- 4.1 J in Group 2, P = NS. This study demonstrates no significant advantage of a dual coil lead system over a single coil system in terms of lead values and defibrillation thresholds. This may have important bearing on the choice of lead systems when implanting ICDs.     

Defibrillator Twiddler's Syndrome Causing Device Failure in a Subpectoral Transvenous System

Twiddler's syndrome is well described as a complication of cardiac pacing. Defibrillator twiddler's syndrome has been recently reported with abdominal implantations of epicardial and transvenous defibrillator systems. We report a case of a patient with a transvenous defihrillator system implanted with the pulse generator placed in the Subpectoral plane. The patient developed twiddler's syndrome, which resulted in retraction of both leads. This caused inappropriate shocks due to sensing both the atriai and ventricular electrograms. While the Subpectoral position leaves the generator deeper and more difficult for the patient to access, it may not lessen the chance of twiddler's syndrome. It is possible that the Subpectoral position may actually predispose the patient to this malady.     

Use of Single Lead VDD Pacing in Children

The development of transvenous ventricular pacing leads with proximal electrodes capable of atrial sensing and the recent availability of smaller generators has created the opportunity to treat children with complete AV block and normal sinus node function with a transvenous single lead VDD pacing system. Studies in adults have demonstrated this system to be efficacious with low complication rates. Transvenous single lead VDD pacemakers were implanted in ten children, aged 5–15 years, between December 1993 and April 1996, in our institution. The indications were complete AV block with severe bradycardia in 5 patients, second-degree or complete A V block following congenital heart surgery in 3, complete A V block with long QT syndrome in 1, and second-degree AV block and syncope in 1. There were no complications related to the procedure in any case. P and R wave amplitudes were measured and thresholds were determined intraoperatively on all patients. Amplitudes and thresholds were remeasured on seven patients with a mean follow-up of 17 months; Holter monitors were performed on seven patients with a mean follow-up of 16 months. P and H wave amplitudes were generally diminished at follow-up compared to initial values but remained within an acceptable range for all patients. Four patients required reprogramming after pacemaker insertion, 1 received an atrial lead for dual chamber pacing, 1 required repositioning for lead dislodgment. and 1 patient required a new lead for an inadequate ventricular pacing threshold. No patient had evidence of failure to sense or capture as evaluated by Halter monitoring at last follow-up. Single lead VDD pacing systems can be successfully used in properly selected children with high degree or complete AV block with normal sinus node function.     

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.     

Complications of Third-Generation Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

To determine the incidence of complications of third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, 144 patients were prospectively studied who underwent first implant of third-generation devices (i.e., ICD systems with biphasic shocks, ECC storage capability, and nonthoracotomy lead systems). During 21 ± 15 months of follow-up, 41 (28%) patients had one or more complications. No patient died perioperatively (30 days) and no ICD infection was observed during follow-up. Complications included bleeding or pocket hematoma (hemoglobin drop > 2 g/dL) in 5 (3%) patients, prolonged reversible ischemic neurological deficit in 1 (1%) patient, postoperative deep venous thrombosis of leg in 1 (1%) patient, pneumothorax in 2 (1%) patients, difficulty to defibrillate ventricular fibrillation intraoperatively in 2 (1%) patients, generator malfunction in 1 (1%) patient, arthritis of the shoulder in 3 (2%) patients, and allergic reaction to prophylactic antibiotics in 2 (1%) patients. A total of seven lead related complications were observed in six (4%) patients including endocardial lead migration in four (3%) patients. Twenty-three (16%) patients received inappropriate shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias (n = 13), non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 7), or myopotential oversensing (n = 3). We conclude that serious complications such as perioperative death or ICD infection are rare in patients with third-generation ICDs. Lead-related problems and inappropriate shocks during follow-up are the most frequent complications of third-generation ICD therapy. Recognition of these complications should promote advances in ICD technology and management strategies to avoid their recurrence.