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

Lars Lickfett, Alexander Bitzen, Aravind Arepally, Khurram Nasir, Christian Wolpert, Kyung Mi Jeong, Ulf Krause, Rainer Schimpf, Thorsten Lewalter, Hugh Calkins, Werner Jung, Berndt Lüderitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)25-31
Number of pages7
JournalEuropace
Volume6
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2004

Fingerprint

Implantable Defibrillators
Phlebography
Incidence
Pathologic Constriction
Superior Vena Cava
Defibrillators
Polyurethanes
Silicones
Lead

Keywords

  • Contrast venography
  • Implantable cardioverter defibrillator
  • Venous obstruction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

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. / Lickfett, Lars; Bitzen, Alexander; Arepally, Aravind; Nasir, Khurram; Wolpert, Christian; Jeong, Kyung Mi; Krause, Ulf; Schimpf, Rainer; Lewalter, Thorsten; Calkins, Hugh; Jung, Werner; Lüderitz, Berndt.

In: Europace, Vol. 6, No. 1, 01.2004, p. 25-31.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lickfett, Lars ; Bitzen, Alexander ; Arepally, Aravind ; Nasir, Khurram ; Wolpert, Christian ; Jeong, Kyung Mi ; Krause, Ulf ; Schimpf, Rainer ; Lewalter, Thorsten ; Calkins, Hugh ; Jung, Werner ; Lüderitz, Berndt. / 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. In: Europace. 2004 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 25-31.
@article{b1a6ed547fdb46f89499557f06b4c82d,
title = "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",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Contrast venography, Implantable cardioverter defibrillator, Venous obstruction",
author = "Lars Lickfett and Alexander Bitzen and Aravind Arepally and Khurram Nasir and Christian Wolpert and Jeong, {Kyung Mi} and Ulf Krause and Rainer Schimpf and Thorsten Lewalter and Hugh Calkins and Werner Jung and Berndt L{\"u}deritz",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.eupc.2003.09.001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "25--31",
journal = "Europace",
issn = "1099-5129",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 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

AU - Lickfett, Lars

AU - Bitzen, Alexander

AU - Arepally, Aravind

AU - Nasir, Khurram

AU - Wolpert, Christian

AU - Jeong, Kyung Mi

AU - Krause, Ulf

AU - Schimpf, Rainer

AU - Lewalter, Thorsten

AU - Calkins, Hugh

AU - Jung, Werner

AU - Lüderitz, Berndt

PY - 2004/1

Y1 - 2004/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Contrast venography

KW - Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

KW - Venous obstruction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3042745792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3042745792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eupc.2003.09.001

DO - 10.1016/j.eupc.2003.09.001

M3 - Article

C2 - 14697723

AN - SCOPUS:3042745792

VL - 6

SP - 25

EP - 31

JO - Europace

JF - Europace

SN - 1099-5129

IS - 1

ER -