IMPLANTATION OF AN ICD AND DFT TESTING IN PATIENT WITH PERSISTENT LEFT SUPERIOR VENA CAVA

Aim. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] has been proven to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death through the termination of ventricular fibrillation and life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The simplest measure of defibrillation effectiveness is the DFT, defined as the lowest delivered shock strength required to defibrillate. Improved technology and use of ICDs for primary prevention have led some to question the need for either defibrillation testing or any assessment of defibrillation efficacy after implantation. Experts disagree about optimal testing because data are insufficient to define the trade-off between accuracy and risk of testing. However there are specific cases in which DFT is necessary.

Material and methods. Authors describe the case of a patient with persistent left vena cava, a rare congenital anomaly, with no clinical importance which is usually accidentally revealed during the implantation of pacemaker or when placing a central vascular catheter. However, it represents a major problem and challenge for positioning of the standard pacemaker electrodes.

Results. After a successful implantation via unconventional anatomic path authors carried out DFT testing to check that the device is functioning appropriately.

Conclusion. Persistent left vena cava should not represent a contraindication for implantation of complex pacemaker systems such as ICD and DFT testing is advisable in this cases.

1. Swerdlow C, Friedman, P. Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Clinical Aspects. Zipes DP, Jalife J (ed). Cardiac Electrophysiology: From Cell to Bedside, Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia 2009.

2. Swerdlow CD, Russo AM, Degroot PJ. The dilemma of ICD implant testing. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 2007;30(5):675-700.

3. Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, Hammill SC, et al. Clinical competency statement: Training pathways for implantation of cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization devices. Heart Rhythm 2004;1(3):371-5.

4. Pai RK, Cadman CS. Persistence with a persistent left and absent right superior vena cava. Cardiol Rev. 2005 ; 13(3): 163-4.

5. Demos TC, Posniak HV, Pierce KL, et al. Venous Anomalies of the Thorax. AJR. 2004 ; 182(5): 1139-50.

6. Paval J, Nayak S. A persistent left superior vena cava. Singapore Med J. 2007; 48(3): e90-e3.

7. Biffi M, Boriani G, Frabetti L, et al. Left superior vena cava persistence in patients undergoing pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a 10-year experience. Chest 2001;120(1):139-44.

8. Ramos N, Fernandez-Pineda L, Tamariz-Martel A, et al. Absent Right Superior Vena Cava With Left Superior Vena Cava Draining to an Unroofed Coronary Sinus.Rev Esp Cardiol 2005; 58(8): 984-7.

9. Ratliff HL, Yousufuddin M, Lieving WR, et al. Persistent left superior vena cava: case reports and clinical implications. Int J Cardiol. 2006; 113(2): 242-6.

10. Girerd N, Gressard A, Berthezene Y, Lantelme P. Persistent left superior vena cava with absent right superior vena cava: A difficult cardiac pacemaker implantation. Int J Cardiol 2009;132(3): e117-9.

11. Moss AJ. MADIT II and its implications. Eur Heart J 2003;24:16-18.

12. Cygankiewicz I, Gillespie J, Zareba W, et al. MADIT II Investigators. Predictors of long-term mortality in Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II (MADIT II) patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Heart Rhythm. 2009;6(4):468-73.

13. Mitov V, Perišić Z, Kostić T, et al. An Alternative Approach for Endocardial Pacemaker Lead Implatation in Patient with Persistent Left Superior Vena cava. Srp Arh 2010; 138(1-2): 85-7.

14. Antonelli D, Rosenfeld T. Implantation of dual chamber pacemaker in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997; 20(6): 1737-8.

15. Moriña-Vázquez P, Barba-Pichardo R, Venegas Gamero J, et al. Cardiac resynchronization through a persistent left superior vena cava. Medicina Intensiva 2006;30(9): 471-3.