Blog
About

592
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Where Does It Lead? Imaging Features of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices on Chest Radiograph and CT

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are being increasingly employed in patients suffering from cardiac rhythm disturbances. The principal objective of this article is to familiarize radiologists with pacemakers and ICDs on chest radiographs and CT scans. Therefore, the preferred lead positions according to pacemaker types and anatomic variants are introduced in this study. Additionally, the imaging features of incorrect lead positions and defects, as well as complications subsequent to pacemaker implantation are demonstrated herein.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg . Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study.

          Three randomized trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy vs medical treatment for the prevention of death in survivors of ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia have been reported with what might appear to be different results. The present analysis was performed to obtain the most precise estimate of the efficacy of the ICD, compared to amiodarone, for prolonging survival in patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmia. Individual patient data from the Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator (AVID) study, the Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg (CASH) and the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) were merged into a master database according to a pre-specified protocol. Proportional hazard modelling of individual patient data was used to estimate hazard ratios and to investigate subgroup interactions. Fixed effect meta-analysis techniques were also used to evaluate treatment effects and to assess heterogeneity across studies. The classic fixed effects meta-analysis showed that the estimates of ICD benefit from the three studies were consistent with each other (P heterogeneity=0.306). It also showed a significant reduction in death from any cause with the ICD; with a summary hazard ratio (ICD:amiodarone) of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.60, 0.87;P=0.0006). For the outcome of arrhythmic death, the hazard ratio was 0.50 (95% confidence interval 0.37, 0.67;P<0.0001). Survival was extended by a mean of 4.4 months by the ICD over a follow-up period of 6 years. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35% derived significantly more benefit from ICD therapy than those with better preserved left ventricular function. Patients treated before the availability of non-thoracotomy ICD implants derived significantly less benefit from ICD therapy than those treated in the non-thoracotomy era. Results from the three trials of the ICD vs amiodarone are consistent with each other. There is a 28% reduction in the relative risk of death with the ICD that is due almost entirely to a 50% reduction in arrhythmic death. Copyright 2000 The European Society of Cardiology.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Incidence and predictors of cardiac perforation after permanent pacemaker placement.

            Pericardial effusion, a sign of cardiac perforation, may complicate permanent pacemaker placement. Risk factors for development of post-permanent pacemaker effusion have not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine the predictors of symptomatic pericardial effusion after permanent pacemaker placement. The Mayo Clinic pacemaker and echocardiogram databases were cross-referenced. From 1995 to 2003, 4,280 permanent pacemakers were implanted. Fifty (1.2%) patients developed significant effusion and symptoms consistent with perforation. They were randomly matched with 100 patients without effusion after permanent pacemaker placement. The strongest predictors of postimplant effusion by univariate analysis were the concomitant use of a temporary transvenous pacemaker (hazard ratio [HR] 3.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-6.2, P = .001) or steroid use within 7 days prior to implant (HR 4.1, 95% CI 1.1-10, P = .003). Weaker predictors were use of helical screw ventricular leads, body mass index (BMI) 35 mmHg (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44-0.97, P = .01) or BMI >30 (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.93, P = .01). Multivariate predictors were use of temporary pacemaker (HR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-3.9, P = .01), helical screw leads (HR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-3.8, P = .04), and steroids (HR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1-5.4, P = .04). Right ventricular systolic pressure >35 mmHg was the only protective factor (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.92, P = .02). The incidence of postimplant effusions is low. In order to minimize periprocedural permanent pacemaker effusions, temporary pacemaker placement should be avoided unless essential, and particular care should be taken when placing a permanent pacemaker in patients who are taking steroids.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevalence and characterization of asymptomatic pacemaker and ICD lead perforation on CT.

              Pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) are widely used for the management of cardiac arrhythmias and congestive heart failure (CHF). Acute implantation complication rates range from 3% to 7%. The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of lead perforation on computed tomography (CT), and correlate these findings with electrophysiologic data. Images of 100 consecutive patients with permanent pacemakers (n = 72) or ICDs (n = 28) who underwent multidetector CTs of the chest were identified. Cases were reviewed by 2 cardiothoracic radiologists, and a third if there was disagreement. Each CT was reviewed for device and fixation type, tip position, and presence of pericardial effusion. Results were correlated with lead impedance and pacing threshold, when available [79% (79/100)]. A cardiac electrophysiologist interpreted device data. All 100 patients had right ventricular leads (58 passive, 42 active) and 61 had right atrial leads (12 passive, 49 active). 15% (15/100) of patients had a lead perforation. Perforation rates were 15% (9/61) for atrial and 6% (6/100) for ventricular leads (P < 0.05, chi square). Four of 28 (14%) right ventricular ICD leads and 2 of 72 (3%)right ventricular pacemaker leads were perforated (P < 0.05, chi square). 12% (6/49) of active right atrial leads, and 25% (3/12) of passive right atrial leads perforated (P = NS, chi square). 7% (3/42) of active right ventricular leads, and 5% (3/58) of passive ventricular leads perforated (P = NS, chi square). Electrophysiologic parameters did not differ significantly between perforated and nonperforated leads. Asymptomatic perforation is a common phenomenon and rarely resulting in electrophysiologic consequences. Atrial leads perforated more frequently than ventricular leads, and ventricular ICD leads perforated more frequently than ventricular pacemaker leads.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Korean J Radiol
                KJR
                Korean Journal of Radiology
                The Korean Society of Radiology
                1229-6929
                2005-8330
                Sep-Oct 2011
                24 August 2011
                : 12
                : 5
                : 611-619
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Düesseldorf, Medical Faculty, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
                [2 ]Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
                [3 ]Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Patric Kröpil, MD, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. Tel: (49211) 811-7754, Fax: (49211) 811-9487, pkroepil@ 123456gmx.de
                Article
                10.3348/kjr.2011.12.5.611
                3168803
                21927563
                Copyright © 2011 The Korean Society of Radiology

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                Categories
                Pictorial Essay

                Radiology & Imaging

                ct, pacemaker, chest, icd, radiograph

                Comments

                Comment on this article