Cannon Bryan C, Friedman Richard A, Fenrich Arnold L, Fraser Charles D, McKenzie E Dean, Kertesz Naomi J
Division of Pediatrics, Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Childrens Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2006 Feb;29(2):181-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2006.00314.x.
Because of venous occlusion, intracardiac shunting, previous surgery, or small size placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads may not be possible using traditional methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and describe innovative methods of placing ICD leads.
The records of all patients undergoing ICD implantation at our institution were reviewed to identify patients with nontraditional lead placement. Indications for ICD, method of lead and coil placement, defibrillation thresholds, complications, and follow-up results were reviewed retrospectively.
Eight patients (aged 11 months to 29 years) were identified. Six patients with limited venous access to the heart (four extracardiac Fontan, one bidirectional Glenn, one 8 kg 11-month-old) underwent surgical placement of an ICD coil directly into the pericardial sac. A second bipolar lead was placed on the ventricle for sensing and pacing. Two patients with difficult venous access had a standard transvenous ICD lead inserted directly into the right atrium (transatrial approach) and then positioned into the ventricle. All patients had a defibrillation threshold of <20 J, although one patient required placement of a second coil due to an elevated threshold. There have been no complications and two successful appropriate ICD discharges at follow-up (median 22 months, range 5-42 months).
Many factors may prohibit transvenous ICD lead placement. Nontraditional surgical placement of subcutaneous ICD leads on the pericardium or the use of a transatrial approach can be effective techniques in these patients. These procedures can be performed at low risk to the patient with excellent defibrillation thresholds.
由于静脉闭塞、心内分流、既往手术或植入式心脏复律除颤器(ICD)导线尺寸较小等原因,使用传统方法可能无法放置ICD导线。本研究的目的是评估和描述放置ICD导线的创新方法。
回顾了在我们机构接受ICD植入的所有患者的记录,以确定采用非传统导线放置方法的患者。对ICD的适应证、导线和线圈的放置方法、除颤阈值、并发症及随访结果进行回顾性分析。
共确定8例患者(年龄11个月至29岁)。6例心脏静脉通路受限的患者(4例为心外Fontan手术、1例双向Glenn手术、1例8kg的11个月大婴儿)接受了将ICD线圈直接手术植入心包腔的操作。另一个双极导线放置在心室用于感知和起搏。2例静脉通路困难的患者将标准的经静脉ICD导线直接插入右心房(经心房途径),然后定位到心室。所有患者的除颤阈值均<20J,不过有1例患者因阈值升高需要放置第二个线圈。随访期间无并发症发生,有2例患者成功进行了适当的ICD放电(中位随访时间22个月,范围5 - 42个月)。
许多因素可能会妨碍经静脉放置ICD导线。对于这些患者,将皮下ICD导线非传统地手术放置于心包上或采用经心房途径可能是有效的技术。这些操作对患者的风险较低,且除颤阈值良好。