Limitations and Late Complications of Third-Generation Automatic Cardioverter-Defibrillators
- 15 April 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Circulation
- Vol. 91 (8) , 2204-2213
- https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.91.8.2204
Abstract
Background This study examines the limitations and complex management problems associated with the use of tiered-therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). Methods and Results The study group comprises the first 154 patients undergoing implantation of tiered-therapy ICDs at our institution. Pulse generators from three different manufacturers were used. In 39 patients, a complete nonthoracotomy lead system was used. The perioperative mortality was 1.3%. Of these 154 patients, 37% experienced late postoperative problems. Twenty-one patients required system revision within 36.5 months (mean, 8.57±11.3) of surgery. Reasons for revision were spurious shocks due to electrode fractures (3) or electrode adapter malfunction (2), inadequate signal from endocardial rate-sensing electrodes (3), superior vena cava or right ventricular coil migration (5), failure to correct tachyarrhythmias due to a postimplant rise in defibrillation threshold (5), or pulse generator failure (3). One of these patients required system removal for infection after revision of an endocardial lead. A further 32 patients received inappropriate shocks for atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response or sinus tachycardia. Two of these patients also received shocks for ventricular tachycardia initiated by antitachycardia pacing triggered by atrial fibrillation. Ventricular pacing for bradycardia was associated with inappropriate shocks due to excessive autogain in 2 patients. Conclusions Despite the major diagnostic and therapeutic advantages of tiered-therapy ICDs, a significant proportion of patients continue to experience hardware-related complications or receive inappropriate shocks.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Experience with three different third-generation cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with coronary artery disease or cardiomyopathyThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1993
- Importance of abortive shock capability with electrogram storage in cardioverter-defibrillator devicesJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1993
- ICD Data Storage: Value in Arrhythmia ManagementPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 1993
- Prospective comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using endocardial leadsThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1992
- Arrhythmias induced by device antitachycardia therapy due to diagnostic nonspecificityJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1991
- Paced Beats Following Single Nonsensed Complexes in a “Codependent” Cardioverter Defibrillator and Bradycardia Pacing System: Potential for Ventricular Tachycardia InductionPacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 1991
- Experience with a third-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillatorThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1991
- Management of complications associated with a first-generation endocardial defibrillation lead system for implantable cardioverter-defibrillatorsThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1990
- The automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Efficacy, complications and survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmiasJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1988
- Termination of Malignant Ventricular Arrhythmias with an Implanted Automatic Defibrillator in Human BeingsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1980