© 2004 by European Society of Cardiology
REVIEW
Incidence of venous obstruction following insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. A study of systematic contrast venography on patients presenting for their first elective ICD generator replacement
aDepartment of Medicine–Cardiology, University of Bonn Sigmund-Freud-Strasse 25, 53105 Bonn, Germany; bDivision of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD, USA; cDivision of Cardiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital Baltimore, MD, USA; dDepartment of Cardiology, University Hospital of Mannheim Mannheim, Germany; eDepartment of Medicine–Cardiology, Academic Hospital Villingen Villingen, Germany
AIMS: 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.
METHODS AND RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.
Key Words: implantable cardioverter defibrillator, venous obstruction, contrast venography
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-228-287-5507; fax: +49-228-287-4323. E-mail address: lars.lickfett{at}ukb.uni-bonn.de (L. Lickfett).
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. A. Ezekowitz, B. H. Rowe, D. M. Dryden, N. Hooton, B. Vandermeer, C. Spooner, and F. A. McAlister Systematic Review: Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Adults with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Ann Intern Med, August 21, 2007; 147(4): 251 - 262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Haghjoo, M. H. Nikoo, A. F. Fazelifar, A. Alizadeh, Z. Emkanjoo, and M. A. Sadr-Ameli Predictors of venous obstruction following pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a contrast venographic study on 100 patients admitted for generator change, lead revision, or device upgrade Europace, May 1, 2007; 9(5): 328 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|