Subclavian Venoplasty May Reduce Implant Times and Implant Failures in the Era of Increasing Device Upgrades

Weiler Arrhythmia Service of the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461, USA.
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (Impact Factor: 1.13). 01/2012; 35(4):444-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03303.x
Source: PubMed


The incidence of subclavian venous occlusions (SCVOs) may be an increasing problem in the era of device upgrades, especially to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Venoplasty (VP) performed by the electrophysiologist as a way of managing SCVOs may be advantageous.
We reviewed the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implants of the past 5 years at Montefiore Medical Center and searched for SCVOs that required intervention and compared cases where VP was performed with cases where it was not.
Of 1,853 ICD implants, 41 SCVOs (2.2%) requiring intervention were identified. Its incidence increased seven-fold from 0.7% in 2005 to 5.2% in 2009. Twenty-seven of the 41 SCVOs were found during a device upgrade. Of these 41 SCVOs, 18 underwent VP and 23 did not. In the VP group, there was a trend towards a shorter total procedure time, 2:31 hours versus 3:28 hours (P=0.37), and the total fluoroscopy time was 30 minutes versus 27 minutes (P=0.55). VP was successful in all 18 patients. Among the non-VP group (n=23), five (21.5%) had a failed implantation because of the inability to gain venous access and 10 (42.7%) had to be implanted on the contralateral side.
The incidence of SCVOs requiring intervention is increasing in the era of device upgrades. VP performed by an electrophysiologist appears to be a safe and efficient approach to manage these SCVOs. VP seems to reduce the implant time and the need to implant on the other side as well as implant failure due to the inability to gain venous access.

79 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of cardiac devices has been increasing rapidly along with concerns over their safety and effectiveness. This study used hospital administrative data to assess cardiac device implantations in the United States, selected perioperative outcomes, and associated patient and hospital characteristics. We screened hospital discharge abstracts from the 1997-2004 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Samples. Patients who underwent implantation of pacemaker (PM), automatic cardioverter/defibrillator (AICD), or cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P) or defibrillator (CRT-D) were identified using ICD-9-CM procedure codes. Outcomes ascertainable from these data and associated hospital and patient characteristics were analyzed. Approximately 67,000 AICDs and 178,000 PMs were implanted in 2004 in the United States, increasing 60% and 19%, respectively, since 1997. After FDA approval in 2001, CRT-D and CRT-P reached 33,000 and 7,000 units per year in the United States in 2004. About 70% of the patients were aged 65 years or older, and more than 75% of the patients had 1 or more comorbid diseases. There were substantial decreases in length of stay, but marked increases in charges, for example, the length of stay of AICD implantations halved (from 9.9 days in 1997 to 5.2 days in 2004), whereas charges nearly doubled (from $66,000 in 1997 to $117,000 in 2004). Rates of in-hospital mortality and complications fluctuated slightly during the period. Overall, adverse outcomes were associated with advanced age, comorbid conditions, and emergency admissions, and there was no consistent volume-outcome relationship across different outcome measures and patient groups. The numbers of cardiac device implantations in the United States steadily increased from 1997 to 2004, with substantial reductions in length of stay and increases in charges. Rates of in-hospital mortality and complications changed slightly over the years and were associated primarily with patient frailty.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 02/2008; 23 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):13-9. DOI:10.1007/s11606-007-0392-0 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many patients with previously implanted ventricular defibrillators are candidates for an upgrade to a device capable of atrial-ventricular sequential or multisite pacing. The prevalence of venous occlusion after placement of transvenous defibrillator leads is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of central venous occlusion in asymptomatic patients with chronic transvenous defibrillator leads. Thirty consecutive patients with a transvenous defibrillator lead underwent bilateral contrast venography of the cephalic, axillary, subclavian, and brachiocephalic veins as well as the superior vena cava before an elective defibrillator battery replacement. The mean time between transvenous defibrillator lead implantation and venography was 45 +/- 21 months. Sixteen patients had more than 1 lead in the same subclavian vein. No patient had clinical signs of venous occlusion. One (3%) patient had a complete occlusion of the subclavian vein, 1 (3%) patient had a 90% subclavian vein stenosis, 2 (7%) patients had a 75% to 89% subclavian stenosis, 11 (37%) patients had a 50% to 74% subclavian stenosis, and 15 (50%) patients had no subclavian stenosis. The low prevalence of subclavian vein occlusion or severe stenosis among defibrillator recipients found in this study suggests that the placement of additional transvenous leads in a patient who already has a ventricular defibrillator is feasible in a high percentage of patients (93%).
    American Heart Journal 06/2001; 141(5):813-6. DOI:10.1067/mhj.2001.114195 · 4.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We reviewed the incidence, clinical features, current diagnostic evaluations, and treatments of venous complications that can occur after implantation of a transvenous pacemaker. Of the approximately 80 published articles on the potential venous complications after implantation of a permanent transvenous pacemaker, we selected 63 that addressed the clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment of pacemaker lead-induced venous thrombosis, which occurs in approximately 30 to 45% of patients early or late after implantation of a transvenous pacemaker. Most patients with chronic deep venous thrombosis remain asymptomatic because of the development of an adequate venous collateral circulation. Clinical features of pacemaker lead-induced deep venous thrombosis, although rare, are easily recognized. They should be sought routinely during follow-up of all patients with transvenous pacemaker leads because venous obstruction can interfere with intravenously administered therapy, monitoring of central venous pressure, and revision of a pacemaker lead. Acute deep venous thrombosis is likely to be symptomatic. Early recognition and treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis may help to decrease the potential morbidity and mortality. The definitive diagnosis of pacemaker lead-induced venous thrombosis necessitates contrast-enhanced or digital subtraction venography. Management includes anticoagulation, thrombolytic therapy, surgical intervention, and, recently, percutaneous transluminal balloon venoplasty and depends on the duration, extent, and site of venous occlusion as well as the accompanying symptoms.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 04/1992; 67(3):258-65. DOI:10.1016/S0025-6196(12)60103-7 · 6.26 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications