J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994 Jun;23(7):1521-30. doi: 10.1016/0735-1097(94)90650-5.
The long-term efficacy and safety of a third-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implanted with thoracotomy and nonthoracotomy lead systems was evaluated in a multicenter international study.
The clinical impact of transvenous leads for nonthoracotomy implantation and pacing for bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems is not well defined.
The safety of the implantation procedure and clinical outcome of 1,221 patients with symptomatic and life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias who underwent implantation of a third-generation cardioverter-defibrillator using either a thoracotomy approach with epicardial leads (616 patients) or a nonthoracotomy approach with endocardial leads (605 patients) in a nonrandomized manner was analyzed. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system permitted pacing, cardioversion, defibrillation, arrhythmia event memory and noninvasive tachycardia induction.
Successful implantation of an endocardial lead system was achieved in 605 (88.2%) of 686 patients and an epicardial system in 614 (99.7%) of 616 (p < 0.05). Perioperative 30-day mortality rate was 0.8% (1.8% including crossovers) in endocardial implant recipients compared with 4.2% (p < 0.001) in epicardial implant recipients (3.6% without crossovers, p < 0.05, respectively). Implantation mortality risk was significantly lower for nonthoracotomy systems irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction or New York Heart Association functional class. Pacing therapies prevented need for cardioversion or defibrillation shocks in 89% of all ventricular tachycardia episodes and were comparably effective for both lead systems. Total survival rate at 2 years was significantly higher in endocardial (87.6%) than epicardial (81.9%) lead recipients (p < 0.001). Elimination of perioperative mortality from the analysis demonstrated comparable survival in both groups (p > 0.2).
Third-generation cardioverter-defibrillators with monophasic waveforms can be successfully implanted with epicardial (99.7%) and endocardial (88.2%) lead systems. We conclude that endocardial leads should be the implant technique of first choice. Improved patient management and tolerance for device therapy is achieved with the addition of antitachycardia pacemaker capability in these systems.
在一项多中心国际研究中,评估了采用开胸和非开胸导联系统植入的第三代植入式心脏转复除颤器的长期疗效和安全性。
在植入式心脏转复除颤器系统中,经静脉导联用于非开胸植入以及对缓慢性心律失常和快速性心律失常进行起搏的临床影响尚不明确。
对1221例有症状且危及生命的室性快速性心律失常患者进行了分析,这些患者以非随机方式接受了第三代心脏转复除颤器植入,其中616例采用开胸法植入心外膜导联,605例采用非开胸法植入心内膜导联。植入式心脏转复除颤器系统具备起搏、心脏转复、除颤、心律失常事件记录以及无创性心动过速诱发功能。
686例患者中有605例(88.2%)成功植入心内膜导联系统,616例中有614例(99.7%)成功植入心外膜导联系统(p<0.05)。心内膜植入患者的围手术期30天死亡率为0.8%(包括交叉病例为1.8%),而心外膜植入患者为4.2%(p<0.001)(不包括交叉病例为3.6%,p<0.05)。无论左心室射血分数或纽约心脏协会功能分级如何,非开胸系统的植入死亡风险均显著较低。起搏治疗在所有室性心动过速发作中89%的情况下避免了心脏转复或除颤电击的需要,且两种导联系统的效果相当。心内膜导联接受者2年总生存率(87.6%)显著高于心外膜导联接受者(81.9%)(p<0.001)。分析中排除围手术期死亡率后,两组生存率相当(p>0.2)。
具有单相波形的第三代心脏转复除颤器可通过心外膜导联系统(99.7%)和心内膜导联系统(88.2%)成功植入。我们得出结论,心内膜导联应作为首选的植入技术。通过在这些系统中增加抗心动过速起搏功能,可改善患者管理和对器械治疗的耐受性。