Home  About us  Contact
 

ICD Leads (icd + lead)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Concerns about the Riata® ST (St. Jude Medical) ICD Lead

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 1 2008
STEPHEN C. VLAY M.D.
No abstract is available for this article. [source]

Diagnosis and Management of Inadvertently Placed Pacing and ICD Leads in the Left Ventricle: A Multicenter Experience and Review of the Literature

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
BERRY M. VAN GELDER
Three patients from different centers with pacemaker or ICD leads endocardially implanted in the left ventricle are described. All leads, two ventricular pacing leads and one ICD lead, were inserted through a patent foramen ovale or an atrial septum defect. The diagnosis was made 9 months. 14 months, and 16 years, respectively, after implantation. All patients had right bundle branch block configuration during ventricular pacing. Chest X ray was suggestive of a left-sided positioned lead except in the ICD patient. Diagnosis was confirmed with echocardiography in all patients. One patient with a ventricular pacing lead presented with a transient ischcmic attack at 1-month postimplantation. During surgical repair of the atrial septum defect 14 months later, the lead was extracted and thrombus was attached to the lead despite therapy with aspirin. The other patients were asymptomatic without anticoagulation (9 months and 16 years after implant). No thrombus was present on the ICD lead at the time of the cardiac transplantation in one patient. We reviewed 27 patients with permanent leads described in the literature. Ten patients experienced thromboembolic complications, including three of ten patients on antiplatelet therapy. The lead was removed in six patients, anticoagulation with warfarin was effective for secondary prevention in the four remaining patients. In the asymptomatic patients, the lead was removed in five patients. In the remaining patients, 1 patient was on warfarin, 2 were on antiplatelet therapy, and in 3 patients the medication was unknown. After malposition was diagnosed, three additional patients were treated with warfarin. In conclusion, if timely removal of a malpositioned lead in the left ventricle is not preformed, lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin can be recommended as the first choice therapy and lead extraction reserved in case of failure or during concomitant surgery. [source]

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Sensing Failure Due to Endocardial R Wave Electrical Alternans

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 7 2002
KRIT JONGNARANGSIN M.D.
Electrical Alternans and ICD Undersensing. A 71-year-old patient underwent routine single-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator replacement. During defibrillation threshold testing, ventricular tachycardia was induced but the ICD failed twice to properly detect the tachycardia due to endocardial R wave alternans and sensing of every other beat. The problem was resolved by inserting a separate sensing/pacing lead positioned further away from the existing ICD lead. [source]

Innovative Techniques for Placement of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads in Patients with Limited Venous Access to the Heart

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2006
BRYAN C. CANNON
Background: Because of venous occlusion, intracardiac shunting, previous surgery, or small size placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads may not be possible using traditional methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and describe innovative methods of placing ICD leads. Methods: The records of all patients undergoing ICD implantation at our institution were reviewed to identify patients with nontraditional lead placement. Indications for ICD, method of lead and coil placement, defibrillation thresholds, complications, and follow-up results were reviewed retrospectively. Results: Eight patients (aged 11 months to 29 years) were identified. Six patients with limited venous access to the heart (four extracardiac Fontan, one bidirectional Glenn, one 8 kg 11-month-old) underwent surgical placement of an ICD coil directly into the pericardial sac. A second bipolar lead was placed on the ventricle for sensing and pacing. Two patients with difficult venous access had a standard transvenous ICD lead inserted directly into the right atrium (transatrial approach) and then positioned into the ventricle. All patients had a defibrillation threshold of <20 J, although one patient required placement of a second coil due to an elevated threshold. There have been no complications and two successful appropriate ICD discharges at follow-up (median 22 months, range 5,42 months). Conclusions: Many factors may prohibit transvenous ICD lead placement. Nontraditional surgical placement of subcutaneous ICD leads on the pericardium or the use of a transatrial approach can be effective techniques in these patients. These procedures can be performed at low risk to the patient with excellent defibrillation thresholds. [source]

Long-Term Structural Failure of Coaxial Polyurethane Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2002
ROBERT G. HAUSER
HAUSER, R.G., et al.: Long-Term Structural Failure of Coaxial Polyurethane Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads. Transvene models 6936/6966, a coaxial polyurethane ICD lead, may be prone to structural failure. These models comprise 54% of ICD lead failures in the authors' Multicenter Registry database. Because ICD leads perform a vital function, the clinical features, causes, and probability of Transvene 6936/6966 lead failure were determined. The Registry and United States Food and Drug Administration databases were queried for the clinical features and structural causes of the Transvene 6936/6966 lead failure, and a five-center substudy estimated the survival probability for 521 Transvene 6936/6966 implants. The mean time to failure was 4.8 ± 2.1 years, and the estimated survival at 60 and 84 months after implant were 92% and 84%, respectively. Oversensing was the most common sign of failure (76%), and 24 patients experienced inappropriate shocks. The manufacturer's reports indicated that high voltage coil fracture and 80A polyurethane defects were the predominant causes of lead failure. Transvene models 6936 and 6966 coaxial polyurethane ICD leads are prone to failure over time. Patients who have these leads should be evaluated frequently. Additional studies are needed to identify safe management strategies. [source]

Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2001
ANTONIS S. MANOLIS
MANOLIS, A.S., et al.: Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System. A previous report described our preliminary experience with a highly successful pacing lead removal system (VascoExtor). Extending this experience, we found it necessary to use additional tools to enhance the success of percutaneous lead extraction with this system. In the present series, we used the standard locking stylets (S and K), and recently, one newer type of stylet (Magic) over the last 3 years in 34 patients to extract 48 pacemaker leads in 31 patients and 3 defibrillator (ICD) leads in 3 patients. Lead extraction was carried out in 23 men and 11 women (aged 64 ± 17 years) because of pacemaker infection (n = 21), pacemaker (n = 8) or ICD (n = 3) lead malfunction, or prior to ICD implant (n = 2). Leads were in place for 3.5 ± 3.7 years. Infections, involving pocket and lead(s), were due to S. epidermidis (n = 13), S. aureus (n = 6), S. aureus plus E. coli (n = 1), or fungi (n = 1). Of the 48 pacing leads, 31 were ventricular, 15 atrial, and 2 were VDD leads. The ICD leads were two double-coil leads (CPI) and one single-coil lead (Telectronics). Using the S (n = 12), K (n = 8), or Magic (n = 3) stylets, all pacing leads in 23 patients and the ICD leads in 2 patients were successfully removed from a subclavian approach using the locking stylets. However, in nine (26.5%) patients ancillary tools were required. In four patients, lead fragments were captured with use of a noose catheter, a pigtail catheter, and a bioptome from a right femoral approach. In two patients, locking could not be effected and a noose catheter from the right femoral vein was used, aided by a pigtail and an Amplatz catheter and a bioptome to remove three leads. In a patient with an ICD lead, a combined subclavian (stylet S) and right femoral approach (noose catheter) was required. In a patient with a dysfunctional ventricular lead 12 years old, a motor drive unit was used to facilitate the exchange of locking stylets, but extraction failed. In another patient, a fragment of a dysfunctional ventricular lead remained intravascularly despite resorting to a femoral approach. Finally, lead removal was completely (32/34, 94%) or partially (1/34, 3%) successful in 33 (97%) of 34 patients for 50 (98%) of 51 leads without complications. In conclusion, to enhance the success of pacing or ICD lead extraction with use of the VascoExtor locking stylets, an array of ancillary tools were required in more than one fourth of patients. [source]

Diagnosis and Management of Inadvertently Placed Pacing and ICD Leads in the Left Ventricle: A Multicenter Experience and Review of the Literature

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
BERRY M. VAN GELDER
Three patients from different centers with pacemaker or ICD leads endocardially implanted in the left ventricle are described. All leads, two ventricular pacing leads and one ICD lead, were inserted through a patent foramen ovale or an atrial septum defect. The diagnosis was made 9 months. 14 months, and 16 years, respectively, after implantation. All patients had right bundle branch block configuration during ventricular pacing. Chest X ray was suggestive of a left-sided positioned lead except in the ICD patient. Diagnosis was confirmed with echocardiography in all patients. One patient with a ventricular pacing lead presented with a transient ischcmic attack at 1-month postimplantation. During surgical repair of the atrial septum defect 14 months later, the lead was extracted and thrombus was attached to the lead despite therapy with aspirin. The other patients were asymptomatic without anticoagulation (9 months and 16 years after implant). No thrombus was present on the ICD lead at the time of the cardiac transplantation in one patient. We reviewed 27 patients with permanent leads described in the literature. Ten patients experienced thromboembolic complications, including three of ten patients on antiplatelet therapy. The lead was removed in six patients, anticoagulation with warfarin was effective for secondary prevention in the four remaining patients. In the asymptomatic patients, the lead was removed in five patients. In the remaining patients, 1 patient was on warfarin, 2 were on antiplatelet therapy, and in 3 patients the medication was unknown. After malposition was diagnosed, three additional patients were treated with warfarin. In conclusion, if timely removal of a malpositioned lead in the left ventricle is not preformed, lifelong anticoagulation with warfarin can be recommended as the first choice therapy and lead extraction reserved in case of failure or during concomitant surgery. [source]

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

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 4 2010
ANDREW C.T.
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) [source]

Innovative Techniques for Placement of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Leads in Patients with Limited Venous Access to the Heart

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 2 2006
BRYAN C. CANNON
Background: Because of venous occlusion, intracardiac shunting, previous surgery, or small size placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads may not be possible using traditional methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and describe innovative methods of placing ICD leads. Methods: The records of all patients undergoing ICD implantation at our institution were reviewed to identify patients with nontraditional lead placement. Indications for ICD, method of lead and coil placement, defibrillation thresholds, complications, and follow-up results were reviewed retrospectively. Results: Eight patients (aged 11 months to 29 years) were identified. Six patients with limited venous access to the heart (four extracardiac Fontan, one bidirectional Glenn, one 8 kg 11-month-old) underwent surgical placement of an ICD coil directly into the pericardial sac. A second bipolar lead was placed on the ventricle for sensing and pacing. Two patients with difficult venous access had a standard transvenous ICD lead inserted directly into the right atrium (transatrial approach) and then positioned into the ventricle. All patients had a defibrillation threshold of <20 J, although one patient required placement of a second coil due to an elevated threshold. There have been no complications and two successful appropriate ICD discharges at follow-up (median 22 months, range 5,42 months). Conclusions: Many factors may prohibit transvenous ICD lead placement. Nontraditional surgical placement of subcutaneous ICD leads on the pericardium or the use of a transatrial approach can be effective techniques in these patients. These procedures can be performed at low risk to the patient with excellent defibrillation thresholds. [source]

Long-Term Structural Failure of Coaxial Polyurethane Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2002
ROBERT G. HAUSER
HAUSER, R.G., et al.: Long-Term Structural Failure of Coaxial Polyurethane Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads. Transvene models 6936/6966, a coaxial polyurethane ICD lead, may be prone to structural failure. These models comprise 54% of ICD lead failures in the authors' Multicenter Registry database. Because ICD leads perform a vital function, the clinical features, causes, and probability of Transvene 6936/6966 lead failure were determined. The Registry and United States Food and Drug Administration databases were queried for the clinical features and structural causes of the Transvene 6936/6966 lead failure, and a five-center substudy estimated the survival probability for 521 Transvene 6936/6966 implants. The mean time to failure was 4.8 ± 2.1 years, and the estimated survival at 60 and 84 months after implant were 92% and 84%, respectively. Oversensing was the most common sign of failure (76%), and 24 patients experienced inappropriate shocks. The manufacturer's reports indicated that high voltage coil fracture and 80A polyurethane defects were the predominant causes of lead failure. Transvene models 6936 and 6966 coaxial polyurethane ICD leads are prone to failure over time. Patients who have these leads should be evaluated frequently. Additional studies are needed to identify safe management strategies. [source]

Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2001
ANTONIS S. MANOLIS
MANOLIS, A.S., et al.: Ancillary Tools in Pacemaker and Defibrillator Lead Extraction Using a Novel Lead Removal System. A previous report described our preliminary experience with a highly successful pacing lead removal system (VascoExtor). Extending this experience, we found it necessary to use additional tools to enhance the success of percutaneous lead extraction with this system. In the present series, we used the standard locking stylets (S and K), and recently, one newer type of stylet (Magic) over the last 3 years in 34 patients to extract 48 pacemaker leads in 31 patients and 3 defibrillator (ICD) leads in 3 patients. Lead extraction was carried out in 23 men and 11 women (aged 64 ± 17 years) because of pacemaker infection (n = 21), pacemaker (n = 8) or ICD (n = 3) lead malfunction, or prior to ICD implant (n = 2). Leads were in place for 3.5 ± 3.7 years. Infections, involving pocket and lead(s), were due to S. epidermidis (n = 13), S. aureus (n = 6), S. aureus plus E. coli (n = 1), or fungi (n = 1). Of the 48 pacing leads, 31 were ventricular, 15 atrial, and 2 were VDD leads. The ICD leads were two double-coil leads (CPI) and one single-coil lead (Telectronics). Using the S (n = 12), K (n = 8), or Magic (n = 3) stylets, all pacing leads in 23 patients and the ICD leads in 2 patients were successfully removed from a subclavian approach using the locking stylets. However, in nine (26.5%) patients ancillary tools were required. In four patients, lead fragments were captured with use of a noose catheter, a pigtail catheter, and a bioptome from a right femoral approach. In two patients, locking could not be effected and a noose catheter from the right femoral vein was used, aided by a pigtail and an Amplatz catheter and a bioptome to remove three leads. In a patient with an ICD lead, a combined subclavian (stylet S) and right femoral approach (noose catheter) was required. In a patient with a dysfunctional ventricular lead 12 years old, a motor drive unit was used to facilitate the exchange of locking stylets, but extraction failed. In another patient, a fragment of a dysfunctional ventricular lead remained intravascularly despite resorting to a femoral approach. Finally, lead removal was completely (32/34, 94%) or partially (1/34, 3%) successful in 33 (97%) of 34 patients for 50 (98%) of 51 leads without complications. In conclusion, to enhance the success of pacing or ICD lead extraction with use of the VascoExtor locking stylets, an array of ancillary tools were required in more than one fourth of patients. [source]