Literature DB >> 8823837

Lead fracture in cephalic versus subclavian approach with transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems.

D M Gallik1, U M Ben-Zur, J N Gross, S Furman.   

Abstract

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. All 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8823837     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03418.x

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


  10 in total

1.  Early detection of lead fracture by painless high voltage lead impedance measurement in a transvenous ICD lead system.

Authors:  J Stevens; A B Buchwald; H Krieglstein; C Unterberg
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 2.  [ICD leads].

Authors:  Carsten W Israel; Mohamed Karim Sheta
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-06

3.  Possible complications of subclavian crush syndrome.

Authors:  S A M Said; C H J M Ticheler; C M Stassen; A Derks; H T Droste
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  Endovascular extraction techniques: Part 3: Results and indications in patients with an ICD.

Authors:  F A Bracke; A Meijer; B van Gelder
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.380

5.  Intermittent Pacemaker Malfunction Caused by Continuous Compression of the Lead by the Clavicle (Subclavian Crush Syndrome).

Authors:  Ardian Rizal; Evit Ruspiono; Dinarsari Hayuning Putri
Journal:  Eur J Case Rep Intern Med       Date:  2020-05-27

6.  Coronary sinus lead placement via the internal jugular vein in patients with advanced heart failure: a simplified percutaneous approach.

Authors:  Luis A Pires; Sohail A Hassan; Katrina M Johnson
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.900

7.  Feasibility and accuracy of pre-procedure imaging of the proximal cephalic vein by duplex ultrasonography in pacemaker and defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Jan-Yow Chen; Kuan-Cheng Chang; Yu-Chin Lin; Hsiang-Tai Chou; Jui-Sung Hung
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Clinical predictors of successful cephalic vein access for implantation of endocardial leads.

Authors:  Bradley P Knight; Kristen Curlett; Hakan Oral; Frank Pelosi; Fred Morady; S Adam Strickberger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 1.900

9.  Changes in the specific absorption rate (SAR) of radiofrequency energy in patients with retained cardiac leads during MRI at 1.5T and 3T.

Authors:  Laleh Golestanirad; Amir Ali Rahsepar; John E Kirsch; Kenichiro Suwa; Jeremy C Collins; Leonardo M Angelone; Boris Keil; Rod S Passman; Giorgio Bonmassar; Peter Serano; Peter Krenz; Jim DeLap; James C Carr; Lawrence L Wald
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  Triple lead cephalic versus subclavian vein approach in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation.

Authors:  Julia Vogler; Anne Geisler; Nils Gosau; Samer Hakmi; Stephan Willems; Tienush Rassaf; Reza Wakili; Elif Kaya
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-12-07       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.