This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (58)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Clinical Experience, Complications, and Follow-up in 25 Patients

Joseph Borbola, MD; Pablo Denes, MD; Marilyn D. Ezri, MD; Robert G. Hauser, MD; Cyrus Serry, MD; Marshall D. Goldin, MD

Arch Intern Med. 1988;148(1):70-76.

Abstract
• Twenty-five patients with recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias underwent implantation of an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The mean length of follow-up was 11.9±10.8 months. Before the implantation, the patients had survived one or more cardiac arrests (mean, 1.7; range, 1 to 4) and episodes of syncope (mean, 2.2; range, 2 to 3) and had received 6.0±1.0 antiarrhythmic drug trials. The in-hospital complications included death (two patients), reoperation (one patient), intraoperative myocardial infarction (one patient), sensing-failure (one patient), infection (five patients), and pocket seroma (two patients). The posthospital complications included device failure (four patients), device deactivation (one patient), and inappropriate discharge (two patients). The device discharged appropriately in seven patients due to sustained ventricular tachycardia. During electrophysiologic measurements, the energy requirement for successful cardioversion-defibrillation was related to the type of ventricular arrhythmia induced (monomorphic or pleomorphic ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). Ventricular tachycardia acceleration occurred in ten patients (40%). No significant changes were found in the size of the electrograms or in the cardioversion threshold during early and late follow-up measurements. Life table analysis showed a 12-month survival rate of 86% and an arrhythmic death survival rate of 100%. We confirm the improved rate of survival in this high-risk group of patients, despite significant complications.

(Arch Intern Med 1988;142:70-76)

Author Affiliations
From the Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology (Drs Borbola, Denes, Ezri, and Hauser), and the Department of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgery (Drs Serry and Goldin), Rush-Presbyterian—St Luke's Medical Center, Chicago.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 8, 1987.

Reprint requests to Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Rush-Presbyterian—St Luke's Medical Center, 1750 W Harrison St, Chicago, IL 60612 (Dr Denes).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Programming of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators on the Basis of the Upper Limit of Vulnerability
Swerdlow et al.
Circulation 1997;95:1497-1504.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Differential Effects of Lidocaine on Defibrillation Threshold With Monophasic Versus Biphasic Shock Waveforms
Ujhelyi et al.
Circulation 1995;92:1644-1650.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Importance of Complete System Removal of Infected Cardioverter-Defibrillators
Mull et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1995;60:704-706.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT