SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Defibrillators, Implantable”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 577 records · Page 32Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

Inappropriate shock delivery by implantable defibrillators with dual chamber pacing during nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with heart block.

Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have improved the management of patients with ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF). Many patients with sustained VT/VF have bradyarrhythmias and nonsustained VT. Shock delivery due to nonsustained VT would be an undesirable feature. Abortive shock capability (noncommitted shocks) is a feature available in devices to prevent delivery of shocks for nonsustained VT. Recently, the availability of dual chamber pacing capability has improved the efficacy of ICDs by obviating the need of separate pacemaker implantation in patients with VT/VF and concomitant bradyarrhythmias. However, interaction between bradyarrhythmias and VT/VF has not been described and has important clinical implications. We report a case in which a patient with complete atrioventricular (AV) block and ventricular arrhythmias received an inappropriate shock following spontaneous termination of nonsustained VT, showing an important shortcoming of devices with these features.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Detection of the defibrillation threshold using the upper limit of vulnerability following defibrillator implantation.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to test defibrillation threshold (DFT) with the least number of fibrillation inductions using upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) and to describe the most practical set of ICD during DFT following implantation. BACKGROUND: Although the correlation between ULV and DFT has been well described, there has been no uniform DFT testing protocol taking the advantage of ULV after defibrillator (ICD) implantation. METHODS: A total of 26 patients undergoing a new ICD implantation had a DFT induced with scanned T wave shock. The hypothesis that ventricular fibrillation (VF) could be defibrillated with 5 J higher than the highest T wave shock needed to induce VF or with 10 J if the T wave shock needed to induce VF was less than 5 J, was tested and 20 patients fulfilled these criteria. The methodology is improved by detecting peak T wave with 12-lead ECG, applying biphasic T wave shock and scanning the T wave shock in a wider window. RESULTS: Five patients in the first group (n = 15) and one patient in the second group (n = 11) did not fulfill the above hypothesis. The common features of six patients who did not fulfill the hypothesis were that T wave shock needed to induce VF was either under 5 J (5 patients) or high (1 patient). CONCLUSION: This study revealed the importance of methodology in studies regarding ULV and DFT. Following ICD implantation, we propose the first biphasic T wave detected by 12-lead ECG and rescue shock set at 10 and 15 J, respectively. If any of the scanned T wave (40 ms before and 40 ms after the peak T wave with decrements and increments of 20 ms) shocks could not induce VF, then the T wave and the first rescue shock should be set at 5 and 10 J, respectively. If the induction of VF has been unsuccessful with T wave shock at 5 J, then a safe defibrillation with 10 J should be expected in majority.

Adult↗

PubMed1991

Sudden cardiac death, implanted defibrillation, and clinical electrophysiology.

A mere 25 years ago, the technique of external defibrillation became the starting point for the development of clinical electrophysiology by permitting routine use of endocavitary programmed electrical stimulation of the heart without undue risk. Major advances in knowledge of clinical arrhythmias and the understanding of their mechanisms were, thus, permitted. Mirowski's implanted defibrillator also constituted a major breakthrough therapeutically; unfortunately, however, some 10 years later, it has not yet induced similarly hoped for consequences in terms of progressing knowledge concerning lethal arrhythmias, largely due to the absence of Holter functions in the implanted devices. As a result of this, in our opinion, better established therapeutic indications are still needed. The reasons for the present situation, we believe, may be partly technical but are conceptual as well. The key point is that even the clear demonstration of the great practical efficacy of a therapeutic tool does not exempt us from the obligation of determining the mechanisms of this effect.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac↗

PubMed1997

Predischarge arrhythmia induction testing of implantable defibrillators may be unnecessary in selected cases.

Complete postoperative evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) before discharge, including arrhythmia induction, has been the standard since their introduction. Whereas the original ICDs provided little telemetered information and used separate pace-sense and defibrillation leads, modern, third-generation devices provide pace-sense function information in addition to other data and are used in conjunction with integrated transvenous endocardial leads that combine pace-sense and defibrillation function. Changes in lead position, which can potentially result in either an inability to detect fibrillation or to terminate it, should be mirrored by changes in resting pace-sense function. Thus, for newer ICDs implanted with integrated endocardial lead systems, it is possible that in at least some cases predischarge arrhythmia inductions can be avoided. Two hundred patients receiving third-generation ICDs in conjunction with integrated transvenous leads were evaluated before discharge. Defibrillation detection or termination problems were seen in 8. Declines in resting R-wave amplitude and pacing impedance were significantly associated with such complications (-7 +/- 5 vs -0.3 +/- 2.3 mV [p <0.0001] and -158 +/- 138 vs -93 +/- 76 omega [p <0.05], for those with vs without complications, respectively), as were gross right ventricular lead migrations on chest x-ray. No patient with a defibrillation complication had an R-wave change of <3 mV. However, 13% of patients without complications had R-wave changes of >3 mV. It is concluded that a pace-sense evaluation of ICDs may be a satisfactory screen to determine those who need to go on to complete testing with arrhythmia induction in selected cases.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

Sensing lead failure in implantable defibrillators: a comparison of two commonly used leads.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major technological advances, structural problems in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) endocardial sensing leads remain a significant problem. There are two types of ICD sensing leads: (1) dedicated bipolar leads and (2) integrated lead systems that include defibrillation coils. The long-term performance of these two lead systems has not been directly compared. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively examined the incidence of lead failure manifested by inappropriate arrhythmia detection in 247 consecutive patients undergoing abdominal ICD implant at a single center between 1991 and 1995. A total of 107 patients received BT-10 (dedicated bipolar) leads and 140 patients received Endotak (integrated bipolar) leads. Over a mean follow-up of 860 +/- 442 days, there were 19 (17.8%) lead failures with the BT-10 lead (261 to 1,505 days postimplant) compared with only 6 (4.3%; P < 0.01) with the Endotak lead (410 to 1,211 days postimplant). Lead failure was due to an insulation defect in all cases, with the problem occurring in the proximal lead (within the pulse generator pocket) in all but one case. Lead survival was significantly better with the Endotak lead (P = 0.015, risk ratio = 3.0, 95% confidence intervals 1.2 to 7.6). CONCLUSION: Late lead failure due to insulation defects in BT-10 sensing leads (causing inappropriate ICD activation) is a relatively common and progressive phenomenon, with difficulties becoming apparent as long as 4 years after implant. This problem is a likely cause of inappropriate shocks in patients with BT-10 leads. Implantation of a new sensing lead should be considered at the time of elective pulse generator replacement, even in the absence of demonstrable oversensing.

Aged↗

PubMed1995

Defibrillator implantation in a patient with a persistent left superior vena cava.

The implantation of a transvenous cardioverter defibrillator (PCD 7217B) was performed in a patient with a persistent left superior vena cava. The defibrillation electrodes were positioned in the right ventricle and the superior vena cava via the right subclavian vein. A subcutaneous patch had to be implanted at the left lateral chest wall to achieve sufficient defibrillation thresholds. Three weeks later the system had to be removed because of a generator pocket infection. During the second implantation we placed one electrode in the persistent left superior vena cava perpendicular to the electrode in the right ventricle. Using this configuration transvenous defibrillation was possible without an additional subcutaneous patch.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Electrical storm in patients with an implantable defibrillator: incidence, features, and preventive therapy: insights from a randomized trial.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, features, and clinical sequelae of 'electrical storm' (ES). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a prospectively designed secondary analysis of SHIELD; a randomized trial of azimilide for suppression of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) leading to implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Systematic and rigorous follow-up and blinded adjudication of ICD therapy allowed identification of all ESs (>/=3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h). Of 633 ICD recipients, 148 (23%) experienced at least one ES over 1-year follow-up. No clinical predictors of ES were identified. Frequent VT episodes accounted for 91% of all ESs, with the remaining being VF alone or both VT plus VF. ES led to a 3.1-fold increase in arrhythmia-related hospitalization (95% CI 2.3-4.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients with isolated VT/VF, and to a 10.2-fold increase (95% CI 6.4-16.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients without VT/VF. Compared with placebo, azimilide (75 and 125 mg/day) reduced the risk of recurrent ES by 37% (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11, P=0.11) and 55% (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87, P=0.018), respectively. However, the reduction in time-to-first ES did not reach statistical significance by both doses (75 and 125 mg) of azimilide (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19, P=0.29 and HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.04, P=0.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: ES is common and unpredictable in ICD recipients and it is a strong predictor of hospitalization.

Anti-Arrhythmia Agents↗

PubMed2002

Coronary vasospasm and aborted sudden death treated with an implantable defibrillator and stenting.

In selected patients suffering from variant angina, an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and coronary stenting can be helpful to prevent sudden death and treat coronary artery spasm. We report a case of a 47-year-old woman suffering from variant angina, who experienced an episode of ventricular fibrillation promptly cardioverted. After coronary angiography documentation of a mild atherosclerosis, an ICD was implanted and oral nitrates and calcium antagonists were prescribed. The recurrence of chest pain and palpitations prompted us to perform a second coronary angiography that documented a focal coronary artery spasm successfully treated with stent implantation. No other episodes of angina or ventricular arrhythmia were documented during the following 6 months of follow-up.

Angina Pectoris, Variant↗

PubMed2004

Interaction of implantable defibrillator therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme deletion/insertion polymorphism.

INTRODUCTION: The angiotensin-converting enzyme deletion allele (ACE D) decreases survival in patients with advanced heart failure. Whether the adverse impact on survival reflects an increased risk of pump failure or arrhythmic sudden death remains uncertain. If the ACE D genotype increases the risk of sudden death, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy should diminish its negative impact. We sought to evaluate the effect of ICD therapy on ACE D genetic risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Genetic Risk Assessment of Cardiac Events (GRACE) study enrolled 479 patients at the University of Pittsburgh between 1996 and 2001. Blood was genotyped for the ACE D/I (deletion/insertion) polymorphism. Of the 479 patients, 82 (77% male, 84% Caucasian, age 56 +/- 11 years, 60% ischemic, left ventricular ejection fraction 0.23 +/- 0.08) received an ICD and were selected for outcomes analysis (mean follow-up 871 +/- 538 days). Transplant-free survival and survival alone were compared in ACE DD patients (n = 24, 29%) versus ACE DI/II patients (n = 58, 71%). Survival was significantly improved in ACE DI/II patients compared to those without an ICD (1 year: 93% vs 87%; 2 year: 89% vs 77%; P = 0.02) but not in ACE DD patients. Transplant-free survival among patients with an ICD was significantly worse in ACE DD versus ACE DI/II (1 year: 67% vs 88%, 2 year: 55% vs 80%, P = 0.03). Analysis of survival as a single endpoint revealed a similar result (1 year = 78% vs 94%; 2 year: 72% vs 88%; P = 0.05). ICD telemetry data showed a nonsignificant trend toward fewer individuals with arrhythmias in the ACE-DD group (46% vs 65%, P = 0.22) CONCLUSION: ICDs do not diminish the adverse influence of the ACE DD genotype on survival. This finding suggests that mortality in this high-risk genetic subset of patients is due to progression of heart failure rather than arrhythmic sudden death.

Alleles↗

PubMed2000

Randomized comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest : the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH).

BACKGROUND: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized comparison of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of cardiac arrest secondary to documented ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 1987, eligible patients were randomized to an ICD, amiodarone, propafenone, or metoprolol (ICD versus antiarrhythmic agents randomization ratio 1:3). Assignment to propafenone was discontinued in March 1992, after an interim analysis conducted in 58 patients showed a 61% higher all-cause mortality rate than in 61 ICD patients during a follow-up of 11.3 months. The study continued to recruit 288 patients in the remaining 3 study groups; of these, 99 were assigned to ICDs, 92 to amiodarone, and 97 to metoprolol. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. The study was terminated in March 1998, when all patients had concluded a minimum 2-year follow-up. Over a mean follow-up of 57+/-34 months, the crude death rates were 36.4% (95% CI 26.9% to 46.6%) in the ICD and 44.4% (95% CI 37.2% to 51.8%) in the amiodarone/metoprolol arm. Overall survival was higher, though not significantly, in patients assigned to ICD than in those assigned to drug therapy (1-sided P=0.081, hazard ratio 0.766, [97.5% CI upper bound 1.112]). In ICD patients, the percent reductions in all-cause mortality were 41.9%, 39.3%, 28. 4%, 27.7%, 22.8%, 11.4%, 9.1%, 10.6%, and 24.7% at years 1 to 9 of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: During long-term follow-up of cardiac arrest survivors, therapy with an ICD is associated with a 23% (nonsignificant) reduction of all-cause mortality rates when compared with treatment with amiodarone/metoprolol. The benefit of ICD therapy is more evident during the first 5 years after the index event.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Prophylactic implantable defibrillator patches in patients at high risk for malignant ventricular dysrhythmias.

The indications for prophylactically placing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patches at cardiac surgery are unclear. Over the past 4 years, 25 patients have undergone placement of prophylactic ICD patches at the authors' institution. Indications were severe coronary artery disease with ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 14) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) (n = 2), and left ventricular aneurysmectomy and/or subendocardial resection (SER) (n = 9). Four patients died in-hospital, three from refractory VT (which could be transthoracically cardioverted until recurrence was unremitting), and one from congestive heart failure (CHF). All of the remaining 21 patients underwent post-operative electrophysiologic studies (EPS), and 12 had inducible VT (8/14 CABG, 4/7 SER). Eight of the 12 inducible patients had generators implanted, whereas 3 patients were controlled medically. One patient refused generator implantation and died at home from sudden cardiac death, and one initially non-inducible patient required late ICD generator placement, yielding a total of nine patients who received generators. All nine of these patients are currently alive at 14 +/- 7 months follow-up, and five have subsequently received appropriate ICD discharges. In patients undergoing cardiac surgery considered preoperatively or intraoperatively to be at increased risk for VT/VF and too unstable for preoperative EPS, prophylactic ICD patches should be considered.

Aged↗

PubMed1993

Do patients with an implantable defibrillator live longer?

OBJECTIVES: This study was done to provide information on the potential benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy regarding sudden and arrhythmia-related deaths and to examine whether such therapy improves survival. BACKGROUND: Implantation of automatic cardioverter-defibrillators is reported to abort sudden cardiac death due to malignant tachyarrhythmias. METHODS: Between 1989 and 1992, 107 patients were screened for implantation of a third-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator combined with endocardial leads. Mean age was 57 +/- 13 years and mean ejection fraction was 40 +/- 15%. Sudden death, total arrhythmia-related death and total cardiac death were compared with the occurrence of fast ventricular tachyarrhythmias (> 240 beats/min), assuming that most of these arrhythmias would have been fatal without treatment by the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. RESULTS: The surgical mortality rate was 2.7% in all 107 patients and 1% in the 99 patients who qualified for endocardial leads. During a follow-up period of 12 +/- 8 months, actuarial survival rate free of events at 6 months as well as at 12 and 18 months was 100% for sudden death, 97% for total arrhythmia-related death and 95% for total cardiac death. In contrast, after 6, 12 and 18 months, the rate of survival free of fast ventricular tachycardia was only 83%, 74% and 69%, respectively, and the rate of survival free of any ventricular tachyarrhythmia was only 59%, 49% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of patients treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and endocardial defibrillation leads is excellent. For many patients, this treatment is probably lifesaving.

Adult↗

PubMed1988

[The implantable defibrillator. Long-term clinical results].

Between october, 1982 and december, 1986, 17 patients were implanted with an automatic defibrillator. The thoracic route was used in 6 patients with installation of an epicardial patch and an endocavitary electrode. The subcostal route was used in the remaining 11 patients, with 2 epicardial patches. The device, badly tolerated by 2 of the first 6 patients, created no problem in the 11 patients of the second group. One patient died of pulmonary embolism on the 6th post-operative day. At follow-up, there was no inappropriate triggering of the AID-B: 8 patients had neither arrhythmia nor shock, and 8 received from 2 to 55 shocks with documented arrhythmia. Two patients died suddenly: one after end of life of the device, the other after 3 years, while the device was still working. The implantable defibrillator technique has improved and local complications are now seldom observed. The device is reliable and constitutes an effective weapon against sudden death caused by ventricular arrhythmia.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1992

His bundle ablation for supraventricular arrhythmias to avoid spurious shocks of an implanted defibrillator.

Atrial fibrillation with fast ventricular response remains a matter of concern in patients treated with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). A patient with dilated cardiomyopathy, suffering from atrial arrhythmias and recurrent cardiac arrest due to both ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, is presented. Ablation of the AV node by means of low-energy direct-current shocks with subsequent pacemaker implantation was performed before ICD implantation. The patient received shocks after four months, when he had recurrence of AV conduction with a slow ventricular rate. Pacemaker interaction was excluded, and no short ventricular arrhythmias were observed. During electrophysiologic study after electrical conversion of atrial fibrillation, persistent second degree heart block was documented, giving further evidence that atrial arrhythmias were not responsible for the shocks. The patient's functional status remains good after more than 18 months of follow-up.

Aged↗

PubMed1997

A comparison of antiarrhythmic-drug therapy with implantable defibrillators in patients resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: Patients who survive life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias are at risk for recurrent arrhythmias. They can be treated with either an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or antiarrhythmic drugs, but the relative efficacy of these two treatment strategies is unknown. METHODS: To address this issue, we conducted a randomized comparison of these two treatment strategies in patients who had been resuscitated from near-fatal ventricular fibrillation or who had undergone cardioversion from sustained ventricular tachycardia. Patients with ventricular tachycardia also had either syncope or other serious cardiac symptoms, along with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 or less. One group of patients was treated with implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator; the other received class III antiarrhythmic drugs, primarily amiodarone at empirically determined doses. Fifty-six clinical centers screened all patients who presented with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation during a period of nearly four years. Of 1016 patients (45 percent of whom had ventricular fibrillation, and 55 percent ventricular tachycardia), 507 were randomly assigned to treatment with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and 509 to antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. The primary end point was overall mortality. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 1013 patients (99.7 percent). Overall survival was greater with the implantable defibrillator, with unadjusted estimates of 89.3 percent, as compared with 82.3 percent in the antiarrhythmic-drug group at one year, 81.6 percent versus 74.7 percent at two years, and 75.4 percent versus 64.1 percent at three years (P<0.02). The corresponding reductions in mortality (with 95 percent confidence limits) with the implantable defibrillator were 39+/-20 percent, 27+/-21 percent, and 31+/-21 percent CONCLUSIONS: Among survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia causing severe symptoms, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs for increasing overall survival.

Aged↗

PubMed1996

[Implantable defibrillators--current status of guidelines. Recognized and possible indications--prerequisites].

Ten to twenty percent of the patients, who were resuscitated as a result of a persistent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation outside of an acute myocardial infarction, die of sudden cardiac death already in the first year after this event. Anti-arrhythmic agents also do not decisively improve this unfavorable prognosis. There is no doubt that the implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) safely and reliably terminates ventricular tachycardias and ventricular fibrillation and has thus led to an improvement in the care of these high risk patients. Studies have shown that the ICD reduces the risk of sudden cardiac death to 1-2% per year. However, whether the reduction of sudden cardiac death is also accompanied by a reduction in overall mortality has not yet been substantiated. It was, however, been assumed that especially patients with good left ventricular function, whose mortality risk is mainly sudden cardiac death, also profit from the overall prognosis of an ICD. The following presentation and discussion of the indication catalogue for the implantation of defibrillators is based on a guideline paper published by the study group "Interventional Electrophysiology" in the German Society for Cardiology. The statements clearly show how difficult it is to make long-term binding and valid recommendations due to insufficient scientific data and rapid technical development. Identifying patients who should be treated with an ICD requires complete noninvasive and invasive cardiological diagnostics and should ultimately be limited to cardiological centers which possess a large arsenal of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Death, Sudden, Cardiac↗

PubMed1999

Inappropriate implantable defibrillator discharge caused by a retained pacemaker lead fragment.

INTRODUCTION: Inappropriate discharge is still a major issue of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. The diagnostic options of modern devices facilitate classification of the underlying abnormality. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 65-year-old woman with depressed left ventricular performance received spurious shocks from an ICD, implanted for ventricular tachycardia. A lead fragment of an explanted VVI pacemaker system could be identified as cause of erroneous ventricular fibrillation detection by the ICD. The electrical noise caused by interaction between the lead remnant and the ICD lead was detectable even on the surface ECG. CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, removal of fragmented lead material should be considered prior to ICD implantation, to avoid potentially adverse and harmful interactions with ICD systems.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

A history of heart failure predicts arrhythmia treatment efficacy: data from the Antiarrythmics versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) study.

BACKGROUND: In survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachycardia (VT), a history of CHF (HxCHF) before the VT episode may provide different prognostic information than their measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: We evaluated outcomes from patients in the AVID study. Patients were included in the study if they presented with ventricular fibrillation, VT with syncope or VT with hemodynamic compromise, and LVEF < or = 40%. Treatment options included implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), usually amiodarone. RESULTS: As expected, a HxCHF is associated with an increased and high risk of arrhythmic and nonarrhythmic death. However, an interaction was observed between arrhythmia treatment (ICD or AAD) and HxCHF status: the survival advantage with an ICD, as compared with AAD therapy, is largely restricted to HxCHF patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD is no better than AAD therapy in preventing arrhythmic death in patients with no HxCHF. In this data set, a HxCHF is somewhat more accurate in predicting prognosis and the response to therapy than a reduced LVEF.

Aged↗