Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Inappropriate shocks from an S-ICD
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Inappropriate shocks from an S-ICD
Do you wish to request the book?
Inappropriate shocks from an S-ICD
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Inappropriate shocks from an S-ICD
2022
Overview
Case: A 62-year-old man attended electively for implantation of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) for primary prevention due to dilated cardiomyopathy with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). His past medical history included type II diabetes. Screening prior to implant demonstrated that the primary and alternative vectors were acceptable. The S-ICD was implanted under general anaesthetic using a two-incision technique. The generator was placed in an intermuscular position. Both pockets were flushed with normal saline. The sensing was programmed to the primary vector. Routine defibrillation threshold testing was performed successfully with a shock impedance of 68 Ohms. On return to the ward, the patient received two inappropriate shocks due to noise (Figure 1). Interrogation revealed a drop in R wave amplitude and intermittent noise seen in both the primary and alternate vectors. These both utilize the proximal electrode. A chest X-ray demonstrated a small amount of air overlying the proximal electrode (Figure 1). device was briefly deactivated to allow for resorption. Unfortunately, the patient re-presented 10 weeks later with a further inappropriate shock, which again was due to noise and a transient drop in R wave amplitude. Repeat chest X-rays showed resorption of the air previously seen and that the pin remained through the header. The sensing was still programmed to the primary vector. On interrogation of the device, noise was reproducible with patient movement on the secondary vector, but not on either the primary or alternate vectors. The device was deactivated. After seeking advice from Boston, the patient attended for explant and re-implant of a new S-ICD system. Visual inspection at the time of explant confirmed that the pin was through the header and screwed in. The device was returned to Boston for further analysis. Analysis of both the generator and lead failed to identify any issue that could have caused or contributed to the inappropriate shocks. To date, the patient has not had any issues with the new device. ❑ [Image Omitted]
Publisher
Touch Medical Media Limited
Subject
