			Home About us Contact

ICD Placement (icd + placement)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Electrocardiographic Findings, Device Therapies, and Comorbidities in Octogenarian Implantable Defibrillator Recipients

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 3 2010
JAMES D. DANIELS M.D.
Implantable Defibrillators in Octogenarians.,Background: The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in octogenarians is poorly defined. Objective: To assess baseline electrocardiographic (ECG) findings, arrhythmia episodes, and development of severe nonarrhythmic illness or death in patients aged ,80 years at ICD implantation, and to compare them with younger patients. Methods: Medical records and device interrogations for 199 patients ,70 years old who underwent ICD implantation were reviewed. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on age at the time of implant: age 70,74 (group 1; 88 patients), age 75,79 (group 2; 67 patients), and age ,80 (group 3; 44 patients). Results: ECGs: Octogenarians were more likely to have sinus bradycardia (SB) (P = 0.047) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) (P = 0.043) compared to younger patients. There was no difference among groups in the proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation or any degree of AV block. Therapies: There was no difference between age groups in any therapy (P = 0.78), appropriate therapy (P = 0.54), or inappropriate therapy (P = 0.21) per patient-year. There was no difference between groups in time-to-first therapy of any type (P = 0.71). Nonarrhythmic death/morbidity: There was no difference between groups in time to death or serious illness. Conclusion: Our study is the first to evaluate in detail the therapies received by octogenarians after ICD placement. The higher incidence of SB and LBBB might influence the number of pacing sites in octogenarian patients. Very elderly patients have similar rates of arrhythmic episodes and development of severe comorbidities as septuagenarians, and they should not be denied ICD implantation based solely on age. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 21, pp. 236,241, March 2010) [source]

Improved Survival of Cardiac Transplantation Candidates with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy:

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2003
Role of Beta-Blocker or Amiodarone Treatment
Introduction: Survival in patients awaiting cardiac transplantation is poor due to the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmia. The potential role of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this group of patients has been the subject of increasing interest. The aims of this study were to ascertain whether ICDs improve the survival rate of patients on the waiting list for cardiac transplantation and whether any improvement is independent of concomitant beta-blocker or amiodarone therapy. Methods and Results: Data comprised findings from 310 consecutive patients at a single center who were evaluated and deemed suitable for cardiac transplantation and placed on the waiting list. Kaplan-Meier actuarial approach was used for survival analysis. Survival analysis censored patients at time of transplantation or death. Of the 310 patients, 111 (35.8%) underwent successful cardiac transplantation and 164 (52.9%) died while waiting; 35 patients remain on the waiting list. Fifty-nine (19%) patients had ICD placement for ventricular arrhythmias prior to or after being listed. Twenty-nine (49.1%) ICD patients survived until cardiac transplantation, 13 (22%) patients died, and 17 (28.8%) remain on the waiting list. Among non-ICD patients, 82 (32.7%) received transplants, 151 (60.2%) died, and 18 (7.2%) remain on the waiting list. Survival rates at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were better for all ICD patients compared to non-ICD patients (log-rankx2, P = 0.0001). By multivariate analysis, ICD therapy and beta-blocker treatment were the strongest predictors of survival. Further, ICD treatment was associated with improved survival independent of concomitant treatment with beta-blocker or amiodarone. Among ICD and non-ICD patients treated with a beta-blocker or amiodarone, survivals at the 1 and 4 years were 93% vs 69% and 57% vs 32%, respectively (log-rankx2, P = 0.003). Conclusion: ICD therapy is associated with improved survival in high-risk cardiac transplant candidates, and ICD benefit appears to be independent of concomitant treatment. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 14, pp. 578-583, June 2003) [source]

Underutilization of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators Post Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Systolic Dysfunction

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 6 2010
JERRY M. JOHN M.D.
Background: Evaluation of the need for prophylactic internal cardiac defibrillators among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathies should be deferred until at least 3 months after revascularization procedures to allow adequate time for recovery of ventricular function. Methods: Among patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the proportion of patients who are risk stratified postoperatively with reassessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. Results: One hundred and six patients with LVSD (LVEF < 40%) who underwent CABG during 2004,2006 and survived 3 months post CABG were evaluated. Follow-up was assessed by chart review and telephone contact. LVEF was not reassessed in 24% (25/106) of the population, none of whom underwent internal cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Of those with LVEF reassessed, persistent LVSD was present in 20/81 (25%), 12 of whom were referred for prophylactic ICD placement. Conclusion: One-fourth of patients with LVSD who undergo CABG do not have LVEF reassessed postoperatively which may lead to underutilization of ICDs. (PACE 2010; 33:727,733) [source]

Clinical Predictors of Defibrillation Thresholds with an Active Pectoral Pulse Generator Lead System

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 4 2002
DENICE M. HODGSON
HODGSON, D.M., et al.: Clinical Predictors of Defibrillation Thresholds with an Active Pectoral Pulse Generator Lead System. Active pectoral pulse generators are used routinely for initial ICD placement because they reduce DFTs and simplify the implantation procedure. Despite the common use of these systems, little is known regarding the clinical predictors of defibrillation efficacy with active pulse generator lead configurations. Such predictors would be helpful to identify patients likely to require higher output devices or more complicated implantations. This was a prospective evaluation of DFT using a uniform testing protocol in 102 consecutive patients with an active pectoral can and dual coil transvenous lead. For each patient, the DFT was measured with a step-down protocol. In addition, 34 parameters were assessed including standard clinical echocardiographic and radiographic measures. Multivariate stepwise regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of the DFT. The mean DFT was 9.3 ± 4.6 J and 93% (95/102) of patients had a DFT , 15 J. The QRS duration, interventricular septum thickness, left ventricular mass, and mass index were significant but weak (R < 0.3) univariate predictors of DFT. The left ventricular mass was the only independent predictor by multivariate analysis, but this parameter accounted for < 5% of the variability of DFT measured (adjusted R2= 0.047, P = 0.017). The authors concluded that an acceptable DFT (< 15 J) is observed in > 90% of patients with this dual coil and active pectoral can lead system. Clinical factors are of limited use for predicting DFTs and identifying those patients who will have high thresholds. [source]

Use of a Single Coil Transvenous Electrode with an Abdominally Placed Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Children

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2000
PETER S. FISCHBACH
While transvenous defibrillator electrode placement avoiding a thoracotomy is preferable, electrode size, a large intercoil spacing, and the need for subclavicular device placement preclude this approach in most children. We investigated a single RV coil to an abdominally placed active can ICD device. Five children ages 8,16 years (weight 21,50 kg, mean 35 kg) underwent ICD placement. Placement of a single coil Medtronic model 6932 or 6943 electrode was performed via the left subclavian vein approach and the electrode positioned in the RV apex with the coil lying along the RV diaphragmatic surface. The ICD (Medtronic Micro Jewel II model 7223Cx) was implanted in a left abdominal pocket with the lead tunneled from the infraclavicular region to the pocket. Implant DFTs were ± 15 J using a biphasic waveform. DFTs rechecked within 3-month postimplant were unchanged. Lead impedance at implant ranged from 38 to 56 ,, mean 51 ,. Follow-up was 3,21 months (total 82 months) with no electrode dislodgment. lead fractures, or inappropriate discharges. Two of the five patients have had successful appropriate ICD discharges. Transvenous ICD electrode placement can be performed in children as small as 20 kg with the device implanted in a cosmetically acceptable abdominal pocket that is well tolerated. Excellent DFTs can be achieved. This approach avoids a thoracotomy in all but the smallest child, does not require subclavicular placement of the device, and avoids use of a second intravascular coil. [source]