Background: As the transvenous defibrillator lead is fragile and its failure may cause a life-threatening event, reliable insertion techniques are required. While the extrathoracic puncture has been introduced to avoid subclavian crush syndrome, the reports on the long-term defibrillator lead survival using this approach, especially the comparison with the cephalic cutdown (CD), remain scarce. We aimed to evaluate the long-term survival of the transvenous defibrillator lead inserted by the extrathoracic subclavian puncture (ESCP) compared with CD.
Methods: Between 1998 and 2011, 324 consecutive patients who underwent an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in Hokkaido University Hospital were included. ICD leads were inserted by CD from 1998 to 2003 and by contrast venography-guided ESCP thereafter. Lead failure was defined as a nonphysiologic high-rate oversensing with abnormal lead impedance or highly elevated sensing and pacing threshold.
Results: Of 324 patients, CD was used in 37 (11%) and ESCP in 287 patients (89%). During the median follow-up of 6.2 years (IQR:3.2-8.3), 7 leads (2 in CD and 5 leads in ESCP group) failed. All patients with lead failure in ESCP group were implanted with either SJM Riata (n = 1) or Medtronic Fidelis lead (n = 4). Five-year lead survival was 93.8% (CI95%:77.3-98.4%) in CD compared with 99.1% (CI95%:96.6-99.8%) in ESCP group (P = 0.903). Univariate Cox regression analysis showed that the use of Fidelis or Riata lead was the strong predictor of the ICD lead failure (HR 13.8, CI95%:2.9-96.5; P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Contrast venography-guided extrathoracic puncture ensures the reliable long-term survival in the transvenous defibrillator leads.
Keywords: cephalic cutdown; defibrillator lead; extrathoracic puncture; lead failure; subclavian crush syndrome.