Single vs. dual chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators or programming of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are key in the prevention of sudden cardiac death, but outcomes may vary by type of device or programming [single chamber (SC) vs. dual chamber (DC)] in patients without a bradycardia pacing indication. We sought to meta-analyse patient outcomes of randomized trials of SC vs. DC devices or programming. Methods and results: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane trials databases for relevant studies excluding those published before 2000, involving children, or not available in English. Endpoints included mortality, inappropriate ICD therapies, and implant complications. Endpoints with at least three reporting studies were meta-analysed. We identified eight studies meeting inclusion criteria representing 2087 patients with 16.1 months mean follow-up. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD 1.92); in six studies reporting sex, most patients were male (85%). Comparing patients with a SC or DC ICD or programming, we found similar rates of mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.68; P = 0.86] and inappropriate therapies (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97-2.19; P = 0.07) in five and six studies, respectively. In three studies of SC vs. DC ICDs (but not programming) rates of pneumothorax and lead dislodgement were not different (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.18-24.72; P = 0.55 and OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.32-2.47; P = 0.83, respectively). Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing SC vs. DC ICD device or programming, there was no significant difference in inappropriate therapies, mortality, pneumothorax, or lead dislodgement. Future studies should compare these devices over longer follow-up and in specific patient populations.

Preprocedural ECG-gated computed tomography for prevention of complications during lead extraction.

BACKGROUND: Preprocedural multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) may identify patients at risk for mechanical complications during lead extraction. METHODS: To describe the use and feasibility of computed tomography scanning for preprocedural planning of lead extraction, we conducted a retrospective study of high-risk patients, who underwent electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated MDCT before planned lead extraction between January 1, 2012, and March 30, 2013. RESULTS: Among 30 patients the mean age was 63 ± 15 years, 60% were male, and 20% had prior sternotomy. Most devices were left sided (93%) and 24 had implantable defibrillators (80%). Indications for extraction included lead malfunction (n = 15; 50%), class I lead advisories (n = 11; 37%), and infection (n = 10; 33%). Overall, there were 65 leads extracted (mean 2.1 leads per patient). One extraction procedure was deferred due to MDCT evidence of significant myocardial perforation with the lead tip > 1 cm beyond the epicardium (n = 1, 3%). MDCT suggestion of lead adherence to central venous structures (n = 13, 43%) was associated with significantly longer laser times (88 ± 71 seconds vs 30 ± 37 seconds, P = 0.02) and larger sheath size (14.9 ± 1.3 vs 13.5 ± 1.2 French, P = 0.02). MDCT evidence of central venous occlusion or stenosis was not associated with increased laser times. Excluding the patient with MDCT evidence of significant perforation, clinical success was achieved in all patients (n = 29/29). CONCLUSIONS: ECG-gated MDCT scanning before lead extraction may facilitate the identification of significant perforation and patients at high risk for mechanical complication.

Cable externalization and electrical failure of the Riata family of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Riata class of defibrillator leads were placed under US Food and Drug Association (FDA) advisory as of November 2011 because of high rates of cable externalization (CE) and electrical failure (EF). The overall rates of these complications remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically search the literature for rates of Riata lead failure and to perform a meta-analysis to estimate failure rates. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies examining the rates of EF, CE, and the interaction of the two. We identified 23 English language manuscripts addressing 1 or more of these questions. RESULTS: Across 23 studies, the overall CE rate was 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.0%-27.6%). The overall EF rate was 6.3% (95% CI 4.7%-8.2%). The presence of CE was associated with a more than 6-fold increase in the rate of EF compared to no CE (17.3% [95% CI 11.2%-25.9%] vs 2.7% [95% CI 1.4%-5.2%], respectively). The rate of CE was 3-fold higher for 8Fr leads compared to 7Fr leads, but rates of EF were similar (4.6%; 95% CI 3.2-6.6] and 3.9%; 95% CI 2.4-6.1], respectively). Rates of both CE and EF were higher in dual coil vs single coil leads, but confidence intervals overlapped. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, rates of CE in Riata leads are substantial. While CE is associated with a significant increase in the risk of EF, the incidence of EF without externalization is not trivial.

Novel mechanism of premature battery failure due to lithium cluster formation in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Battery failure is an uncommon complication of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), but unanticipated battery depletion can have life-threatening consequences. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the prevalence of a novel mechanism of battery failure in St. Jude Medical Fortify and Unify ICDs. METHODS: Cases of premature Fortify battery failure from a single center are reported. A search (January 1, 2010 through November 30, 2013) for Fortify and Unify premature batter failure was conducted of the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database (MAUDE). These findings were supplemented with information provided by St. Jude Medical. RESULTS: Premature battery failure for 2 Fortify ICDs in our practice were attributed to the presence of lithium clusters near the cathode, causing a short circuit and high current drain. The prevalence of this mechanism of premature battery failure was 0.6% in our practice. A MAUDE search identified 39 cases of Fortify (30) and Unify (9) premature battery depletion confirmed by the manufacturer, representing a 0.03% prevalence. Four additional Fortify and 2 Unify cases were identified in MAUDE as suspected premature battery depletion, but in these cases the pulse generator was not returned to the manufacturer for evaluation. St. Jude Medical identified 10 cases of premature battery failure due to lithium clusters in Fortify devices (9) and Unify devices (1), representing a 0.004% prevalence. CONCLUSION: The deposition of lithium clusters near the cathode is a novel mechanism of premature battery failure. The prevalence of this problem is unknown. Providers should be aware of this mechanism for patient management.

Results of the multicenter RENEWAL 3 AVT clinical study of cardiac resynchronization defibrillator therapy in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation impacts the clinical course of up to 50% of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D). While RV-based defibrillators are available with advanced atrial diagnostics and therapies that provide rapid diagnosis and treatment of spontaneously occurring atrial tachycardia/fibrillation (AT/AF) episodes, there is no CRT-D device that combines atrial/ventricular and CRT therapies. PURPOSE: The purpose of the prospective multicenter RENEWAL 3 AVT study is to assess the performance of atrial diagnostics and therapies used in combination with a CRT-D device. METHODS: Enrolled patients were required to have indications for a CRT-D device and a documented episode of AT/AF within 12 months of enrollment. A total of 170 patients were enrolled over 9 months (85% male; mean age 72 +/- 10 years; NYHA classification: 88% III, 12% IV; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] mean 23 +/- 6%; mean QRS duration 150 +/- 25 msec; 78% ischemic etiology). The documented atrial arrhythmia was AF in 77% of patients. A total of 60% of patients had the CRT-D device placed for primary prevention of sudden death and 40% of patients had a history of ventricular arrhythmia in addition to HF. The device operates in the biventricular (BiV) triggered mode for sensed ventricular events associated with AF. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients (95%) had a successful CRT-D implant. Over a mean follow-up of 5.7 +/- 2.3 months, there were a total of 152 atrial shocks delivered in 108 patients for induced (93%) or spontaneous (7%) occurring episodes of AF. Spontaneously occurring AF was observed in 40 patients (25%). The rate of first shock conversion was 118/152 (78%, mean energy 11.6 +/- 5.9 J). Overall shock therapy conversion rate was 138/152 (91%). The number of shock conversions resulting in sinus rhythm maintained for at least 2 minutes postshock was 87% for induced episodes. Therapy was delivered for spontaneous ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation in nine patients (6%). There was no instance of ventricular proarrhythmia associated with atrial shock therapies, undersensing of ventricular arrhythmias, or interruption of CRT therapy associated with the combined device. CONCLUSIONS: In CRT-D candidates with a history of AF, 25% experience recurrent AF within 6 months of implant. Atrial detection and ventricular detection, shock, and resynchronization therapies are not compromised by the addition of atrial therapies to a CRT-D device.

Use of the AutoCapture Pacing System with implantable defibrillator leads.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies using various bipolar pacemaker leads have shown that the AutoCapture (AC) Pacing System is able to verify ventricular capture and regulate pacing output, increasing patient safety with respect to unexpected threshold changes and potentially prolonging device longevity. An increasing number of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) require ventricular pacing that contributes to a shortening of longevity of these systems. This prospective study tested the compatibility of the AC system with bipolar ICD leads. METHODS: The AC algorithm was evaluated prior to ICD testing in 30 ICD recipients. A single coil, active fixation, true bipolar ventricular lead was implanted in 21 patients, and a dual coil, passive fixation, integrated bipolar ventricular lead was implanted in 9 patients. A ventricular evoked response sensitivity test and an AC threshold test were performed using a pacemaker with the ventricular AC algorithm. RESULTS: AC was recommended in 22/30 (73.3%) of implants, including 20/21 (95.2%) with the single coil and 2/9 (22.2%) with the dual coil lead. Mean polarization was lower (1.23 +/- 0.95 mV vs 3.70 +/- 2.33 mV, P = 0.013) while the mean evoked response was higher (18.04 +/- 8.29 mV vs 10.13 +/- 4.22 mV, P = 0.002) with the single coil leads. CONCLUSION: Automatic threshold tracking using the AC is compatible with ICD leads. Leads with lower polarization and greater evoked response are more likely to result in recommendation of AC use. Use of this system offers the potential for increasing ICD generator longevity and improving patient safety in response to late unexpected threshold increases.