Skip Navigation


Europace Advance Access originally published online on January 11, 2006
Europace 2006 8(2):113-117; doi:10.1093/europace/euj034
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
8/2/113    most recent
euj034v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paisey, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paisey, J. R.
Right arrow Articles by Morgan, J. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

DEFIBRILLATION

Passive electrode effect reduces defibrillation threshold in bi-filament middle cardiac vein defibrillation

John R. Paisey1,*, Arthur M. Yue1, Frederick Bessoule2, Paul R. Roberts1 and John M. Morgan1

Wessex Cardiothoracic Centre Southampton University Hospitals, Southampton UK ; Ela Medical SA Paris France

Aims To investigate whether a passive electrode effect decreases defibrillation threshold (DFT) in multi-filament middle cardiac vein (MCV) defibrillation.

Methods and results Twelve pigs underwent active housing (AH) insertion, with defibrillation coils placed transvenously in right ventricular apex and superior vena cava. The MCV was cannulated, and 1.12F, 50 mm coil electrodes (Ela Medical SA, France) were deployed in its right and left branches. Lead placement was possible in 11 of 12 animals. DFT (J, mean±SD) was determined by three-reversal binary search and compared between the MCV monofilament (single filament deployed) and the AH (25.9±10.9) and the MCV mono+passive filaments (both filaments deployed, one connected) and the AH (19.9±11.4); 24% DFT reduction P=0.008.

Conclusion A bystander electrode adjacent to a monofilament electrode in the MCV reduces DFT by 24% when compared with monofilament MCV alone. Microfilament electrodes decrease DFT as auxiliary anode but not as sole anode.

Key Words: Defibrillation threshold, Passive electrode, Cardiac vein, Bystander electrode, Implantable defibrillator

Corresponding author: Mail Point 46, Southampton General Hospital, Tremona Road, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK. Tel: +44 2380 798676; fax: +44 2380 798942. E-mail address: johnpaisey{at}doctors.org.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.