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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

A randomized trial comparing heparin initiation 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized study was to evaluate the prevalence of pocket hematomas in patients treated with heparin 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation. BACKGROUND: The risks of pocket hematoma and need for evacuation after device implantation have not been defined in patients who require anticoagulation. METHODS: Forty-nine consecutive patients with an indication for anticoagulation with heparin after implantable defibrillator or pacemaker implantation were randomized to receive intravenous heparin either 6 h (n = 26) or 24 h (n = 23) postoperatively. Both groups also received warfarin on a daily basis starting the evening of surgery. Twenty-eight patients who received postoperative warfarin alone and 115 patients who did not receive anticoagulation were followed up in a study registry. RESULTS: A pocket hematoma developed in 6 of 26 patients (22%) who were treated with intravenous heparin 6 h postoperatively, as compared with 4 of 23 patients (17%) who were treated with intravenous heparin 24 h postoperatively (p = 0.7). In total, a pocket hematoma developed in 10 of 49 patients (20%) treated with heparin, 1 of 28 patients (4%) treated with warfarin alone and 2 of 115 (2%) patients who received no anticoagulation (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous heparin initiation 6 h or 24 h after pacemaker or defibrillator implantation is associated with a 20% prevalence of pocket hematoma formation. Warfarin therapy or no anticoagulation is associated with only a 2% to 4% risk of pocket hematoma formation.

Anticoagulants↗

PubMed2004

Anesthetic management of a patient undergoing cardioverter defibrillator implantation: usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography and near infrared spectroscopy.

A case of a patient with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) undergoing implantable cardiovertor defibrillator (ICD) implantation, using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) is described. A 67-year-old man with sustained VT associated with old myocardial infarction underwent ICD implantation. Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl and propofol and maintained with nitrous oxide, oxygen, sevoflurane, and fentanyl. Global hypokinesis of the left ventricle was observed in the short-axis view provided by TEE. Intraoperative systolic blood pressure was maintained between 100 and 120 mmHg, and cerebral oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2) was between 63% and 65%. During periods of induced ventricular fibrillation, systolic blood pressure decreased to 60 mmHg, HbO2 decreased to 59%, and TEE revealed cardiac arrest. These changes were transient; HbO2 returned to baseline values immediately after the restoration of normal rhythm. TEE confirmed no remarkable change in cardiac function after defibrillation testing. TEE and NIR were found to be beneficial for the anesthetic management of a patient with sustained VT who was underdoing ICD implantation.

Aged↗

PubMed2003

[Characteristics and causes of death in 283 patients with implanted defibrillators].

UNLABELLED: The implantable automatic defibrillator has proved its superiority over pharmacological treatments for preventing mortality by serious ventricular arrhythmia. We studied the cause of death in a population of 283 consecutive patients implanted between February 1988 and December 2000 (age at implantation: 58 +/- 14.7 years; extremes: 15-78 years, 45 females, ejection fraction: 0.39 +/- 0.15) and followed up over a median of 25 months (extremes = 1 day-163 months). RESULTS: At the end of follow up, 55 patients had died (average age: 62.7 +/- 12.6 years, extremes: 15-79 years, 7 females). All except 2 had a cardiopathy: ischaemic cardiopathy (n = 38, 36 IDDM), dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 14), arrhythmogenic dysplasia of the right ventricle (n = 1). The median interval between implantation and death was 35 months (extremes = 1 day-137 months). The causes of death were the following: cardiac insufficiency (n = 24), refractory arrhythmias (n = 13), other cardiac causes (n = 8), extra-cardiac pathologies (n = 10). The deceased patients had presented an average of 86.6 +/- 23.4 ventricular arrhythmias (extremes = 0-1309) but 18 of them (33%) did not present any during follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac insufficiency is the prime cause of death in refractory arrhythmias; on patient in 4 dies from ventricular arrhythmia, despite the defibrillator and one deceased patient in 3 had no arrhythmia during follow up.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1995

[Implantable defibrillator in the long QT syndrome].

A 29-year-old otherwise symptom-free patient had undergone a partial thyroidectomy 5 years ago followed by an episode of ventricular tachycardia and (after lidocaine injection) ventricular fibrillation requiring external defibrillation. No cause for the arrhythmias had been found at that time. Two subsequent syncopes led to her hospitalization. An asystole occurred while she was being monitored, and during the resuscitation there were several periods of ventricular fibrillation, which responded to external defibrillation. Subsequently several episodes of self-limiting ventricular tachycardia were recorded. A long QT syndrome with torsade-de-pointes tachycardia was diagnosed on the basis of typical ECG changes (QT interval 545 ms). Extensive diagnostic tests failed to find a cause. To prevent further tachycardias she was given propranolol, 40 mg three times daily, and an automatic defibrillator was implanted as a precaution. But no defibrillator discharge has so far been required (more than 10 months).

Adult↗

PubMed1995

Elevated defibrillation threshold when right-sided venous access is used for nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator lead implantation. The Endotak Investigators.

INTRODUCTION: Although myriad factors influence the defibrillation threshold, the relation between the site of transvenous lead entry into the vascular system and the defibrillation threshold has not been reported. This study examines the influence that venous entry site has on defibrillation success for a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead with two defibrillating coils. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population comprised 345 patients. Their mean age was 61 +/- 13 years and, left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.33 +/- 0.13. A left-sided approach was used in 324 (93.9%) of the patients, and a right-sided approach was used in the remaining 21 (6.1%) patients. There was no difference in the gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, or underlying cardiac disease in the two groups. For all patients, with a transvenous lead used either alone or with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch, the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.9 +/- 4.8 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.0 +/- 7.3 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.02). When a transvenous lead was used with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (115 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.5 +/- 4.3 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 12.0 +/- 10.0 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.98). When a transvenous lead was used without a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (230 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 10.1 +/- 5.0 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.6 +/- 6.6 J when a right-sided approach was used (P < 0.01). For the entire group of patients and for each specific lead arrangement, there was no significant difference in the defibrillating lead system impedance when right-sided versus left-sided approaches were compared. CONCLUSION: Left-sided approaches to implant transvenous leads with two coils for defibrillation result in lower biphasic defibrillation thresholds than when right-sided approaches are used.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

PubMed1994

Advances in follow-up techniques for implantable defibrillators.

The complexity of newer implantable defibrillators has made device follow-up increasingly more intricate. Extensive data-logging capacity provides specific information on recorded events, which facilitates more accurate determination of patient arrhythmias. This helps the clinician judge whether the device is detecting and treating arrhythmias appropriately, or whether false sensing of external signals or supraventricular rhythms is occurring. There is also a record of the efficacy of delivered therapy from the device that helps in optimizing subsequent programming. Programming itself has become much more complicated, with multiple independently programmable therapy zones, each with numerous available therapeutic modalities. In addition, defibrillator status information has been improved. Accurate battery voltage measurements give a reasonable estimate of remaining device life, and pace/sense and shock lead impedances can be measured to provide information on total system integrity. Together, these advances allow more specific programming of the device to the individual patient's condition but require increasing experience and expertise of the physician.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

PubMed1993

Coronary artery bypass in patients with previously placed implantable defibrillators.

Four patients with previously placed implantable defibrillators required coronary revascularization several years after the original device was inserted. Three patients had a conventional system of epicardial patches and leads, and one patient had a nonthoracotomy system placed. All four patients were successfully revascularized without evidence of perioperative infarction or significant morbidity. The patient with the nonthoracotomy device did require manipulation of the endocardial lead at a separate setting. This limited experience suggests that patients needing revascularization after placement of an implantable defibrillator can be successfully bypassed.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

[Radiofrequency catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia in patients with an implantable defibrillator. Long-term follow-up].

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The frequent occurrence of ventricular tachycardia can be a serious problem for patients with an implantable defibrillator, and may necessitate adjuvant antiarrhythmic therapy or radiofrequency catheter ablation. We analyzed the long-term results obtained with this latter therapy in patients suffering from frequent or continuous ventricular tachycardia. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Eighteen ablation procedures were performed in 11 patients who had a defibrillator implanted because of previous syncopal ventricular tachycardia. All were men, aged 67.64 (5.87) years; 10 patients had had a myocardial infarction 15.50 (5.08) years earlier, and one suffered from arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia. RESULTS: Electrophysiologically, treatment was initially successful in 8 patients (72.73%). After a follow-up period of 39.10 (24.70) months, the number of defibrillator discharges decreased significantly in all patients, from 52.82 (35.73) to 0.64 (1.03) (P=.001). During follow-up, ventricular tachycardia occurred in nine patients. In five, it took the same form as the ablated ventricular tachycardia. Six patients needed additional ablation procedures: two because of initial failure, three because of recurrence, and one because a different ventricular tachycardia occurred. In addition to the good electrophysiological results obtained, long-term clinical evolution was favorable in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Radiofrequency ablation successfully disrupts frequent or continuous ventricular tachycardias and significantly reduces the defibrillator discharge rate even when ablation has failed electrophysiologically. It is particularly useful in these latter critical situations, in which other therapies are not sufficiently effective. Because our patients mainly had ischemic heart disease and were highly susceptible to new arrhythmias during follow-up, ablation complemented rather than replaced the implantable defibrillator.

Aged↗

PubMed1994

Why do some patients have high defibrillation thresholds at defibrillator implantation? Answers from basic research.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, for the few patients with unacceptably high defibrillation thresholds at implantation the risk of sudden death may remain high. If a small number of defibrillation attempts are used to determine a defibrillation threshold, then a high defibrillation threshold may occur in some patients due to the probabilistic nature of defibrillation: a small percentage of shocks will fail even at optimal shock strengths. Basic investigations have suggested mechanisms for high defibrillation thresholds in other patients. The extracellular potential gradients produced by a shock correlate with ability to defibrillate and may be used to classify mechanisms for high defibrillation thresholds. Computerized mapping studies have demonstrated that extracellular potential gradient fields produced by defibrillation shocks are uneven with high gradient areas close to the electrodes and low gradient areas distant from the electrodes. A high defibrillation threshold may occur because: (1) a shock creates a subthreshold potential gradient in the low gradient areas; (2) a patient has a higher minimum potential gradient threshold than other patients; or (3) a shock leads to refibrillation in the high gradient areas. This article reviews experimental evidence to support each of these three possibilities then suggests experimental and clinical investigations that may clarify the causes of high defibrillation thresholds in patients.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

PubMed2005

Predictive value of ventricular arrhythmia inducibility for subsequent ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II patients.

UNLABELLED: In the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD)-randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Both inducible and noninducible patients received an ICD. We correlated inducibility with the occurrence of subsequent ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). Intracardiac ICD electrograms for subsequent events were analyzed to categorize the spontaneous arrhythmia as VT or VF. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT in inducible patients was 29.0% versus 19.3% in noninducible patients. However, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common at two years in inducible patients (3.2%) than in noninducible patients (8.6%). In the MADIT II study, inducibility predicted an increased likelihood of VT but decreased VF. OBJECTIVES: We correlated electrophysiologic inducibility with spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II. BACKGROUND: In the MADIT II study, 593 (82%) of 720 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) randomized patients underwent electrophysiologic testing. Patients received an ICD whether they were inducible or not. METHODS: A "standard" inducibility definition included sustained monomorphic or polymorphic VT induced with three or fewer extrastimuli or VF induced with two or fewer extrastimuli. We compared a narrow inducibility definition (only monomorphic VT) and a broad definition (standard definition plus VF with three extrastimuli). We used ICD-stored electrograms to categorize spontaneous VT or VF. RESULTS: Inducible patients (standard definition) had a greater likelihood of experiencing ICD therapy for VT than noninducible patients (p = 0.023). Unexpectedly, ICD therapy for spontaneous VF was less common (p = 0.021) in inducible patients than in noninducible patients. The two-year Kaplan-Meier event rate for VT or VF was 29.4% for inducible patients and 25.5% for noninducible patients. Standard inducibility did not predict the combined end point of VT or VF (p = 0.280, by log-rank analysis). The narrow inducibility definition outperformed the standard definition, whereas the broad definition appeared inferior to the standard definition. CONCLUSIONS: In the MADIT II study patients, inducibility was associated with an increased likelihood of VT. Noninducible MADIT II study subjects using this electrophysiologic protocol had a considerable VT event rate and a higher VF event rate than inducible patients. Induction of polymorphic VT or VF, even with double extrastimuli, appears less relevant than induction of monomorphic VT.

Aged↗

PubMed1992

Influence of left ventricular function on outcome of patients treated with implantable defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients treated with implantable defibrillators were compared between patients with left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 30% and less than 30%. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 68 consecutive patients treated with implantable defibrillators, 40 patients (group 1) had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 30%, and 28 patients (group 2) had left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%. Sudden death, surgical mortality, nonsudden arrhythmia-related death (death within 24 hours after an arrhythmic event despite initial termination of the arrhythmia by the implantable defibrillator), total arrhythmia-related death (including sudden death, surgical death, and nonsudden arrhythmia-related death), and total cardiac death were compared between the two groups. Surgical mortality was 4.4% (0% in group 1, 11% in group 2). During the follow-up of 31 +/- 27 months, actuarial survival rates free of events were 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 96%, 91%, and 82% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for sudden death (p = NS); 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 85%, 81%, and 72% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for sudden death and surgical mortality (p less than 0.05); 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 82%, 78%, and 70% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for total arrhythmia-related death (p less than 0.05); and 95%, 95%, and 95% in group 1 and 82%, 69%, and 57% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for total cardiac death (p less than 0.05). Four (57%) of seven nonsudden cardiac deaths during the initial 36-month follow-up period were causally related to arrhythmia (three surgical deaths and one arrhythmia-related nonsudden death). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of patients treated with implantable defibrillators is strongly influenced by the degree of left ventricular dysfunction. In group 1 patients, surgical mortality, sudden death, and total cardiac death are rare. In group 2, sudden death rate may not be markedly different from that of group 1 patients. However, the risk of therapy (surgical mortality) is high. Many nonsudden cardiac deaths are causally related to arrhythmia (surgical mortality or nonsudden arrhythmia-related death). Therefore, the survival rate free of total arrhythmia-related death is significantly lower in group 2 (70% versus 97% in group 1 at 3 years). Further studies are needed to determine the roles of defibrillator therapy and other therapies in various clinical settings.

Actuarial Analysis↗

PubMed1995

Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory: initial experiences in 48 patients.

The exponential increase in cardioverter-defibrillator implantations has resulted in a need for safe implantations that do not require long waiting periods. We report intraoperative and follow-up results in 48 patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory. Twenty-six (54%) patients had their first cardioverter-defibrillator implant (group 1), and 22 (46%) patients underwent pulse-generator replacement (group 2). In all patients, cardioverter-defibrillator implant or pulse-generator replacement was performed with the patient under general anesthesia. In 25 (96%) of 26 patients in group 1, cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was possible with a mean defibrillation threshold of 13 +/- 8 J. One patient had a defibrillation threshold of > 25 J, and therefore cardioverter-defibrillator implant was not achieved. This patient underwent epicardial device implantation 1 day later. Another patient in group 1 had vessel rupture (vena subclavia) intraoperatively. During a mean follow-up of 2 +/- 1 months, two patients died from congestive heart failure 2 and 4 months after device implantation. An infection occurred in one patient in group 2, 3 months after generator replacement. In conclusion, these data show that in the majority of patients cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in the catheterization laboratory is safe and has a low complication rate and therefore can generally be recommended.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

[Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and follow-up in a non-university hospital].

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) have emerged as a major treatment for life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. This technique is available in France in all the university hospitals and, with the favor of the new regulation, in some qualified private centers. However, ICD implantation and follow-up in a non-university hospital is infrequent. This study reports long-term results following ICD implantation in 152 patients (age 61+/-13 years). The vast majority (49%) of the patients were implanted for post-infarction ventricular tachycardia and 17% in primary prevention for left ventricular dysfunction. An appropriate therapy was delivered in 83 patients including 68 (81%) treated by antitachycardia pacing without the need for a cardioversion shock. An inappropriate shock was observed in 13 patients (9%). Because of iterative shocks, catheter radiofrequency ablation was proposed among 9 patients, with a success in 8. In conclusion, the technique of the implantable defibrillator can be performed in a non-university hospital with acceptable results. The increase in the ICD number in France implies that there is a need for collaboration between non-university and university hospitals in managing routine and emergency follow-up.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1997

Polarity reversal improves defibrillation efficacy in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter defibrillator implantation with biphasic shocks.

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of polarity reversal on DFT in patients undergoing implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillators with biphasic shocks. Previous studies have shown higher defibrillation efficacy with using the distal electrode as anode implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillators and monophasic shocks. However, it is as yet unclear whether biphasic shock defibrillation will also be influenced by polarity reversal. Using a transvenous lead system with a proximal electrode in the superior caval vein and a distal electrode in the RV apex, 27 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation were randomized to DFT testing "initial" (distal electrode = cathode) or "reversed" polarity (distal electrode = anode). Defibrillation energy was reduced stepwise until defibrillation failure occurred. At this point, polarity was switched and testing continued until the lowest energy requirement was determined for both polarities. With reversed polarity, DFT was 11.1 +/- 5.7 J versus 13.3 +/- 5.8 J with polarity (P = 0.033). This means a 17% reduction of the DFT. In 10 patients, the threshold was lower with reversed, whereas in 3 patients it was lower with initial polarity. In conclusion, changing electrode polarity in transvenous implantable defibrillators with biphasic shocks may significantly influence defibrillation energy requirements. Therefore, polarity reversal should always be attempted before considering patch implantation.

Adult↗

PubMed1994

Nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation: a single-center experience with 200 patients.

Nonthoracotomy leads for defibrillator implantation and biphasic shocking devices are under investigation. Implantation success and mortality and morbidity of the procedure determine the operative course. Lead-associated complications, late infection, and freedom of sudden cardiac death characterize the follow-up period with respect to the implanted device. From October 1989 to March 1993 in 200 patients, 205 (including five infections caused by reimplantations) transvenous or transvenous-subcutaneous lead systems were tested. Mean ejection fraction was 0.40 +/- 0.16. In 62.5% (125/200) coronary artery disease and in 19% (38/200) cardiomyopathy was the underlying disease (59 patients with prior cardiac operations). Leads were implanted with defibrillation thresholds less than 25 J in 195 patients, whereas 10 patients received intrathoracal patches. Since biphasic shocks became available, no nonthoracotomy lead system has failed in the last 115 consecutive patients. Perioperative mortality in the nonthoracotomy group was 1% (2/195). In 6.2% (12/193) of the surviving patients, perioperative complications occurred. Major problems were bleeding from the device or patch pocket (n = 6) and early infection (n = 2). During the follow-up of 20 +/- 10 months, lead-associated complications (dislocation, lead fracture, insulation defect, loss of sensing) occurred in 9 patients and in 5 patients late infection appeared. Within the follow-up period no patient died suddenly, and 134 patients received therapeutic interventions by the device. Defibrillator implantation using nonthoracotomy leads, especially combined with biphasic shocking devices, is applicable in almost every patient. During the operative course and follow-up, the defibrillator-associated morbidity and mortality is at the same level as or lower than when using patch lead systems.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Clinical and economic implications of the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial-II.

BACKGROUND: The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II demonstrated that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives when used in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of implanting ICDs in patients who met MADIT-II eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the Duke Cardiovascular Database between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 2001. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCES: Published literature, databases owned by Duke University Medical Center, and Medicare data. TARGET POPULATION: Adults with a history of MI and an ejection fraction of 0.3 or less. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: ICD therapy versus conventional medical therapy. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Cost per life-year gained and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Compared with conventional medical therapy, ICDs are projected to result in an increase of 1.80 discounted years in life expectancy and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 50,500 dollars per life-year gained. Cost-effectiveness varied dramatically with changes in time horizon: The cost-effectiveness ratio increased to 67,800 dollars per life-year gained, 79,900 dollars per life-year gained, 100,000 dollars per life-year gained, 167,900 dollars per life-year gained, and 367,200 dollars per life-year gained for 15-year, 12-year, 9-year, 6-year, and 3-year time horizons, respectively. Changing the frequency of follow-up visits, complication rates, and battery replacements had less of an effect on the cost-effectiveness ratios than reducing the cost of ICD placement and leads. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the completeness of the data, referral bias, difference in medical therapy between the Duke cohort and the MADIT-II cohort, and not addressing potential upgrades to biventricular devices. CONCLUSIONS: The economic expense of defibrillator implantation in all patients who meet MADIT-II eligibility criteria is substantial. However, in the range of survival benefit observed in MADIT-II, ICD therapy for these patients is economically attractive by conventional standards.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation: analysis of costs and outcomes.

Traditionally cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed by surgeons under general anesthesia. However, with advances in lead and pulse generator technology, the surgical implantation technique has been simplified and routine pectoral pulse generator placement without general anesthesia is now possible. To assess the economic benefit of pectoral implantation, we analyzed 43 consecutive initial transvenous defibrillator implantations. The patients were grouped according to whether the implant was abdominal by a surgeon in the operating room (n = 23) or pectoral by an electrophysiologist in a laboratory (n = 20). The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the operating room than in the laboratory group (8.1 +/- 3.4 vs 5.8 +/- 2.4 days, p = 0.01), which was due primarily to the postoperative stay which averaged 1.9 days longer. Total costs were $40,274 +/- 6,861 for the operating room cohort and $32,546 +/- 3,634 for the lab group (p < 0.001). This reduction was due to a 32% lowering of professional costs and an 18% lowering of facility costs. We conclude that pectoral defibrillator implantation is cost effective and results in significant reductions of hospital stay.

Abdominal Muscles↗

PubMed2006

Reduction in ventricular tachyarrhythmias with statins in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether statins have anti-arrhythmic effects by exploring the association of statin use with appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT)-II. BACKGROUND: A few studies have suggested that lipid-lowering drugs may have anti-arrhythmic effects in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS: Patients receiving an ICD (n = 654; U.S. centers only) in the MADIT-II study were categorized by the percentage of days each patient received statins during follow-up (90% to 100%, n = 386; 11% to 89%, n = 116; and 0% to 10%, n = 152). The Kaplan-Meier method with significance testing by the log-rank statistic and time-dependent proportional hazards regression analysis were used to evaluate the effect of statin use on the probability of ICD therapy for the combined end point VT/VF or cardiac death and for the end point VT/VF. RESULTS: The cumulative rate of ICD therapy for VT/VF or cardiac death, whichever occurred first, was significantly reduced in those with > or =90% statin usage compared to those with lower statin usage (p = 0.01). The time-dependent statin:no statin therapy hazard ratio was 0.65 (p < 0.01) for the end point of VT/VF or cardiac death and 0.72 (p = 0.046) for VT/VF after adjusting for relevant covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Statin use in patients with an ICD was associated with a reduction in the risk of cardiac death or VT/VF, whichever occurred first, and was associated with a reduction in VT/VF episodes. These findings suggest that statins have anti-arrhythmic properties.

Aged↗