Premium
Combined Third‐Generation Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator with Permanent Unipolar Pacemakers: Preliminary Observations
Author(s) -
HAFFAJEE CHARLES,
CASAVANT DAVID,
DESAI PRAKASH,
MOON RICHARD,
VOUKYDIS PANOS,
PACETTI PATRICIA
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1996.tb03304.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , implant , limiting , artificial cardiac pacemaker , ventricular fibrillation , single chamber , cardiac resynchronization therapy , heart failure , surgery , ejection fraction , mechanical engineering , engineering
As implantable Cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are strictly contraindicated in the presence of unipolar pacemakers, currently available options in patients having such chronic pacing systems include: abandoning the implanted pacemaker and selecting an ICD with ventricular demand (VVI) pacing; or replacing the chronic (dual chamber) unipolar pacing system with a dedicated bipolar version prior to ICD implantation. In three patients with previously implanted unipolar pacemakers, we challenged the premise that all ICD systems are incompatible by combining with a third‐generation transvenous ICD system (Medtronic 7217B PCD® incorporating true bipolar sensing, a self‐limiting auto‐adjusting sensitivity, and a tolerant VF detection algorithm. The potential for pace‐maker‐ICD interaction was minimized by separating the tip of the ICDs transvenous right ventricular pace/sense‐defihrillation coil lead from that of the chronic pacemaker lead by > 2–3 cm, and by performing “worst case” intraoperative testing. Although ICD double‐counting of the dual chamber pacemaker's atrial and ventricular pacing spikes could be provoked at extreme high output settings, it did not occur at clinically appropriate settings. More importantly, continuous high output asynchronous pacing during ventricular fibrillation (VF) did not interfere with ICD detection. During a mean follow‐up period of 18 months, one patient has had VF appropriately terminated bv the ICD. In the remaining two patients, proper VF detection and ICD function was reassessed at 3 months and/or at 1 year during noninvasive testing. Conclusion: These preliminary findings demonstrate that this transvenous ICD system's VF sensing and detection features combined with careful implant technique, rigorous “worst case” testing for possible pacemaker‐ICD interaction with regular follow‐up, may permit implantation of this ICD system in patients with chronic unipolar pacing systems. Further studies are needed to validate the long‐term clinical safety of this promising revised approach to a currently contraindicated device combination.