UNLABELLED: 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.
UNLABELLED: 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.