Effect of an active abdominal pulse generator on defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system

被引:3
|
作者
Rashba, Eric J.
Farasat, Morteza
Kirk, Malcolm M.
Shorofsky, Stephen R.
Peters, Robert W.
Gold, Michael R.
机构
[1] Univ Maryland, Sch Med, Div Cardiol, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[2] Brown Univ, Sch Med, Div Cardiol, Providence, RI USA
[3] Med Univ S Carolina, Div Cardiol, Charleston, SC 29425 USA
关键词
defibrillation threshold; implantable cardioverter defibrillator;
D O I
10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00374.x
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Many patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have older lead systems, which are usually not replaced at the time of pulse generator replacement unless a malfunction is noted. Therefore, optimization of defibrillation with these lead systems is clinically important. The objective of this prospective study was to determine if an active abdominal pulse generator (Can) affects chronic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system. Methods and Results: The study population consisted of 39 patients who presented for routine abdominal pulse generator replacement. Each patient underwent two assessments of DFT using a step-down protocol, with the order of testing randomized. The distal right ventricular (RV) coil was the anode for the first phase of the biphasic shocks. The proximal superior vena cava (SVC) coil was the cathode for the Lead Alone configuration (RV -> SVC). For the Active Can configuration, the SVC coil and Can were connected electrically as the cathode (RV -> SVC + Can). The Active Can configuration was associated with a significant decrease in shock impedance (39.5 +/- 5.8 Omega vs. 50.0 +/- 7.6 Omega, P < 0.01) and a significant increase in peak current (8.3 +/- 2.6 A vs. 7.2 +/- 2.4 A, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in DFT energy (9.0 +/- 4.6 J vs. 9.8 +/- 5.2 J) or leading edge voltage (319 +/- 86 V vs. 315 +/- 83 V). An adequate safety margin for defibrillation (>= 10 J) was present in all patients with both shocking configurations. Conclusion: DFTs are similar with the Active Can and Lead Alone configurations when a dual-coil, transvenous lead is used with a left abdominal pulse generator. Since most commercially available ICDs are only available with an active can, our data support the use of an active can device with this lead system for patients who present for routine pulse generator replacement.
引用
收藏
页码:617 / 620
页数:4
相关论文
共 46 条
  • [21] Effects of waveform and polarity on defibrillation thresholds in humans using a transvenous lead system
    Shorofsky, SR
    Gold, MR
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1996, 78 (03): : 313 - 316
  • [22] Biphasic waveforms prevent the chronic rise of defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system
    Gold, MR
    Kavesh, NG
    Peters, RW
    Shorofsky, SR
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 1997, 30 (01) : 233 - 236
  • [23] Optimal Transvenous Coil Position on Active-can Single-coil ICD Defibrillation Efficacy: A Simulation Study
    Fei Yang
    Robert Patterson
    Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 2008, 36 : 1659 - 1667
  • [24] Dual Coil Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillator System Have Lower Defibrillation Thresholds and Impedances Compared to Single Coil Systems: A Meta-Analysis
    Swaminathan, Paarl Dominic
    Prasath, Arun
    Makki, Nader
    Kalamkar, Prachl
    Bhatt, Paras
    Clancy, Jude
    CIRCULATION, 2013, 128 (22)
  • [25] Impact of transvenous lead position on active-can ICD defibrillation: A computer simulation study
    Aguel, F
    Eason, JC
    Trayanova, NA
    Siekas, G
    Fishler, MG
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 1999, 22 (01): : 158 - 164
  • [26] Effect of the addition of an abdominal hot can cardioverter/defibrillator pulse generator on the defibrillation energy requirements in a single-lead endocardial defibrillation system
    Neuzner, J
    Schwarz, T
    Strasser, R
    Schlepper, M
    Pitschner, H
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 1997, 18 (10) : 1655 - 1658
  • [27] Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system
    Rashba, EJ
    Olsovsky, MR
    Shorofsky, SR
    Kirk, MM
    Peters, RW
    Gold, MR
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2001, 38 (04) : 1150 - 1155
  • [28] Clinical outcomes of patient with single-coil vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillation lead for secondary prevention
    Korai, K.
    Ishibashi, K.
    Kamakura, T.
    Wada, M.
    Yamagata, K.
    Inoue, Y.
    Miyamoto, K.
    Nagase, S.
    Noda, T.
    Aiba, T.
    Noguchi, T.
    Yasuda, S.
    Kusano, K.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2018, 39 : 1226 - 1226
  • [29] Temporal stability of defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system
    Olsovsky, MR
    Pelini, MA
    Shorofsky, SR
    Gold, MR
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 1998, 9 (03) : 240 - 244
  • [30] Effect of shock polarity on biphasic defibrillation thresholds using an active pectoral lead system
    Olsovsky, MR
    Shorofsky, SR
    Gold, MR
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 1998, 9 (04) : 350 - 354