ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The need for ways to minimize the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks is increasing owing to the risk of its adverse effects on life expectancy. Studies have shown that a longer detection time for ventricular tachyarrhythmia reduces the safety of therapies, in terms of syncope and mortality, but not substantially in terms of the success rate. We aimed to evaluate the effects of increased number of intervals to detect (NID) VF on the safety of ICD shock therapy and on the reduction of inappropriate shocks. METHODS: The present study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, crossover study. Randomized VF induction testing with NID 18/24 or 30/40 was performed to compare the success rate of defibrillation with a 25-J shock and the time to detection. Inappropriate shock episodes were simulated retrospectively to evaluate a possibility of episodes avoidable at NID 24/32 and 30/40. RESULTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients implanted with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) were enrolled in this study. The success rate of defibrillation was 100% in both NID groups at the first shock. The time from VF induction to detection showed a significant increase in the NID 30/40 group (6.16±1.29 s vs. 9.00±1.31 s, p<0.001). Among the 120 patients implanted with an ICD or CRT-D, 10 experienced 32 inappropriate shock episodes. The inappropriate shock reduction rate was 53.1% and 62.5% with NID 24/32 and 30/40, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this SANKS study suggest that VF NID 30/40 does not compromise the safety of ICD shock therapy, while decreasing the number of inappropriate shocks.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pacemaker generators are routinely implanted in the anterior chest. However, where to place the generator may need to be considered from the mental, functional, and cosmetic standpoints. METHODS: In this study, we performed the left axillary pacemaker generator implantation with a direct puncture of the left axillary vein in 40 consecutive patients, and evaluated the late safety and efficacy of this implantation. Complications, changes in the lead sensing, pacing threshold, and impedance were used as safety indexes for a mean follow-up of 3.4 years. In addition, the efficacy was also evaluated by comparing their questionnaire survey results to 119 patients in a control group of anterior chest implantation. RESULTS: Lead dislodgements were observed in two patients of the experiment group. There were no migrations of generators from the implantation site or abnormal variations in the pacing threshold, lead sensing, or impedance. In the left anterior chest and left axillary groups, 85% and 10% of the patients were worried about an external impact, 80% and 25% were worried about electromagnetic interference, and 68% and 0% answered that the pacemaker implantation site was noticeable, respectively. Apparently, more patients had a sense of security and cosmetic satisfaction with the left axillary implantation. CONCLUSION: The left axillary generator implantations may reduce the mental burden and cause no safety concerns, and may be performed if functional or cosmetic outcomes are required.
