Search

INTRODUCTION: We aim to compare the acute and long-term success of defibrillation between non-apical and apical ICD lead position. METHODS AND RESULTS: The position of the ventricular lead was recorded by the implanting physician for 2475 of 2500 subjects in the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation (SIMPLE) trial, and subjects were grouped accordingly as non-apical or apical. The success of intra-operative defibrillation testing and of subsequent clinical shocks were compared. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for the impact of differences in baseline variables between these groups. There were 541 leads that were implanted at a non-apical position (21.9%). Patients implanted with a non-apical lead had a higher rate of secondary prevention indication. Non-apical location resulted in lower mean R-wave amplitude (14.0 vs. 15.2, p\textless 0.001), lower mean pacing impedance (662 Ohms vs. 728 Ohms, p\textless 0.001), and higher mean pacing threshold (0.70V vs. 0.66V, p = 0.01). Single-coil leads, and cardiac resynchronization devices were used more often in non-apical implants. The success of intra-operative defibrillation was similar between propensity score matched groups (89%). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, there were no significant differences in the yearly rates of appropriate shock (5.5% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.98), failed appropriate first shock (0.9% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.66) or the composite of failed shock or arrhythmic death (2.8% vs. 2.3% p = 0.35) according to lead location. CONCLUSION: We did not detect any reduction in the ICD efficacy at the time of implant or during follow-up in patients receiving a non-apical RV lead. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of a single- versus dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a large, national ICD registry. Methods Data were collected from the prospective Israeli ICD Registry. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including mortality, admissions for heart failure (HF), and ICD therapy were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 1,125 subjects, 37% with a single-chamber and 63% with a dual-chamber ICD, constructed the baseline cohort. Approximately 80% had ischemic heart disease (IHD). Mean follow-up was 22 months, mean ejection fraction was 30%, and mean QRS width was 103 milliseconds in both groups. During follow-up, there were no significant differences in the rate of mortality, admissions for HF, appropriate or inappropriate therapy, or in time to any of the clinical outcomes. Using multivariate analysis, single-chamber ICD was not associated with increased risk of death or admission for HF. In a subgroup of patients with IHD, single-chamber ICD was associated with a higher rate of inappropriate therapy. Conclusions In this large retrospective population-based cohort, dual-chamber ICD showed no benefit in reducing the incidence of death or HF admissions, whereas in a subgroup of patients with IHD, single-chamber ICD was associated with increased inappropriate therapy. Further prospective studies are necessary to assess the benefit of dual-chamber ICD in reducing the rate of inappropriate therapy.

Objectives: To assess bleeding complications among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and receiving triple therapy of warfarin, aspirin, and a thienopyridine. Background: Triple therapy of warfarin, aspirin, and a thienopyridine is strongly discouraged, given the potential risk of bleeding complications. Methods and Results: Post-PCI patients receiving triple therapy thereafter underwent assessment for bleeding complications. Continuous variables are presented as median (25th–75th percentiles). The study group included 180 patients (80% males; age 65 (52, 75.5)). PCI was on an urgent/emergent basis in 86.6%. The main indications for warfarin use were left ventricular mural thrombus and atrial fibrillation (46.9 and 36.9% respectively). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists were used in 47.7%. Post-PCI triple therapy duration was 30 days (30, 30). During the post-triple therapy, 104 patients (57.8%) continued treatment with warfarin and aspirin for 376 days (150, 775). During the triple therapy period, 20 patients developed bleeding complications, (mean INR 2.1 ± 0.7 at 7 (6, 8.5) days post-PCI): 2 major groin hematoma (initial phase of warfarin treatment during overlap with heparin) and 18 minor. During post-triple therapy, primarily under warfarin and aspirin, 19 patients developed bleeding complications: 1 major and 18 minor. Conclusion: Short-term triple therapy after PCI was not associated with prohibitively high bleeding complication rates, and thus should be favorably considered in patients with a clear indication for warfarin use. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

A 56-year-old man underwent a single lead Lumax 640 DX implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. A DX system consists of a single lead, which provides atrial as well as ventricular electrograms, and enhances atrial arrhythmia detection. Three months after the implantation, high-frequency episodes were detected on the far field and the atrial channels, but not on the bipolar right ventricular channel; these were classified as atrial tachycardia. In the present report, we discussed the unusual pattern of the artifacts that was related to an electromagnetic interference detected by the novel DX system.