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
  • [31] EFFECT OF FAILED DEFIBRILLATION SHOCKS ON ELECTROGRAM AMPLITUDE IN A NONINTEGRATED TRANSVENOUS DEFIBRILLATION LEAD SYSTEM
    BRADY, PA
    FRIEDMAN, PA
    STANTON, MS
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY, 1995, 76 (08): : 580 - 584
  • [32] Low Defibrillation Threshold in a Patient with a Dual-Coil Defibrillator Lead Implanted through a Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava
    Williams, Thomas A., Jr.
    Abe, Oluwole
    Mitre, Cristina A.
    Kassotis, John
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2012, 35 (09): : e274 - e275
  • [33] Active Control of Secondary Current Profile Applied on an Offset Dual-Coil Ignition System
    Tan, Qingyuan
    Zhu, Hua
    Yu, Xiao
    Zheng, Ming
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, 2022, 50 (02) : 317 - 329
  • [34] EFFECT OF SHOCK POLARITY ON VENTRICULAR DEFIBRILLATION THRESHOLD USING A TRANSVENOUS LEAD SYSTEM
    STRICKBERGER, SA
    HUMMEL, JD
    HORWOOD, LE
    JENTZER, J
    DAOUD, E
    NIEBAUER, M
    BAKR, O
    MAN, KC
    WILLIAMSON, BD
    KOU, W
    MORADY, F
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 1994, 24 (04) : 1069 - 1072
  • [35] THE EFFECT OF POLARITY REVERSAL ON BIPHASIC DEFIBRILLATION THRESHOLD WITH AN INTEGRATED TRANSVENOUS LEAD SYSTEM
    SHOROFSKY, SR
    FOSTER, AH
    GOLD, MR
    CIRCULATION, 1994, 90 (04) : 228 - 228
  • [36] Defibrillation success with a second generation intercostal extravascular ICD lead and commercially available left pectoral pulse generator
    Burke, M. C.
    Doshi, S.
    Ebner, A.
    Husby, M.
    Marcovecchio, A.
    Sanghera, R.
    Scheck, D.
    O'connor, M.
    Knops, R. E.
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2024, 45
  • [37] Feasibility of Defibrillation and Pacing Without Transvenous Leads in a Combined MICRA and S-ICD System Following Lead Extraction
    Montgomery, Jay A.
    Orton, Jody M.
    Ellis, Christopher R.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2017, 28 (02) : 233 - 234
  • [38] PROSPECTIVE COMPARISON OF AN ACTIVE CAN SYSTEM WITH DIFFERENT 2-COIL TRANSVENOUS LEAD SYSTEMS
    NATALE, A
    BAROLD, H
    TOMASSONI, G
    KEAMEY, MM
    FAIN, E
    BRANDON, MJ
    GEIGER, MJ
    NEWBY, KH
    CIRCULATION, 1995, 92 (08) : 1618 - 1618
  • [39] Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry
    Leshem, Eran
    Suleiman, Mahmoud
    Laish-Farkash, Avishag
    Konstantino, Yuval
    Glikson, Michael
    Barsheshet, Alon
    Goldenberg, Ilan
    Michowitz, Yoav
    EUROPACE, 2017, 19 (09): : 1485 - 1492
  • [40] Multicentre comparison Of shock efficacy using single-vs. Dual-coil lead systems and Anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study
    Baccillieri, Maria Stella
    Gasparini, Gianni
    Benacchio, Luca
    Zorzi, Alessandro
    Marras, Elena
    Zerbo, Francesca
    Tomasi, Luca
    Vaccari, Diego
    Pastore, Gianni
    Bonanno, Carlo
    Molon, Giulio
    Zanotto, Gabriele
    Fusco, Antonio
    Carasi, Massimo
    Zorzi, Andrea
    Calzolari, Vittorio
    Ignatiuk, Barbara
    Cannas, Sergio
    Vaglio, Alessandro
    Al Bunni, Muhamad
    Pedrini, Antonella
    Olivieri, Armando
    Rampazzo, Roberta
    Minicuci, Nadia
    Corrado, Domenico
    Verlato, Roberto
    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2015, 43 (01) : 45 - 54