Identification of an implantable defibrillator lead fracture with a new Holter system.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to D Kelso.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Implantable transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators offer a significant opportunity to decrease procedural morbidity and medical costs in the care of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias who otherwise would have required a sternotomy or thoracotomy for device insertion. The purpose of this study was to examine prospectively the safety, efficacy, and limitations associated with the use of a transvenously implanted, tiered-therapy cardioverter-defibrillator with antitachycardia pacing function in a consecutive population of 84 ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) survivors. METHODS AND RESULTS: The index arrhythmia promoting transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was VF in 41 patients, VT in 27, and both VF and VT in 16. In each patient, transvenous defibrillation via a coronary sinus, a right ventricular, a superior vena caval, and/or a subcutaneous chest patch lead system was attempted. The pulsing methods used include two-electrode single-pathway pulsing or three-electrode dual-pathway simultaneous or sequential pulsing. A transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was inserted if the defibrillation threshold (DFT) was < or = 20 J. Successful implantation of a transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was possible in 80 of 84 (95%) patients. The mean implant DFT was 10.9 +/- 4.8 J. After cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, all patients were extubated in the operating room and sent to a standard telemetry ward for monitoring. No patient suffered a postoperative pulmonary complication or perioperative flurry of cardiac arrhythmias. Postoperative complications included lead dislodgments in eight, transient long thoracic nerve injury in one, asymptomatic left subclavian vein occlusion in two, asymptomatic small pericardial effusion in one, subcutaneous patch pocket hematomas in four, pulse generator pocket infection in one, and lead fracture in one. As experience was gained with the procedure, it was routine to discharge patients 3 days after surgery. The mean hospital stay was 6.0 +/- 2.4 days. Upon discharge, all patients returned to their prehospital activities including those with complications except for the patient with a pocket infection, who required intravenous antibiotic therapy. Patient survival using an intention-to-treat analysis was 98% over an 11 +/- 7-month follow-up period. During this time period, 31 of the 80 patients (39%) with transvenous lead systems were successfully treated by their device for sustained VT or VF. Antitachycardia pacing was used in 424 episodes of monomorphic VT and was successful in 371 (88%). All episodes of VF were aborted by the device. Antiarrhythmic drugs were used after device implantation in only eight of 80 patients (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is practical in most candidates. Implant DFTs are usually low, surgical morbidity and postoperative complications are modest, therapy of VT and VF is efficient, and survival is excellent.
BACKGROUND: Multiprogrammable antiarrhythmia devices can treat monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) with autodecremental overdrive pacing and/or with low-energy cardioversion. These two methods provide the opportunity to decrease patient discomfort typically experienced with high-energy pulses. Although both therapies are known to be effective, controversy persists over their relative safety and efficacy. METHODS AND RESULTS: The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and efficacy of autodecremental overdrive pacing and low-energy cardioversion in reproducibly terminating monomorphic VT in 24 patients with multiprogrammable antiarrhythmia devices. The protocol required that identical ECG morphology VT be reproducibly induced four times to assess the outcome of antitachycardia pacing and cardioversion twice for each patient in a randomized fashion. Each episode of VT was induced via the implanted device. Autodecremental overdrive pacing initially began with seven stimuli at 97% of the VT cycle length, decrementing by 10 msec per stimulus to a minimum coupling interval of 200 msec. If ineffective, autodecremental overdrive pacing was allowed to iterate three more times for a total of four pacing interventions. With each iteration, one stimulus was added to the pacing train. Similarly, with low-energy cardioversion, up to four therapeutic attempts were made, beginning with a 0.2-J pulse. If ineffective, pulse energy was increased to 0.4, 1.0, and finally 2.0 J. All interventions were automatic without human interference. VT (cycle length, 306 +/- 42 msec) was repeatedly terminated in 15 of 24 patients (63%) by autodecremental overdrive pacing and in 18 of 24 patients (75%) by low-energy cardioversion (p = 0.53). Eight of the 24 patients (33%) had their VT terminated repeatedly by both therapies. VT accelerated to faster VT or ventricular fibrillation by autodecremental overdrive pacing in four of 24 patients (17%) and by low-energy cardioversion in five of 24 (21%) (p = 0.88). Only one of the 24 patients (4%) accelerated with both therapies. No patient was unaffected by either therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In the manner programmed, autodecremental overdrive pacing and low-energy cardioversion have similar efficacy and acceleration rates. Response to one therapy does not predict response to the other.
BACKGROUND: Transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators provide significant advantages in the treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. However, present technology requires considerable electrophysiology expertise, multiple incisions, and long operative times for successful implementation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this study, we present a prototype of a new, easy-to-insert unipolar transvenous defibrillation system that has the reliability of epicardial defibrillation but the ease of pacemaker insertion. This system incorporates a single anodal right ventricular defibrillation electrode using a 65% tilt biphasic pulse delivered to a 108-cm2 surface area pulse generator titanium alloy shell as an active cathode placed in a left infraclavicular pocket. Testing of this system was performed before implantation of a standard nonthoracotomy-transvenous defibrillation system in 40 consecutive patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. The simplified unipolar single-lead system resulted in a defibrillation threshold of 9.3 +/- 6.0 J with 37 of 40 patients (93%) having a defibrillation threshold of less than 20 J. Moreover, the unipolar defibrillation system was efficiently used requiring only 3.4 +/- 0.8 ventricular fibrillation inductions to measure the defibrillation threshold and 100 +/- 28 minutes to implement. CONCLUSIONS: This new unipolar transvenous defibrillation system is as simple to insert as a pacemaker, requires few ventricular fibrillation inductions, demands less technical expertise, and provides defibrillation at energy levels comparable to that reported with epicardial lead systems. It should substantially reduce the morbidity, time, and cost of defibrillator implantation.
The risk and benefit of oxygen humidification during ambulance transport is unknown. We cultured the water in plastic multiple-use bottles of humidifiers on 30 randomly selected area ambulances during November 1985. There were 22 positive cultures. Potentially pathogenic bacteria (four Pseudomonas maltophilia, three Pseudomonas aeruginosa, one Klebsiella pneumoniae, and one Staphylococcus epidermidis) were found in nine samples. Assuming that the water in ambulance humidifiers should have been sterile, the findings are statistically significant (P less than .01). Because there is no evidence that humidification is of benefit for nonintubated patients receiving oxygen at flow rates of 4 L/min or less when environmental humidity is adequate, we suggest that such patients should receive oxygen without humidification during ambulance transport. All other patients requiring oxygen during ambulance transport should continue to receive humidified oxygen. If a multiple-use humidifier reservoir is to be used, a written policy for its use must be developed and there must be appropriate documentation of compliance with the policy. An alternative is to replace the multiple-use humidifier reservoir with single-use sterile disposable devices, which cost approximately $2.00 per unit.
A survey of residents of the Anchorage Skid Row identified four subgroups: highly mobile workers, working residents, semi-employed residents and the homeless unemployed.