The azygos defibrillator lead for elevated defibrillation thresholds: implant technique, lead stability, and patient series.

BACKGROUND: Conventional insertion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) includes an evaluation of the defibrillation threshold (DFT). Implanting an ancillary defibrillation lead in the azygos vein has been introduced as a therapeutic option in patients with "high" DFT. This study reports the efficacy and stability of azygos defibrillation coils implanted for elevated DFTs. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of seven consecutive patients with right and left pectoral, single- and dual-chamber, and biventricular ICDs and elevated DFTs, in whom an azygos defibrillation coil was introduced. RESULTS: Addition of an azygos defibrillator lead achieved a satisfactory safety margin during single energy defibrillation efficacy testing in four out of seven patients, with success at maximum device output in two patients. No satisfactory safety margin was achieved in the remaining patient, despite the further addition of a subcutaneous defibrillation coil. No change in lead position was observed over a mean radiographic follow-up of 8 months. No complications were noted during a mean follow-up of 14 months, including no deaths, and no ICD shocks. CONCLUSION: Implanting a defibrillation coil into the azygos vein is feasible and safe. In a majority of patients with failed defibrillation efficacy testing, adding an azygos coil achieves success on repeat testing. Therefore, this technique is one option for lowering the defibrillation threshold in patients who fail DFT testing of their ICD.

New strategies for cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Sudden death claims hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the United States. Emergency resuscitation efforts are successful in only about 6% of all out-of-hospital arrests. In light of the poor survival rate, innovative research is reexamining the practice of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Basic life support (BLS), with its stepwise management of airway, breathing, circulation, and defibrillation, is far from a rudimentary procedure. Each step has been challenged and changed in recent years, reflecting ongoing resuscitation research into the mechanisms, efficacy, and practical aspects of delivery of these interventions. Recommended modifications to BLS techniques have resulted in increased survival rates. Therefore, health professionals need to stay current with the latest guidelines through literature reviews and frequent recertification.

Sustained polymorphic arrhythmias induced by programmed ventricular stimulation have prognostic value in patients receiving defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) who have monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) induced by programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Among a primary prevention population, the prognostic significance of induced polymorphic ventricular arrhythmias is unknown. METHODS: A total of 105 consecutive patients who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of SCD in the setting of ICM and non-sustained VT were retrospectively evaluated. Seventy-five patients (group I) had induction of monomorphic VT and 30 patients (group II) had a sustained ventricular arrhythmia other than monomorphic VT (ventricular flutter, ventricular fibrillation, and polymorphic VT) induced during PVS. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between group I and group II except for ejection fraction (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.0001) and QRS duration (123 milliseconds vs. 109 milliseconds, P = 0.04). Sixteen of 75 (21.3%) patients in group I and 6 of 30 (20%) patients in group II received appropriate ICD therapy (P = 0.88). Survival free from ICD therapy was similar between groups (P = 0.54). There was a trend toward increased all-cause mortality among patients in group I by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.08). However, when adjusted for age, EF, and QRS duration mortality was similar (P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in rates of appropriate ICD discharge or mortality between patients dichotomized by type of rhythm induced during PVS. These results suggest that patients in this population who have inducible VF or sustained polymorphic VT have similar rates of subsequent clinical ventricular tachyarrhythmias as those with inducible monomorphic VT.