title: [Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?].
abstract: Due to bulky generator size, abdominal pocket preparation and epicardial defibrillator lead placement, cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation was initially an extensive surgical intervention, which had to be performed in the operating room by cardiac surgeons under general anesthesia. The development of transvenously applicable endocardial defibrillator leads rendered thoracotomy unnecessary. The decrease in generator size enabled pectoral implantation. As a consequence of the simplified surgical procedure, implantation by cardiologists or electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory under local anesthesia and brief deep sedation with preserved spontaneous respiration was made possible. As a result, the implantation techniques of ICDs and pacemakers are converging. The present article illustrates the still existing significant differences between ICD and pacemaker treatment with regard to implantation and follow-up.
authors.affiliation: Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie, Augustenburger Pl. 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. martin.stockburger@charite.de
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Stockburger
mesh_terms: D017147:Defibrillators, Implantable; D004567:Electrodes, Implanted; D004867:Equipment Design; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D010138:Pacemaker, Artificial; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods*; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical