Literature DB >> 16105007

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

Christian G Wollmann1, Dirk Böcker, Andreas Löher, Julia Köbe, Hans H Scheld, Günter E Breithardt, Rainer Gradaus.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16105007     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2005.00169.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  6 in total

Review 1.  Considerations for cardiac device lead extraction.

Authors:  Oussama Wazni; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 2.  [ICD lead defects: diagnosis and therapeutical options].

Authors:  Christian G Wollmann; Dirk Böcker; Andreas Löher; Hans H Scheld; Günter Breithardt; Rainer Gradaus
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2009-02-11

3.  Outcomes 1 Year After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Lead Abandonment Versus Explantation for Unused or Malfunctioning Leads: A Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

Authors:  Emily P Zeitler; Yongfei Wang; Kumar Dharmarajan; Kevin J Anstrom; Eric D Peterson; James P Daubert; Jeptha P Curtis; Sana M Al-Khatib
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2016-07

Review 4.  A Questionable Indication For ICD Extraction After Successful VT Ablation.

Authors:  Luca Segreti; Andrea Di Cori; Giulio Zucchelli; Ezio Soldati; Giovanni Coluccia; Stefano Viani; Luca Paperini; Maria Grazia Bongiorni
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-04-30

5.  Consequences of Retained Defibrillator and Pacemaker Leads After Heart Transplantation-An Underrecognized Problem.

Authors:  Luise Holzhauser; Teruhiko Imamura; Hemal M Nayak; Nitasha Sarswat; Gene Kim; Jayant Raikhelkar; Sara Kalantari; Amit Patel; David Onsager; Tae Song; Takeyoshi Ota; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2018-01-08       Impact factor: 5.712

6.  A fortuitous syncope. The pitfalls of integrated bipolar defibrillator leads.

Authors:  Tushar V Salukhe; Ian Wright; Matthew Wright; Prapa Kanagaratnam; Mark D O'Neill
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2008-11-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.