Methodist Journal

FEATURED GUEST EDITOR

ISSUE INTRO

The Burgeoning Field of Cardio-Oncology

See More
RECOGNITIONS

Barry H. Trachtenberg Leads Issue on Cardio-Oncology

See More

REVIEW ARTICLES See More

Heart Failure in Relation to Anthracyclines and Other Chemotherapies

Heart Failure in Relation to Tumor-Targeted Therapies and Immunotherapies

The Role of Cardiovascular Imaging and Serum Biomarkers in Identifying Cardiotoxicity Related to Cancer Therapeutics

Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity

Cardiovascular Toxicities of Radiation Therapy

Electrophysiologic Complications in Cancer Patients

Vascular Toxicity in Patients with Cancer: Is There a Recipe to Clarify Treatment?

Future Directions in Cardio-Oncology

CASE REPORTS See More

A Rare Case of Pancreatitis-Induced Thrombosis of the Aorta and Superior Mesenteric Artery

Anomalous Origin of the Right Coronary Artery from the Left Main Coronary Artery in the Setting of Critical Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis

Simultaneous Transfemoral Mitral and Tricuspid Valve in Ring Implantation: First Case Report with Edwards Sapien 3 Valve

Uneventful Follow-Up 2 Years after Endovascular Treatment of a High Flow Iatrogenic Aortocaval Fistula Causing Pulmonary Hypertension and Right Heart Failure

MUSEUM OF HMH MULTIMODALITY IMAGING CENTER See More

Do Not Pass Flow: Microvascular Obstruction on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance After Reinfarction Following Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES See More

EXCERPTA

Cardio-Oncology, Then and Now: An Interview with Barry Trachtenberg

POINTS TO REMEMBER

Onconephrology: An Evolving Field

POINTS TO REMEMBER

Herbal Nephropathy

EXCERPTA

Rolling the Dice on Red Yeast Rice

EDITORIALS

Letter to the Editor in Response to “Cardiac Autonomic Neuropathy in Diabetes Mellitus”

Vol 14, Issue 4 (2019)

Article Full Text

EDITORIALS

Letter to the Editor in response to “Role of Subcutaneous Leadless Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Young Patients

Jump to:
Article Citation:

Khalid N, Sareen P, Ahmad SA, Chhabra L. Letter to the Editor in response to “Role of Subcutaneous Leadless Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Young Patients.” Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J. 2019;14(4):e4.



Keywords
leadless , subcutaneous , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , venous stenosis , venous thrombosis , young patients

December 8, 2018

To the Editor:

We enjoyed reading the article by Gwozdz et al. in the recent issue of the Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal.1 The authors have described therapeutic endovascular modalities of the upper and lower extremity central venous thrombosis in contemporary practice in the published special edition on venous interventions.

In the present article, the authors state that a 34-year-old woman received a permanent pacemaker for Brugada syndrome (BrS).1 The pacemaker should be correctly identified as a single-chamber implantable converter defibrillator (ICD) as it is the correct form of intervention for patients with BrS to prevent sudden cardiac death. BrS is a genetic channelopathy most commonly involving the SCN5A gene, which encodes the cardiac sodium channel function, and leads to increased incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. The illustrated venogram also appears to demonstrate a single lead, which appears to represent an ICD lead. Also relevant to the case, the rate of venous thrombosis and stenosis is usually directly proportional to the increasing diameter and the increasing number of leads. An ICD lead usually has a larger diameter than a pacemaker lead, thus being more prone to stenosis.

The current practice guidelines recommend the placement of an ICD for primary or secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death in symptomatic BrS patients.2,3 Leadless or subcutaneous ICDs have recently begun gaining favor, especially in younger patients (such as those with channelopathy), to prevent the associated complications of the transvenous cardiac device leads.4,5 The extrathoracic placement and elimination of transvenous endocardial leads makes these miniaturized devices particularly attractive options in the younger population since these patients often require multiple device exchanges in their lifetime, which increases the risks of other complications such as device infection.4,5

Nauman Khalid, M.D.a; Pooja Sareen, M.D.b; Sarah Aftab Ahmad, M.D.c; Lovely Chhabra, M.D.d

aMedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC
bHarrisburg Medical Center, Harrisburg, Illinois
cSaint Francis Medical Center, Monroe, Louisiana
dHeartland Regional Medical Center, Marion, Illinois

 

References

  1. Gwozdz AM, Silickas J, Smith A, Saha P, Black SA. Endovascular Therapy for Central Venous Thrombosis. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2018 Jul-Sep;14(3):214-8.
  2. Khalid N, Chhabra L, Kluger J. PYREXIA-INDUCED BRUGADA PHENOCOPY. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2015;27:228-31.
  3. Chhabra L, Spodick DH. Brugada pattern masquerading as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in flecainide toxicity. Indian Heart J. 2012 Jul;64(4):404-7.
  4. Abu-El-Haija B, Bhave PD, Campbell DN, et al. Venous Stenosis After Transvenous Lead Placement: A Study of Outcomes and Risk Factors in 212 Consecutive Patients. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015 Aug;4(8):e001878.
  5. Müller MJ, Dieks JK, Backhoff D, et al. Efficacy and safety of non-transvenous cardioverter defibrillators in infants and young children. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2018 Sep 25. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0451-y. [Epub ahead of print]

 

Response from the author:

We are grateful to the authors for identifying the error in our original manuscript and for elaborating on the role and function of pacemakers in Brugada Syndrome.

Stephen A. Black, M.D.
Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust
London, England

Add Comments

Please login to dialogue with author.

Comments