Defibrillation Thresholds and Perioperative Mortality Associated with Endocardial and Epicardial Defihrillation Lead Systems
- 1 January 1993
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
- Vol. 16 (1) , 202-207
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.1993.tb01562.x
Abstract
Defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and perioperative mortality were evaluated in 123 patients who had endocardial defibrillation leads implanted in conjunction with the Medtronic model 7216A/7217 (Medtronic, Inc.) cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). Clinical variables, implant DFTs, and 30‐day perioperative mortality were compared with 266 patients who had the ICD implanted with epicardial defibrillation leads. The two groups were comparable in age, gender, and incidence of coronary artery disease. New York Heart Association Class I and II were more frequent in patients with endocardial leads (87.7%) as compared to those with epicardial leads (78.8%; P < 0.001). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly higher in patients with the endocardial lead system (37% vs 33%; P < 0.05). A significant proportion of patients with epicardial lead systems underwent another cardiac surgical procedure at the time of ICD implantation (13.9%) as compared to none in those who had endocardial leads implanted (P < 0.001). All patients with endocardial leads had implantation of triple lead systems as compared to 53.4% with epicardial leads (P < 0.001). The mean DFT at implant was lower in epicardial lead recipients (8.9 J) as compared to endocardial lead recipients (13.3 J; P < 0.001). Perioperative mortality had a significant trend to lower risk for endocardial lead systems (0.8%) as compared to epicardial systems (4.2%; P = 0.07). We conclude that this endocardial lead system has additional electrode and higher defibrillation energy requirements than the epicardial lead systems used with the Medtronic pacemaker ICD. However, the use of endocardial nonthoracotomy defibrillation leads is associated with a markedly reduced perioperative risk of ICD implantation. This could be due to patient characteristics, a less invasive implant procedure, and absence of concomitant cardiac surgery.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prospective comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using endocardial leadsThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1992
- Long-term multicenter experience with a second-generation implantable pacemaker-defibrillator in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmiasJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1992
- Operative mortality with implantation of the automatic cardioverter-defibrillatorThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1991
- Predictors of first discharge and subsequent survival in patients with automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.Circulation, 1991
- Reduction in defibrillator shocks with an implantable device combining antitachycardia pacing and shock therapyJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1991
- Experience with a third-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillatorThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1991
- Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation without thoracotomy using an endocardial and submuscular patch systemJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1991
- Initial clinical experience with endocardial defibrillation using an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator with a triple-electrode systemArchives of internal medicine (1960), 1989
- The automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Efficacy, complications and survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmiasJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1988
- Implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator without thoracotomy using a triple electrode systemPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1988