ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Cardiac implantable electronic devices: Long-term complications

Cardiac implantable electronic devices: Long-term complications
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Jul 12, 2023.

INTRODUCTION — As more people are living longer with more medical comorbidities including significant cardiac disease, the number of permanent pacemakers (PPMs) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) inserted continues to increase. Beginning early in the 21st century, there has also been an expansion in the indications for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED, a term which includes PPMs and ICDs), resulting in device therapy becoming more complex and more prolonged over the patient's lifetime. As such, therapy with a CIED frequently involves multiple leads and multiple pulse generators over each patient's lifetime with the device, exposing the patient to greater operative risk as well as ongoing risks related to the CIED.

There are a variety of potential complications associated with CIED use, both at and around the time of implantation as well as long-term over the life of the patient and his/her device [1-3]. Efforts to avoid some of these complications have led to the development of new technologies (ie, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous ICDs). The long-term complications associated with a CIED will be reviewed here. Procedural and peri-procedural complications associated with CIED implantation, as well as basic principles associated with PPMs, ICDs, and alternative technologies, are discussed separately. (See "Cardiac implantable electronic devices: Periprocedural complications" and "Permanent cardiac pacing: Overview of devices and indications" and "Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Overview of indications, components, and functions" and "Permanent cardiac pacing: Overview of devices and indications", section on 'Leadless systems' and "Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators".)

INCIDENCE — Major complications requiring reoperation or hospitalization were analyzed in a cohort of 114,484 patients aged 65 years or greater (mean age 74.8 years, 72 percent male) who were enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) ICD registry and received a first ICD between 2006 and 2010 [4]. Over a median follow-up of 2.7 years, ICD-related complications requiring hospitalization or reoperation occurred at a rate of 6.1 per 100 patient-years. Patients who experienced a complication within the first 90 days following ICD implantation were at greater risk of all-cause mortality at one (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.20) and three (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13) years [5]. A higher reoperation rate was seen in a Canadian study of 3410 first-time ICD recipients (implanted between 2003 and 2012, median follow-up 34 months), in which 12 percent of patients per year required reoperation [6].

Pulse generator malfunctions are a rare but represent a significant long-term complication, particularly for patients who are pacemaker-dependent. In a 2006 meta-analysis which included patients from three registries, including 475,618 PPMs and 20,633 ICDs implanted between 1974 and 2004, rates of device malfunction (pulse generator only, no data on lead malfunctions were reported) were 1.3 per 1000 person-years for PPMs and 26.5 per 1000 person-years for ICDs, although the complication rates fell significantly over time [7].

Lead malfunctions constitute another rare but significant potential long-term complication; they are more common with ICD leads, with significant variability in the rates of malfunction in certain leads. Reported lead failure rates have varied from 1 to 9 percent at two years, 2 to 15 percent at five years and 5 to 40 percent at 8 to 10 years [8-10]. Comparison of rates are confounded by varying definitions of lead failure, different lead designs, varying patient and implanting clinician characteristics, and limitations of methods for detection of lead malfunction [9].

MRI COMPATIBILITY — Contemporary CIED and lead systems are generally labeled magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) conditional, though periscan management and behavior are variable among manufacturers/models and require individualized evaluation prior to scanning. Systems with older leads, abandoned leads, and some unusual features may not be strictly labeled MRI compatible. Several observational studies have shown that most patients can be safely scanned if appropriate precautions are taken [11,12]. Evaluation of patients with CIEDs for possible MRI imaging is discussed separately. (See "Patient evaluation for metallic or electrical implants, devices, or foreign bodies before magnetic resonance imaging", section on 'Cardiovascular implantable electronic device'.)

LEAD COMPLICATIONS — Lead-related problems include infection, lead failure (resulting in failure to pace, failure to shock, or inappropriate shocks), tricuspid valve regurgitation and/or damage, implant vein occlusion, and increased defibrillation thresholds (DFT). Abandoned leads also represent another type of lead-related complication insofar that they represent a contraindication to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning, which can be an impediment to medical care in some instances. Rarely, abandoned leads can affect device function by inadvertent contact with active leads [13]. Venous thrombosis causes upper extremity swelling and discomfort in 5 to 10 percent of patients with chronic leads and may interfere with placement of additional leads [14].

Infection — Infection of the generator pocket or leads can occur at the time of CIED implantation or at any subsequent time. Because infection of a CIED can be a life-threatening problem, complete hardware removal, including the CIED pulse generator and all leads, along with antibiotic therapy, are strongly recommended unless there is a reason to pursue palliative antibiotic therapy (eg, very short life-expectancy) [15]. These issues are discussed in detail separately. (See "Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices: Epidemiology, microbiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis" and "Cardiac implantable electronic device lead removal".)

Lead failure — The frequency of lead failure and the types of problems that occur have been evaluated in a number of studies [2,8-10,16-19]. Certain lead models and sizes have been identified as prone to failure [10,18,20]. Additionally, ICD leads seem more prone to failure compared with pacemaker leads, due to the increased complexity of the design to allow for both pacing and defibrillation functions. However, it is difficult to separate the relative contribution of materials, lead diameter, lead design, patient factors (eg, younger age, female sex, lower BMI, submuscular pectoral implant, etc) or other as yet unidentified factors with respect to failure rates.

In a series of 1317 consecutive patients with an ICD placed between 1993 and 2004 who were followed for a median of 6.4 years, 38 patients (2.9 percent) experienced a lead malfunction requiring lead revision, with 29 of the 38 patients (76 percent) experiencing inappropriate ICD therapies [8]. The main reasons for lead malfunction were insulation defects (26 percent), artifact oversensing (24 percent), and lead fractures (24 percent). The rate of recurrent ICD lead-related problems was 20 percent at five years. Deaths related to ICD lead failure have been reported but are exceedingly rare [21].

Detecting lead failure — Historically, lead failure has been most commonly diagnosed when a patient presents with symptoms related to the failed lead (eg, inappropriate ICD shocks, dizziness or syncope due to failure to pace, etc) and the device parameters are interrogated. Evidence of lead fracture is rarely identified on a chest radiograph. With modern systems, remote CIED monitoring has increasingly revealed evidence of lead malfunction before it is manifested clinically. Patients with known hardware under advisory should be followed with remote monitoring in order to detect potential lead failure as soon as possible [22].

Devices often have software designed to detect emerging lead problems [23]. For example, one manufacturer's algorithm that combines oversensing and impedance measurements to detect coaxial ICD lead failure found a sensitivity of 83 percent (24 of 29) and a specificity of 100 percent in 667 patients when tested in a population with various lead models [24]. The algorithm was subsequently modified to add features beyond lead failure detection, including a more extensive alerting system and the implementation of real-time, automatic changes to the ventricular fibrillation (VF) detection parameters of the ICD when a lead failure is detected [25]. (See "Cardiac implantable electronic device lead removal", section on 'Advisory/recall'.)

Lead extraction — When mechanical lead failure has been identified, lead replacement is most often indicated. The decision to remove a failed lead, versus capping the lead and leaving it in site (ie, abandoning the lead), is made on a case by case basis, with the decision largely dependent on the perceived risk/benefit ratio, both peri-procedural and long-term, in the individual patient. Indications and outcomes for lead extraction are discussed separately. (See "Cardiac implantable electronic devices: Periprocedural complications" and "Cardiac implantable electronic device lead removal" and "Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices: Epidemiology, microbiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis".)

Tricuspid regurgitation — Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) can result from the placement of CIED leads causing damage to the tricuspid valve or impeding the appropriate closure of the valve during systole [26-28]. The frequency of developing significant TR is approximately 10 to 20 percent of persons receiving a CIED device with transvenous leads, ultimately resulting in heart failure symptoms in approximately 50 percent of those with severe TR [26]. In a single-center cohort study of 58,556 patients (including 634 with PPMs; patients with ICDs were excluded from this study) who underwent echocardiograms over a seven-year period from 2005 to 2011, 16 percent of patients with a PPM had severe TR, compared with 2 percent of patients without a PPM [29]. After adjusting for baseline comorbidities, significant TR remained significantly more likely in patients with a PPM (adjusted odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.5). A retrospective cohort of 118 patients receiving either transvenous or subcutaneous ICDs showed that worsening tricuspid regurgitation was more common in those with transvenous versus subcutaneous ICD (52 versus 34 percent; OR 9.90; 95% CI 2.25-43.47); these findings suggest that transvenous lead-induced regurgitation was the primary mechanism of significant tricuspid regurgitation among patients with ICD [30].

Tricuspid regurgitation has also been reported amongst recipients of bioprosthetic tricuspid valves who subsequently undergo implantation of a permanent pacemaker (PPM) or ICD with a transvenous ventricular lead. In a retrospective cohort study of 323 patients who received a bioprosthetic tricuspid valve (58 patients with a PPM/ICD lead, 265 patients without a lead) and were followed for a mean of over two years, there was a non-significant increase in the rate of moderate or severe TR in patients with a device lead (9 versus 5 percent), rates which compare favorably with the rate of TR development following transvenous lead placement through native tricuspid valves [31]. While the study is limited due to its retrospective, non-randomized nature, these results suggest that transvenous device leads are relatively safe and feasible in patients with a bioprosthetic tricuspid valve. As an alternative, either a coronary sinus lead or leadless cardiac pacemakers can be considered in this population [13]. (See "Permanent cardiac pacing: Overview of devices and indications", section on 'Leadless systems'.)

Management of TR is discussed in detail separately. (See "Management and prognosis of tricuspid regurgitation", section on 'Management of pacemaker therapy'.)

Increased defibrillation threshold — The safety threshold values for pacing and defibrillation may change over time. Causes of both increased pacing and defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) include lead dislodgement/micro-dislodgement, exit block due to inflammation/infarction around the distal electrode or sodium-channel blockade, lead failure, and progression of left ventricular dysfunction and left ventricle dilatation. The DFT (also called defibrillation energy requirement for an ICD) is usually ≤15 joules and often <10 joules with biphasic shocks and lead systems. Contemporary routine DFT testing has not shown a clinical benefit in patients receiving an ICD for primary prevention [32]. However, when the DFT is high, higher energy devices, reversed energy polarity, other waveform modifications, and/or alternative lead placements can be used to achieve an adequate safety margin. When these measures fail, an additional defibrillation lead can be placed in the azygous vein (posterior to the heart) to improve the shocking vector. Very rarely, placement of a tunneled subcutaneous array or an epicardial lead is required. Manipulation of pharmacologic therapy can also be helpful in selected cases; amiodarone is known to increase the defibrillation energy requirement (see below), while sotalol and dofetilide tend to lower this parameter.

Frequent ICD discharges may produce a secondary increase in DFT due to intense fibrosis and cumulative damage at the ICD electrode-myocardial interface [33,34]. However, in the absence of any changes in the clinical status of the patient, DFTs with current transvenous lead systems are generally stable over time [35,36].

A more common problem is that patients with frequent appropriate shocks may be treated with amiodarone, which can increase the DFT and also alter the pacing threshold [37]. Older professional society guidelines for amiodarone therapy recommended that, whenever amiodarone was initiated in a patient with an ICD, a noninvasive ICD evaluation or an electrophysiology study should be performed to test for adverse drug-device interactions once loading is complete [38]. However, a 2015 expert consensus statement did not specifically address the role of DFT testing in patients treated with amiodarone; however, the consensus statement did indicate that it was "reasonable" to omit routine DFT testing for most newly implanted left pectoral ICD systems with right ventricular apical lead position as well as for high-risk patients with cardiac comorbidities such as severe pulmonary hypertension or severely depressed left ventricular function (eg, LVEF <20 percent) [39]. Data supporting this move away from DFT testing in patients receiving amiodarone were reported from the OPTIC trial, in which the increase in DFT related to amiodarone was quite small, calling into question the necessity of verifying the defibrillation safety margin [40]. (See "Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Overview of indications, components, and functions", section on 'Defibrillation threshold testing'.)

PULSE GENERATOR COMPLICATIONS — Long-term complications related to the CIED pulse generator are relatively uncommon, occurring in less than 2 percent of patients, and include skin erosion/infection, device and/or lead migration, tissue necrosis (due to the size and weight of the generator) and electromechanical interference/damage [2]. In addition, peri-procedural complications (eg, hematomas, infection) can occur in the pulse generator pocket [41]. (See "Cardiac implantable electronic devices: Periprocedural complications".)

Pocket erosion/infection — Infection involving the pulse generator pocket can occur at the time of CIED implantation or at any subsequent time. Because infection of a CIED can be a life-threatening problem, complete removal of the CIED pulse generator and all leads, along with antibiotic therapy, are strongly recommended. In rare instances, a patient may elect to pursue palliative antibiotic therapy; however, such an approach is not curative. These issues are discussed in detail separately. (See "Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices: Epidemiology, microbiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis" and "Cardiac implantable electronic device lead removal".)

Pulse generator infection occurring late (more than six months post-implantation) may be due a chronic, smoldering infection, which can be subclinical for a prolonged period of time. These infections are more common with low virulence organisms such as coagulase negative Staphylococcus species. This can be associated with device erosion through the skin. Though rare, this particular complication is more common amongst thin patients with minimal subcutaneous fat and other tissue overlying the device. Significant weight loss after implant predisposes to this complication. Once the integrity of the skin overlying the device has been compromised, system infection should be assumed, even in the absence of symptoms, and the device (and frequently leads) should be removed and replaced. Repeated device infection should also raise concern for potential allergy to device components, which can rarely occur. In cases of suspected device component allergies, skin testing with specialized panels should be performed by a dermatologist or allergist.

In patients who are at high risk for pocket infection, prophylactic use of a dissolving antibiotic pouch around the device can be useful [42].

Twiddler's syndrome — Twiddler's syndrome is a condition in which twisting or rotating the CIED pulse generator within its pocket results in lead dislodgement and device malfunction [43,44]. Affected patients most often present with an increase in bradycardic pacing threshold or lead impedance, although pacemaker-dependent patients may present with symptoms related to bradyarrhythmia (eg, syncope, lightheadedness, etc). In patients with ventricular lead retraction and dislodgement and retraction, it is also possible that an ICD will fail to sense and treat an arrhythmia. Impedance, sensing, or capture threshold changes may be alerted via remote monitoring. Careful suturing of the lead suture sleeves, suturing the device to the fascia, counseling the patient not to manipulate the device, and ensuring appropriate pocket size are important proactive steps to reduce the likelihood of this complication [45].

Electronic circuit damage — Device failures are uncommon, with reports estimating an incidence between 0.01 and 0.1 percent [46]. Electronic circuit failure can result from electrical overstress damage to the high voltage hybrid circuit and other electronic components [47]. Signs of such failure include loss of telemetry and inability to deliver therapy. Electrical overstress damage may occur during capacitor reformation or charging and the delivery of a shock, after cardioversion, or rarely with the use of electrocautery. It is recommended that routine follow-up examination of device function be performed in each of these settings. Radiation therapy can damage circuitry as well. Current recommendations include shielding the device from the radiation beam, and careful follow-up, particularly in pacemaker-dependent patients. In some instances, it may be required to relocate the pulse generator outside of the radiation field.

Electromagnetic interference — Since reliable function of any CIED depends upon proper sensing of the electrical activity of the heart, a potential concern is electromagnetic interference from external sources, including cellular telephones containing magnets, welding equipment, motor-generator systems, and surveillance systems (table 1). These issues are discussed in detail separately. (See "Cardiac implantable electronic device interactions with electromagnetic fields in the nonhospital environment".)

Interference with ICD function can occur during noncardiac surgery as a result of electrical current generated by electrocautery, as well as during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Issues related to electrosurgery and MRI scanning and potential interactions with implanted cardiac devices are discussed in detail separately. (See "Perioperative management of patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator".)

Advisories/recalls — Occasionally, CIED manufacturers will issue an "advisory" or "recall" due to concerns about device performance or safety. In most instances following a notification, CIED failure rates are quite low, but some patients/physicians choose to electively replace generators on a case by case basis.

ARRHYTHMIC COMPLICATIONS — A variety of arrhythmia-related problems can occur in patients with an ICD. Arrhythmic complications include both inappropriate shocks, usually due to the treatment of supraventricular tachycardias, and appropriate shocks. Additionally, while not caused by an arrhythmia, the perception of a shock when one has not been delivered, termed a "phantom shock," should be considered in patients with symptoms but no evidence of shock on device interrogation.

Inappropriate shocks — Inappropriate shocks (ie, shocks delivered by an ICD for any reasons other than ventricular tachyarrhythmia) occur in up to 40 percent of patients with an ICD [48-53]. However, contemporary device programming, including delayed detection and use of discriminator functions, is associated with lower risks of inappropriate shocks [54]. The most common cause of inappropriate shocks is a supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT), which results in a ventricular heart rate that falls within a programmed treatment zone [49,53]. The most common supraventricular arrhythmia causing inappropriate therapies is atrial fibrillation, although sinus tachycardia and other SVTs may also result in inappropriate shocks. Other causes of inappropriate shocks include electrical noise, inappropriate sensing (ie, T wave oversensing), and ICD malfunction (typically due to lead fracture). Patients who receive inappropriate shocks may become quite anxious or uncomfortable partly because the most common causes of inappropriate shocks (ie, SVT and lead fracture) often result in the delivery of multiple shocks. Rarely, multiple inappropriate (or even appropriate) shocks can result in a posttraumatic-stress-disorder-like syndrome.

While inappropriate shocks due to lead fracture or other device malfunction are difficult to predict (and therefore prevent), the frequency of inappropriate shocks not related to lead malfunction (ie, those related to SVT) can usually be reduced with modern ICD programming strategies. The recommended modern approach to ICD programming is discussed in detail separately. (See "Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Optimal programming".)

In addition to modern device programming (eg, high rate cutoffs, longer delays prior to initiating treatment), other device features such as arrhythmia discrimination and the placement of an atrial lead may reduce the frequency of inappropriate shocks [22,55].

Dual-chamber devices have an atrial lead for sensing, which allows for more effective discrimination between atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, with appropriate programming, dual-chamber ICDs have been shown to decrease inappropriate detection compared with single-chamber devices [56]. However, newer discrimination algorithms and device programming to limit unnecessary therapies may be more important than dual-chamber devices [57].

Modern devices nearly universally contain proprietary arrhythmia discrimination software, which aims to accurately discriminate between various atrial tachyarrhythmias (eg, atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, and atrial fibrillation) and ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

While there are conflicting data on an association between inappropriate shocks and mortality, most studies suggest a 1.5-to-2-fold increase in mortality among recipients of an inappropriate shock [49-51,58]. As an example, among patients in the ALTITUDE study who received inappropriate shocks, those who were shocked for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter had significantly increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6 compared with those without any ICD shock), while those who were shocked for other supraventricular tachyarrhythmias or sinus tachycardia had no difference in mortality (HR 1.0 compared with no ICD shock) [53].

Appropriate shocks — Appropriately-delivered ICD shocks for ventricular tachyarrhythmias are not technically a complication but rather the intended response of the device. While potentially life-saving, appropriate shocks can also have an adverse effect on quality of life, including emotional problems and driving restriction. (See 'Quality of life' below and "Driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator", section on 'Overall incidence of ventricular arrhythmias and ICD shocks'.)

In a systematic review of seven trials of primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD), appropriate ICD therapies outnumbered SCD events in the control groups by a factor of two to three [59]. Subsequent studies have clarified that the likely reason for this discrepancy in outcomes relates to the treatment of arrhythmias that would have been hemodynamically tolerated and/or terminated spontaneously (ie, nonfatal events). Strategies to reduce the number of appropriate shocks include high rate cutoffs for delivering a shock, longer delays prior to initiating treatment, and antitachycardia pacing (ATP), which should terminate at least 90 percent of episodes of persistent VT [60,61]. Antitachycardia pacing as well as the recommended modern approach to ICD programming are discussed in detail separately.

Phantom shocks — The perception of having received an ICD shock when no shock was delivered is called a "phantom shock." In the prospective COPE-ICD trial, 9 percent of patients reported phantom shocks [62]. While the underlying reason for experiencing a phantom shock is not known, patients who do report phantom shocks are more likely to have received an actual ICD shock (and thus may have continued worry about receiving another shock) or to suffer from unrelated anxiety or depression [63,64]. The optimal strategy to manage phantom shocks depends on the patient. For those who have continued worry about phantom shocks, counseling or pharmacotherapy may be necessary to address the patient's anxiety. For some patients, careful follow-up or frequent remote monitoring may be valuable. Frequent follow-up and further discussions with the electrophysiologist may be necessary, but over time, symptoms tend to abate without the need for unnecessary interventions such as device explantation or the need to turn the device off.

MISCELLANEOUS COMPLICATIONS

Heart failure — CIEDs may worsen left ventricular function and/or precipitate symptomatic heart failure (HF), particularly in patients with preexisting systolic dysfunction, by one of two mechanisms:

Right ventricular pacing, producing inter- and intraventricular dyssynchrony.

Improved long-term survival in patients with advanced cardiac disease receiving CIEDs can result in patients living long enough for HF to develop or progress.

These issues are discussed in detail separately. (See "Modes of cardiac pacing: Nomenclature and selection", section on 'Modes to minimize ventricular pacing' and "Overview of pacemakers in heart failure", section on 'Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators'.)

Quality of life — The ICD is often associated with deleterious psychosocial effects, with as many as 50 percent of recipients reporting elevated levels of anxiety and depression resulting from the fear of receiving a shock, device failure, decrease in physical activity, and negative lifestyle changes (such as the inability to drive or to return to work) [65-73]. Some patients develop severe psychiatric problems after receiving appropriate shocks [74].

The frequency and severity of these psychosocial effects can be illustrated by the following findings:

In a report of 119 patients, most described the shocks from the ICD as severe [65]. Common descriptions were a blow to the body or a spasm causing the body to jump. Twenty-three percent dreaded the shocks, and 5 percent said they would prefer to be without the ICD and take their chances. However, most patients tolerated the shocks because they are lifesaving.

Another study of 70 patients noted an association between the number of shocks received and the likelihood of mood disturbances, ranging from 9 percent among those with less than four shocks to 55 percent in those with more than 10 shocks [66].

In an analysis of 800 patients from the AVID trial of secondary prevention, the ICD and amiodarone were associated with similar alterations in quality of life [69]. A reduction in physical functioning and mental well-being was largely related to the occurrence of any shocks from the ICD and to adverse side effects from the ICD or drug.

Every effort should be made to reduce the frequency of both appropriate and inappropriate shocks. The degree of anxiety and depression can also be reduced by the use of group and individual support and behavioral, cognitive, and relaxation therapies [75,76]. (See 'Appropriate shocks' above and 'Inappropriate shocks' above.)

The safety of driving in patients with an ICD is discussed separately. (See "Driving restrictions in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator".)

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, "The Basics" and "Beyond the Basics." The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on "patient info" and the keyword(s) of interest.)

Basics topics (see "Patient education: Sudden cardiac arrest (The Basics)")

Beyond the Basics topics (see "Patient education: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (Beyond the Basics)")

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lead-related problems include infection, lead failure (resulting in failure to pace, failure to shock, or inappropriate shocks), tricuspid valve damage, venous thrombosis, and increased defibrillation thresholds.

Infection – Infection of the generator pocket or leads can occur at the time of CIED implantation or at any subsequent time. Because infection of a CIED can be a life-threatening problem, complete removal of the CIED pulse generator and all leads, along with antibiotic therapy, are strongly recommended for nearly all patients. (See 'Infection' above and "Infections involving cardiac implantable electronic devices: Epidemiology, microbiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis" and "Cardiac implantable electronic device lead removal".)

Lead failure – This has had a highly variable frequency from lead to lead and has traditionally most commonly been diagnosed when a patient presents with symptoms related to the failed lead (eg, inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] shocks, dizziness or syncope due to failure to pace, etc) and the device parameters are interrogated. When mechanical lead failure has been identified, lead replacement is indicated. (See 'Lead failure' above.)

Severe tricuspid regurgitation This can result from the placement of CIED leads causing damage to the tricuspid valve or impeding the appropriate closure of the valve during systole. (See 'Tricuspid regurgitation' above.)

Increased threshold – The safety threshold values for pacing and defibrillation may change over time. Causes of both increased pacing and defibrillation thresholds include lead dislodgement/micro-dislodgement, exit block due to inflammation, injury or infarction near the lead tip, effects of certain drugs, lead failure, or progression of left ventricular dysfunction and dilatation. (See 'Increased defibrillation threshold' above.)

Long-term complications related to the CIED pulse generator are relatively uncommon, occurring in less than 2 percent of patients, and include skin erosion/infection, device and/or lead migration, tissue necrosis (due to the size and weight of the generator) and electromechanical interference/damage. (See 'Pulse generator complications' above and "Cardiac implantable electronic device interactions with electromagnetic fields in the nonhospital environment", section on 'Equipment with high-strength magnets'.)

Arrhythmic complications – A variety of arrhythmia-related problems can occur in patients with an ICD. Arrhythmic complications include both inappropriate shocks, usually due to the treatment of supraventricular tachycardias, as well as appropriate shocks and "phantom" shocks.

Inappropriate shocks – Shocks delivered by an ICD for any reason other than ventricular tachyarrhythmia occur in up to 40 percent of patients with an ICD. The frequency of inappropriate shocks not related to lead malfunction (ie, those related to supraventricular tachycardia [SVT]) can usually be reduced with modern ICD programming strategies. (See 'Inappropriate shocks' above.)

Appropriately-delivered ICD shocks – Shocks delivered to treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias are not technically a complication but rather the intended response of the device. While potentially life-saving, appropriate shocks can also have an adverse effect on quality of life, including emotional problems and driving restriction. (See 'Appropriate shocks' above.)

Phantom shock – The perception of having received an ICD shock when no shock was delivered is called a "phantom shock." The optimal strategy to manage phantom shocks depends on the patient, but typically involves close follow-up and reassurance. (See 'Phantom shocks' above.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT — The UpToDate editorial staff acknowledges Leonard Ganz, MD, FHRS, FACC, who contributed to an earlier version of this topic review.

  1. Pfeiffer D, Jung W, Fehske W, et al. Complications of pacemaker-defibrillator devices: diagnosis and management. Am Heart J 1994; 127:1073.
  2. Kron J, Herre J, Renfroe EG, et al. Lead- and device-related complications in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial. Am Heart J 2001; 141:92.
  3. DiMarco JP. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:1836.
  4. Ranasinghe I, Parzynski CS, Freeman JV, et al. Long-Term Risk for Device-Related Complications and Reoperations After Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation: An Observational Cohort Study. Ann Intern Med 2016.
  5. Kipp R, Hsu JC, Freeman J, et al. Long-term morbidity and mortality after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with procedural complication: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Heart Rhythm 2018; 15:847.
  6. Hawkins NM, Grubisic M, Andrade JG, et al. Long-term complications, reoperations and survival following cardioverter-defibrillator implant. Heart 2018; 104:237.
  7. Maisel WH. Pacemaker and ICD generator reliability: meta-analysis of device registries. JAMA 2006; 295:1929.
  8. Eckstein J, Koller MT, Zabel M, et al. Necessity for surgical revision of defibrillator leads implanted long-term: causes and management. Circulation 2008; 117:2727.
  9. Maisel WH, Kramer DB. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead performance. Circulation 2008; 117:2721.
  10. van Rees JB, van Welsenes GH, Borleffs CJ, et al. Update on small-diameter implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads performance. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2012; 35:652.
  11. Nazarian S, Hansford R, Rahsepar AA, et al. Safety of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Cardiac Devices. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:2555.
  12. Russo RJ, Costa HS, Silva PD, et al. Assessing the Risks Associated with MRI in Patients with a Pacemaker or Defibrillator. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:755.
  13. Gruszczynski M, Müller-Burri A, Häussler A, et al. Transvenous ICD Implantation into a Coronary Sinus Branch: A Safe and Feasible Alternative to Deliver ICD after Tricuspid Valve Reconstruction. Case Rep Cardiol 2023; 2023:6646224.
  14. Zuber M, Huber P, Fricker U, et al. Assessment of the subclavian vein in patients with transvenous pacemaker leads. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1998; 21:2621.
  15. Blomström-Lundqvist C, Traykov V, Erba PA, et al. European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) international consensus document on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat cardiac implantable electronic device infections-endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS), International Society for Cardiovascular Infectious Diseases (ISCVID), and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2020; 41:2012.
  16. Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA, Shepard RK, et al. Detection and management of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead failure: incidence and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41:73.
  17. Kleemann T, Becker T, Doenges K, et al. Annual rate of transvenous defibrillation lead defects in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators over a period of >10 years. Circulation 2007; 115:2474.
  18. Hauser RG, Kallinen LM, Almquist AK, et al. Early failure of a small-diameter high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. Heart Rhythm 2007; 4:892.
  19. Kallinen LM, Hauser RG, Lee KW, et al. Failure of impedance monitoring to prevent adverse clinical events caused by fracture of a recalled high-voltage implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead. Heart Rhythm 2008; 5:775.
  20. Groves R. Urgent medical device information. Medtronic, Inc. October 15, 2007.
  21. Hauser RG, Abdelhadi R, McGriff D, Retel LK. Deaths caused by the failure of Riata and Riata ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Heart Rhythm 2012; 9:1227.
  22. Slotwiner D, Varma N, Akar JG, et al. HRS Expert Consensus Statement on remote interrogation and monitoring for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices. Heart Rhythm 2015; 12:e69.
  23. Kusumoto FM, Schoenfeld MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm 2017; 14:e503.
  24. Gunderson BD, Patel AS, Bounds CA, et al. An algorithm to predict implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 44:1898.
  25. Swerdlow CD, Gunderson BD, Ousdigian KT, et al. Downloadable algorithm to reduce inappropriate shocks caused by fractures of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. Circulation 2008; 118:2122.
  26. Lin G, Nishimura RA, Connolly HM, et al. Severe symptomatic tricuspid valve regurgitation due to permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45:1672.
  27. Chang JD, Manning WJ, Ebrille E, Zimetbaum PJ. Tricuspid Valve Dysfunction Following Pacemaker or Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69:2331.
  28. Cho MS, Kim J, Lee JB, et al. Incidence and predictors of moderate to severe tricuspid regurgitation after dual-chamber pacemaker implantation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2019; 42:85.
  29. Delling FN, Hassan ZK, Piatkowski G, et al. Tricuspid Regurgitation and Mortality in Patients With Transvenous Permanent Pacemaker Leads. Am J Cardiol 2016; 117:988.
  30. Breeman KTN, Peijster AJL, De Bruin-Bon HACM, et al. Worsening tricuspid regurgitation after ICD implantation is rather due to transvenous lead than natural progression. Int J Cardiol 2023; 376:76.
  31. Eleid MF, Blauwet LA, Cha YM, et al. Bioprosthetic tricuspid valve regurgitation associated with pacemaker or defibrillator lead implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59:813.
  32. Kannabhiran M, Mustafa U, Acharya M, et al. Routine DFT testing in patients undergoing ICD implantation does not improve mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arrhythm 2018; 34:598.
  33. Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, et al. Gross and microscopic pathological changes associated with nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator leads. Circulation 1998; 98:1517.
  34. Martin DT, John R, Venditti FJ Jr. Increase in defibrillation threshold in non-thoracotomy implantable defibrillators using a biphasic waveform. Am J Cardiol 1995; 76:263.
  35. Newman D, Barr A, Greene M, et al. A population-based method for the estimation of defibrillation energy requirements in humans. Assessment of time-dependent effects with a transvenous defibrillation system. Circulation 1997; 96:267.
  36. Rashba EJ, Olsovsky MR, Shorofsky SR, et al. Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 38:1150.
  37. Zhou L, Chen BP, Kluger J, et al. Effects of amiodarone and its active metabolite desethylamiodarone on the ventricular defibrillation threshold. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31:1672.
  38. Goldschlager N, Epstein AE, Naccarelli G, et al. Practical guidelines for clinicians who treat patients with amiodarone. Practice Guidelines Subcommittee, North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:1741.
  39. Wilkoff BL, Fauchier L, Stiles MK, et al. 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing. Heart Rhythm 2016; 13:e50.
  40. Hohnloser SH, Dorian P, Roberts R, et al. Effect of amiodarone and sotalol on ventricular defibrillation threshold: the optimal pharmacological therapy in cardioverter defibrillator patients (OPTIC) trial. Circulation 2006; 114:104.
  41. Mittal S, Shaw RE, Michel K, et al. Cardiac implantable electronic device infections: incidence, risk factors, and the effect of the AigisRx antibacterial envelope. Heart Rhythm 2014; 11:595.
  42. Tarakji KG, Krahn AD, Poole JE, et al. Risk Factors for CIED Infection After Secondary Procedures: Insights From the WRAP-IT Trial. JACC Clin Electrophysiol 2022; 8:101.
  43. Chaara J, Sunthorn H. Twiddler syndrome. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2014; 25:659.
  44. Weir RA, Murphy CA, O'Rourke B, Petrie CJ. Twiddler's syndrome: a rare cause of implantable cardioverter defibrillator malfunction. Eur Heart J 2016; 37:3439.
  45. Osoro M, Lorson W, Hirsh JB, Mahlow WJ. Use of an antimicrobial pouch/envelope in the treatment of Twiddler's syndrome. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2018; 41:136.
  46. Gould PA, Gula LJ, Champagne J, et al. Outcome of advisory implantable cardioverter-defibrillator replacement: one-year follow-up. Heart Rhythm 2008; 5:1675.
  47. Hauser RG, Hayes DL, Almquist AK, et al. Unexpected ICD pulse generator failure due to electronic circuit damage caused by electrical overstress. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2001; 24:1046.
  48. Klein RC, Raitt MH, Wilkoff BL, et al. Analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in the Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Trial. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2003; 14:940.
  49. Dichtl W, Wolber T, Paoli U, et al. Appropriate therapy but not inappropriate shocks predict survival in implantable cardioverter defibrillator patients. Clin Cardiol 2011; 34:433.
  50. Daubert JP, Zareba W, Cannom DS, et al. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks in MADIT II: frequency, mechanisms, predictors, and survival impact. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51:1357.
  51. Saxon LA, Hayes DL, Gilliam FR, et al. Long-term outcome after ICD and CRT implantation and influence of remote device follow-up: the ALTITUDE survival study. Circulation 2010; 122:2359.
  52. Poole JE, Johnson GW, Hellkamp AS, et al. Prognostic importance of defibrillator shocks in patients with heart failure. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1009.
  53. Powell BD, Saxon LA, Boehmer JP, et al. Survival after shock therapy in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator recipients according to rhythm shocked. The ALTITUDE survival by rhythm study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62:1674.
  54. Gasparini M, Proclemer A, Klersy C, et al. Effect of long-detection interval vs standard-detection interval for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on antitachycardia pacing and shock delivery: the ADVANCE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2013; 309:1903.
  55. Moss AJ, Schuger C, Beck CA, et al. Reduction in inappropriate therapy and mortality through ICD programming. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:2275.
  56. Friedman PA, McClelland RL, Bamlet WR, et al. Dual-chamber versus single-chamber detection enhancements for implantable defibrillator rhythm diagnosis: the detect supraventricular tachycardia study. Circulation 2006; 113:2871.
  57. Friedman PA, Bradley D, Koestler C, et al. A prospective randomized trial of single- or dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillators to minimize inappropriate shock risk in primary sudden cardiac death prevention. Europace 2014; 16:1460.
  58. van Rees JB, Borleffs CJ, de Bie MK, et al. Inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks: incidence, predictors, and impact on mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57:556.
  59. Germano JJ, Reynolds M, Essebag V, Josephson ME. Frequency and causes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies: is device therapy proarrhythmic? Am J Cardiol 2006; 97:1255.
  60. Wood MA, Stambler BS, Damiano RJ, et al. Lessons learned from data logging in a multicenter clinical trial using a late-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The Guardian ATP 4210 Multicenter Investigators Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 24:1692.
  61. Schaumann A, von zur Mühlen F, Herse B, et al. Empirical versus tested antitachycardia pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a prospective study including 200 patients. Circulation 1998; 97:66.
  62. Berg SK, Moons P, Zwisler AD, et al. Phantom shocks in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: results from a randomized rehabilitation trial (COPE-ICD). Europace 2013; 15:1463.
  63. Prudente LA, Reigle J, Bourguignon C, et al. Psychological indices and phantom shocks in patients with ICD. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2006; 15:185.
  64. Jacob S, Panaich SS, Zalawadiya SK, et al. Phantom shocks unmasked: clinical data and proposed mechanism of memory reactivation of past traumatic shocks in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 2012; 34:205.
  65. Ahmad M, Bloomstein L, Roelke M, et al. Patients' attitudes toward implanted defibrillator shocks. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23:934.
  66. Herrmann C, von zur Mühen F, Schaumann A, et al. Standardized assessment of psychological well-being and quality-of-life in patients with implanted defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997; 20:95.
  67. Sears SF, Todaro JF, Urizar G, et al. Assessing the psychosocial impact of the ICD: a national survey of implantable cardioverter defibrillator health care providers. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23:939.
  68. Burgess ES, Quigley JF, Moran G, et al. Predictors of psychosocial adjustment in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997; 20:1790.
  69. Schron EB, Exner DV, Yao Q, et al. Quality of life in the antiarrhythmics versus implantable defibrillators trial: impact of therapy and influence of adverse symptoms and defibrillator shocks. Circulation 2002; 105:589.
  70. Namerow PB, Firth BR, Heywood GM, et al. Quality-of-life six months after CABG surgery in patients randomized to ICD versus no ICD therapy: findings from the CABG Patch Trial. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1999; 22:1305.
  71. Passman R, Subacius H, Ruo B, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators and quality of life: results from the defibrillators in nonischemic cardiomyopathy treatment evaluation study. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167:2226.
  72. Atwater BD, Daubert JP. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators: risks accompany the life-saving benefits. Heart 2012; 98:764.
  73. Kamphuis HC, de Leeuw JR, Derksen R, et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator recipients: quality of life in recipients with and without ICD shock delivery: a prospective study. Europace 2003; 5:381.
  74. Bourke JP, Turkington D, Thomas G, et al. Florid psychopathology in patients receiving shocks from implanted cardioverter-defibrillators. Heart 1997; 78:581.
  75. Kohn CS, Petrucci RJ, Baessler C, et al. The effect of psychological intervention on patients' long-term adjustment to the ICD: a prospective study. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2000; 23:450.
  76. Tchou PJ, Piasecki E, Gutmann M, et al. Psychological support and psychiatric management of patients with automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Int J Psychiatry Med 1989; 19:393.
Topic 989 Version 56.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟