Lickfett Lars, Bitzen Alexander, Arepally Aravind, Nasir Khurram, Wolpert Christian, Jeong Kyung Mi, Krause Ulf, Schimpf Rainer, Lewalter Thorsten, Calkins Hugh, Jung Werner, Lüderitz Berndt
Department of Medicine-Cardiology, University of Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Strasse 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany.
Europace. 2004 Jan;6(1):25-31. doi: 10.1016/j.eupc.2003.09.001.
The number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantations, as well as follow-up procedures such as generator exchanges, lead revisions and lead system upgrades, is ever-increasing. Lead revisions and implantation of additional leads require venous access at the site of the previous ICD implantation. The aim of our study was therefore to evaluate the incidence of venous obstruction after chronic transvenous ICD system implantation.
One hundred and five consecutive patients admitted for their first elective ICD generator replacement were included. All patients underwent bilateral contrast venography and the images were analyzed by two attending radiologists. Venous obstruction was classified as moderate stenosis (50-75% diameter reduction), severe stenosis (>75%) or total occlusion. Venous obstruction of various degrees was found in 25% of the patients. Complete occlusion was found in 9%, severe stenosis in 6% and moderate stenosis in 10% of the patients. The incidence of venous obstruction was increased in patients with a pacemaker prior to the initial ICD system implantation (67%). No difference was found in patients with a single defibrillator lead compared with patients who had an additional superior vena cava (SVC) shocking coil. However, the presence of a second shocking coil in the SVC incorporated in a single ICD lead was associated with an increased incidence of venous obstruction. No difference was found between silicone and polyurethane insulated leads.
This study shows that venous obstruction occurs relatively frequently after ICD implantation. Therefore, contrast venography should always be obtained if malfunction of a preexistent lead is suspected or a system upgrade is considered.
植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)植入数量以及诸如更换发生器、导线修复和导线系统升级等随访程序不断增加。导线修复和额外导线的植入需要在前次ICD植入部位进行静脉穿刺。因此,我们研究的目的是评估慢性经静脉ICD系统植入后静脉阻塞的发生率。
纳入105例连续入选进行首次择期ICD发生器更换的患者。所有患者均接受双侧静脉造影,图像由两名主治放射科医生分析。静脉阻塞分为中度狭窄(直径减少50 - 75%)、重度狭窄(>75%)或完全闭塞。25%的患者发现有不同程度的静脉阻塞。9%的患者出现完全闭塞,6%的患者出现重度狭窄,10%的患者出现中度狭窄。在初始ICD系统植入前有起搏器的患者中,静脉阻塞的发生率增加(67%)。与有额外上腔静脉(SVC)电击线圈的患者相比,单根除颤导线患者未发现差异。然而,单根ICD导线中SVC内存在第二个电击线圈与静脉阻塞发生率增加相关。硅胶绝缘导线和聚氨酯绝缘导线之间未发现差异。
本研究表明,ICD植入后静脉阻塞相对常见。因此,如果怀疑既往导线出现故障或考虑进行系统升级,应始终进行静脉造影。