Is the use of an additional pace/sense lead the optimal strategy for the avoidance of lead extraction in defibrillation lead failure? A single-centre experience.

AIMS: The implantation of an additional pace-sense (P/S) lead is a standard treatment option in the management of an isolated pace-sense problem in a defibrillation (HV-P/S) lead. However, the safety of this management strategy is unclear. We performed a retrospective single-centre study to assess this. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied all patients with an isolated P/S problem in an HV-P/S lead, treated with an additional P/S lead, in our institution. The need for further invasive intervention for a lead-related complication, or death during follow-up, was assessed. From 2000 to 2008, 45 patients were treated with an additional P/S lead. Mean follow-up was 78 +/- 38 months from original device implantation and 28 +/- 17 months following implantation of the additional lead. During follow-up, three patients required an invasive intervention for a lead-related problem. All were successfully treated with lead extraction and device re-implantation. There were five deaths. Following implant of an additional lead, cumulative survival from further lead defects after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years was 100, 100, 93, and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of an isolated P/S problem in an HV-P/S lead, the placement of an additional P/S lead is a safe management strategy, at least in the short term.

Varying implantable cardioverter defibrillator referral patterns from implanting and non-implanting hospitals.

AIMS: To assess the impact of hospital type on implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) prescription rates. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Wessex Cardiothoracic Unit is a regional implanting centre serving eight district general hospitals (DGHs). We audited all new ICD implants performed in our institution over 4 years. Hospitals implanting or referring patients elsewhere were excluded. We categorized patients into three different groups depending on local hospital type-regional centre (one hospital), DGH with a device specialist (one hospital), DGH without a device specialist (two hospitals). For each hospital type, we assessed the overall implant rate based on local population. There were 459 new ICD implants; of which 381 were included in the analysis. Implant rates were higher in areas whose local hospital was a regional centre (103/million/year), when compared with DGHs with (49/million/year) or without a device specialist (48/million/year). This disparity was greatest with respect to coronary artery disease primary prevention indications-implant rates 29, 14, and 9/million/year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICD implant rates are affected by hospital type and are significantly higher in regional centres when compared with DGHs. To increase ICD implant rates, the widespread implementation of clinical pathways to identify prospective primary prevention patients may be needed.