Bardy G H, Hofer B, Johnson G, Kudenchuk P J, Poole J E, Dolack G L, Gleva M, Mitchell R, Kelso D
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Circulation. 1993 Apr;87(4):1152-68. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.87.4.1152.
Implantable transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators offer a significant opportunity to decrease procedural morbidity and medical costs in the care of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias who otherwise would have required a sternotomy or thoracotomy for device insertion. The purpose of this study was to examine prospectively the safety, efficacy, and limitations associated with the use of a transvenously implanted, tiered-therapy cardioverter-defibrillator with antitachycardia pacing function in a consecutive population of 84 ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) survivors.
The index arrhythmia promoting transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was VF in 41 patients, VT in 27, and both VF and VT in 16. In each patient, transvenous defibrillation via a coronary sinus, a right ventricular, a superior vena caval, and/or a subcutaneous chest patch lead system was attempted. The pulsing methods used include two-electrode single-pathway pulsing or three-electrode dual-pathway simultaneous or sequential pulsing. A transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was inserted if the defibrillation threshold (DFT) was < or = 20 J. Successful implantation of a transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator was possible in 80 of 84 (95%) patients. The mean implant DFT was 10.9 +/- 4.8 J. After cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, all patients were extubated in the operating room and sent to a standard telemetry ward for monitoring. No patient suffered a postoperative pulmonary complication or perioperative flurry of cardiac arrhythmias. Postoperative complications included lead dislodgments in eight, transient long thoracic nerve injury in one, asymptomatic left subclavian vein occlusion in two, asymptomatic small pericardial effusion in one, subcutaneous patch pocket hematomas in four, pulse generator pocket infection in one, and lead fracture in one. As experience was gained with the procedure, it was routine to discharge patients 3 days after surgery. The mean hospital stay was 6.0 +/- 2.4 days. Upon discharge, all patients returned to their prehospital activities including those with complications except for the patient with a pocket infection, who required intravenous antibiotic therapy. Patient survival using an intention-to-treat analysis was 98% over an 11 +/- 7-month follow-up period. During this time period, 31 of the 80 patients (39%) with transvenous lead systems were successfully treated by their device for sustained VT or VF. Antitachycardia pacing was used in 424 episodes of monomorphic VT and was successful in 371 (88%). All episodes of VF were aborted by the device. Antiarrhythmic drugs were used after device implantation in only eight of 80 patients (10%).
Transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is practical in most candidates. Implant DFTs are usually low, surgical morbidity and postoperative complications are modest, therapy of VT and VF is efficient, and survival is excellent.
对于患有危及生命的室性心律失常且原本需要进行胸骨切开术或开胸术来植入设备的患者,植入式经静脉心脏复律除颤器为降低手术发病率和医疗成本提供了重要契机。本研究的目的是前瞻性地考察在连续的84例心室颤动(VF)和持续性室性心动过速(VT)存活患者中使用具有抗心动过速起搏功能的经静脉植入式分层治疗心脏复律除颤器的安全性、有效性及局限性。
促使植入经静脉心脏复律除颤器的索引心律失常在41例患者中为VF,27例中为VT,16例中为VF和VT两者皆有。在每位患者中,尝试通过冠状窦、右心室、上腔静脉和/或皮下胸壁贴片导联系统进行经静脉除颤。所使用的脉冲方法包括双电极单通路脉冲或三电极双通路同步或顺序脉冲。如果除颤阈值(DFT)≤20 J,则植入经静脉心脏复律除颤器。84例患者中有80例(95%)成功植入了经静脉心脏复律除颤器。平均植入DFT为10.9±4.8 J。心脏复律除颤器植入后,所有患者均在手术室拔管,并被送往标准遥测病房进行监测。没有患者出现术后肺部并发症或围手术期心律失常发作。术后并发症包括8例导线移位、1例短暂性胸长神经损伤、2例无症状性左锁骨下静脉闭塞、1例无症状性小心包积液、4例皮下贴片袋血肿、1例脉冲发生器袋感染和1例导线断裂。随着对该手术经验的积累,术后3天让患者出院已成为常规操作。平均住院时间为6.0±2.4天。出院时,所有患者都恢复了术前的活动,包括有并发症的患者,但有袋感染的患者除外,该患者需要静脉抗生素治疗。采用意向性分析,在11±7个月的随访期内患者生存率为98%。在此期间,80例有经静脉导联系统的患者中有31例(39%)的持续性VT或VF被其设备成功治疗。424次单形性VT发作使用了抗心动过速起搏,其中371次(88%)成功。所有VF发作均被设备终止。80例患者中只有8例(10%)在设备植入后使用了抗心律失常药物。
经静脉心脏复律除颤器植入术对大多数候选患者来说是可行的。植入DFT通常较低,手术发病率和术后并发症较少,VT和VF的治疗有效,且生存率很高。