RISKS AND BENEFITS OF IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER-DEFIBRILLATOR PULSE GENERATOR REPLACEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (10) ◽  
pp. S332-S333
Author(s):  
K. Lewis ◽  
D. Stacey ◽  
L. Boland ◽  
S. Carroll ◽  
L. Sikora ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Pulse Generator ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Generator Replacement

Estimating the Risks and Benefits of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Generator Replacement: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 39 (7) ◽  
pp. 709-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
KRYSTINA B. LEWIS ◽  
DAWN STACEY ◽  
SANDRA L. CARROLL ◽  
LAURA BOLAND ◽  
LINDSEY SIKORA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Generator Replacement

Outcomes following implantable cardioverter–defibrillator generator replacement in adults: A systematic review

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1036-1042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Killian J. McCarthy ◽  
Andrew H. Locke ◽  
Margo Coletti ◽  
Diane Young ◽  
Faisal M. Merchant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Generator Replacement

scholarly journals Defibrillation success after subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator generator replacement is not affected by impedance increase

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
W Van Der Stuijt ◽  
S Pepplinkhuizen ◽  
ABE Quast ◽  
L Smeding ◽  
LRA Olde Nordkamp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ventricular Arrhythmia ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Replacement Procedure ◽  
Shock Impedance ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
Generator Replacement

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Routine defibrillation testing during implant and replacement of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is recommended per current guidelines. Recently, concerns have been raised about an increase in shock impedance and consequent shock failure during defibrillation testing in S-ICD patients undergoing a generator replacement. Purpose We aim to describe the defibrillation success rate in relation to the shock impedance in patients undergoing S-ICD generator replacement in our large tertiary center. Methods In this retrospective analysis, data from replacement procedures were collected from all patients who underwent an S-ICD generator replacement in our center from June 2014 to December 2020. Defibrillation testing was performed with at least one shock of ≤65J, and a successful shock was defined as terminating the ventricular arrhythmia within 5 seconds after the shock. Results A total of 133 patients underwent an S-ICD generator replacement, 5.8 ± 0.9 years after initial implant. Reasons for replacement were: reaching of elective replacement indicator (n = 119), early battery depletion (n = 9), complaints of generator pocket (n = 3) and device malfunction (n = 2). Defibrillation testing was performed in 111 patients (86.5%) undergoing a replacement procedure. Shock impedance data from both the implant and replacement procedure were available in 101 patients. The median shock impedance of these patients during their replacement procedure was significantly higher than during their implant, 79Ω (IQR 66-94) and 66Ω (IQR 57.5-81) respectively (Z = -5.552, p < 0.001). Despite the higher shock impedance, first shock during defibrillation testing was successful in 105/111 patients (94.6%), with a success rate of 97.3% after two attempts. In the remaining three patients, the ventricular arrhythmia could only be terminated with a 80J shock. This was the case during both their initial implant and their replacement procedure. Shock impedance increase between implant and replacement was not significantly higher in patients with a successful first shock compared to patients with an unsuccessful first shock (Δ+11.1 ± 20.0Ω versus Δ+12.7 ± 27.6Ω, p = 0.86). Conclusion In this large retrospective analysis, we have shown a first shock success rate during S-ICD generator replacement of 94.6%, which is similar to the success rate of defibrillation testing after initial implant. After multiple attempts, defibrillation testing success rate was 100%. Even though the median shock impedance during replacement was significantly higher than during the initial implant, there was no difference in impedance increase in patients with a successful shock compared to patients with an unsuccessful shock. Abstract Figure. Defibrillation success

scholarly journals Incidence of Ventricular Arrhythmias and 1‐Year Predictors of Mortality in Patients Treated With Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Undergoing Generator Replacement

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Demarchi ◽  
Stefano Cornara ◽  
Antonio Sanzo ◽  
Simone Savastano ◽  
Barbara Petracci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Ventricular Arrhythmias ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Generator Replacement

Background When implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) battery is depleted most patients undergo generator replacement (GR) even in the absence of persistent ICD indication. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and the overall prognosis of patients with and without persistent ICD indication undergoing GR. Predictors of 1‐year mortality were also analyzed. Methods and Results Patients with structural heart disease implanted with primary prevention ICD undergoing GR were included. Patients were stratified based on the presence/absence of persistent ICD indication (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% at the time of GR and/or history of appropriate ICD therapies during the first generator's life). The study included 371 patients (82% male, 40% with ischemic heart disease). One third of patients (n=121) no longer met ICD indication at the time of GR. During a median follow‐up of 34 months after GR patients without persistent ICD indication showed a significantly lower incidence of appropriate ICD shocks (1.9% versus 16.2%, P <0.001) and ICD therapies. 1‐year mortality was also significantly lower in patients without persistent ICD indication (1% versus 8.3%, P =0.009). At multivariable analysis permanent atrial fibrillation, chronic advanced renal impairment, age >80, and persistent ICD indication were found to be significant predictors of 1‐year mortality. Conclusions Patients without persistent ICD indication at the time of GR show a low incidence of appropriate ICD therapies after GR. Persistent ICD indication, atrial fibrillation, advanced chronic renal disease, and age >80 are significant predictors of 1‐year mortality. Our findings enlighten the need of performing a comprehensive clinical reevaluation of ICD patients at the time of GR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document