|
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 44:95-98, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.03.051 © 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation |
* University of Heidelberg/Cardiology, Heidelberg, Germany
Manuscript received November 10, 2003; revised manuscript received February 3, 2004, accepted March 16, 2004.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Ruediger Becker, University of Heidelberg/Cardiology, Bergheimer Strasse 58, 69115 Heidelberg, Germany.
ruediger_becker{at}med.uni-heidelberg.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
BACKGROUND: Various alert features producing acoustic warning signals have been implemented in newer generation ICDs, but their role in early detection of system-related complications has not been systematically evaluated.
METHODS: In 240 patients implanted with Medtronic ICD devices, the following alert features were routinely activated: pacing lead impedance <200 or >2,000 
, high-voltage lead impedance <10 or >200 , low battery voltage (elective replacement indicator), long charge time (>18 s), >3 shocks delivered per episode, and all therapies in a zone delivered. Alert events occurring during follow-up were assessed in relation to actual findings (hospital charts, chest X-rays, ICD printouts including sensing/pacing/defibrillation threshold tests, episode data) to determine incidence, sensitivity, and specificity of the alert function.
RESULTS: During 12.2 ± 8.9 months, 24 alert events occurred in the 240 patients (pacing lead impedance, n = 4; high-voltage lead impedance, n = 7; low battery voltage, n = 1; >3 shocks, n = 6; all therapies, n = 6). A total of 22 serious complications (necessitating reprogramming or device/lead replacement) were observed, 14 of which were primarily identified through a patient alert (lead fracture, n = 11; connector defect, n = 1; T-wave oversensing, n = 1; battery depletion, n = 1). This reflects a sensitivity of 64% and a specificity of 96% of the alert function for serious complications. With 14 of 24 patient alerts being caused by serious complications, the positive predictive value reached 58%.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient-alert features are a useful additional tool facilitating early detection of serious ICD complications, but they do not substitute for regular ICD follow-up, because of their low sensitivity.
| ||||||||||||
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Standard patient-alert settings. The following alert features were routinely activated before hospital discharge:
Routine follow-up schedule. After ICD implantation, all patients underwent a prehospital discharge test, including measurement of standard lead parameters and induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Routine outpatient follow-up was scheduled for one and three months postoperatively and every three months thereafter. Chest X-rays were performed every six months.
Data acquired during routine three monthly follow-up and unplanned visits. The following data were acquired:
Data evaluation.
Data from routine follow-ups and unplanned visits (UPVs) prompted by patient-alert events were analyzed with respect to incidence, cause, and clinical consequences. A decrease in pacing impedance <200 was considered as an indicator of insulation failure, and a sudden increase >2,000 was categorized as a sign of lead fracture. A serious complication was defined as a device or lead dysfunction necessitating surgical revision or immediate reprogramming (e.g., lead fracture, exit block, undersensing, oversensing with inappropriate therapy, battery depletion). Sensitivity and specificity of the patient-alert function were calculated for the detection of serious complications. Non-serious complications disclosed through a patient alert were considered as false positive alerts.
Statistics. Statistics were performed using SAS for Windows Version 6.12 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). For comparison between groups, a chi-square test was applied. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
|
|
|
3 inappropriate shocks either prompting UPVs (n = 2) or diagnosed at routine follow-up (n = 2). In all cases (n = 5), the sensing integrity counter had collected >300 short RR intervals (120 to 130 ms) within three months. Of note, five patients claimed to have perceived an alert signal, but upon device interrogation, no alert event was documented. These "phantom" alerts were excluded from statistical analysis.
Presentation of characteristic cases.
Case 1
Two months after routine follow-up in May 2003, a patient implanted with a single lead system (Medtronic 7229Cx device/6943 lead) due to ventricular tachycardia experienced an alert event triggered by a pacing lead impedance >2,000 . During ICD testing, normal sensing and pacing parameters were observed (pacing threshold 2 V/0.2 ms; R wave 7 mV); no oversensing was documented, despite rigorous myopotential testing. However, the pacing lead impedance alternated between 410 to 440 and >2,000 . During surgical revision, an incomplete lead fracture necessitating lead replacement was found. Without a patient-alert feature, this complication might have been missed even during consecutive follow-up visits, because single impedance measurements as performed during routine check-up could have yielded normal results.
Case 2
Two weeks after routine follow-up in April 2002, a patient implanted with an abdominal system in 1995 due to resuscitated VF perceived an alert signal. The initial device (Medtronic 7218D) had been replaced with a Medtronic 7227D in August 2000 due to battery depletion, leaving both leads in place (right ventricular [RV] apex, Medtronic 6936; superior vena cava [SVC], Medtronic 6937). Device interrogation disclosed that the alert had been triggered by a high voltage lead impedance >200 . During myopotential testing, marked oversensing was documented in the far field electrogram derived between SVC and RV high voltage lead (HVA/HVB). This suggested a conductor wire breach of either the RV or the SVC high voltage lead. Although the chest X-ray was unsuspicious, surgical lead revision was performed. Selective intraoperative impedance measurements (unipolar) on both high voltage leads yielded an RV lead impedance >200 , confirming lead fracture.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The incidence of ICD-related complications encountered in clinical studies depends on factors such as cohort size, follow-up duration, definition of complications, device/lead selection, mode of implantation, and so forth. In fact, published overall complication rates range from 3.9% to 53%, with lead-related complications varying between 2.1% and 22%. With 13.3% (32 of 240) overall and 7.9% (20 of 240) lead-related complications, the present study was comparable with other mid-term follow-up trials in newer generation ICDs (2,4,5).
Based on the parameters monitored, the alert feature holds the potential for detection of lead- and device-related complications such as lead fracture, dislodgment, insulation defect, and sudden battery depletion. However, in the absence of automatic sensing/pacing threshold tests, sensing and pacing defects with preserved lead continuity are missed. Therefore, in its present form, the feature's sensitivity in diagnosing system-related complications is necessarily limited. Nevertheless, the prompt detection of serious complications in a considerable proportion of patients, as demonstrated in this study, clearly justifies its routine use. According to our data, the integration of sensing integrity counters (= short interval counters) might enhance the sensitivity of the alert feature.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. van Erven and M. J Schalij Troubleshooting implantable cardioverter-defibrillator related problems Heart, May 1, 2008; 94(5): 649 - 660. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Vollmann, L. Luthje, and M. Zabel Unusual cause for an increase of the sensing integrity counter in a patient with inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy Europace, May 1, 2007; 9(5): 275 - 277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Vollmann, A. Erdogan, E. Himmrich, J. Neuzner, D. Becker, C. Unterberg-Buchwald, J. Sperzel, and for the SAFE Study Investigators Patient AlertTM to detect ICD lead failure: efficacy, limitations, and implications for future algorithms. Europace, January 1, 2006; 8(5): 371 - 376. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Auer, R. Berent, and B. Eber Patient alert and cardiac defibrillators J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 15, 2005; 45(6): 966 - 966. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Becker and W. Schoels Patient alert and cardiac defibrillators: Reply J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 15, 2005; 45(6): 966 - 966. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. C. Senges-Becker, M. Klostermann, R. Becker, A. Bauer, K. E. Siegler, H. A. Katus, and W. Schoels What is the "Optimal" follow-up schedule for ICD patients? Europace, January 1, 2005; 7(4): 319 - 326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | SUBSCRIPTIONS | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | CARDIOSOURCE | SEARCH | HELP | FEEDBACK |
