© 2001 by European Society of Cardiology
REGULAR ARTICLES
Dual-coil vs single-coil active pectoral implantable defibrillator lead systems: defibrillation energy requirements and probability of defibrillation success at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirements
Department of Cardiology Kerckhoff-Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany
AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare the defibrillation energy requirements and the probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the minimum defibrillation energy requirements in active pectoral implantable defibrillators with single- and dual-coil lead systems.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-three consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an active pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator were randomized to receive a dual- or single-coil lead system. Defibrillators of two manufacturers with a fixed tilt biphasic defibrillation waveform were used. Defibrillation energy requirements were determined using a step-down defibrillation testing protocol. According to the randomization protocol, the patients were assigned to three additional consecutive defibrillation attempts during device implantation and during pre-discharge testing of either 1·0, 1·5 or 2·0 times the determined defibrillation energy requirement. Patients presenting defibrillation energy requirements >15 J were excluded from analysis.
Eighty of 83 patients (96%) completed the study protocol. Three patients were excluded due to elevated defibrillation energy requirements. The defibrillation energy requirements in the dual- and single-coil patient groups were 8·0±3·6 J and 8·4±3·7 J (ns), respectively. A comparable percentage of study patients showed defibrillation energy requirements <10 J (dual-coil: 88% vs single-coil: 83%). Defibrillation impedance was significantly different (dual-coil: 50±5·8 Ohm; single-coil: 39·8±4·2 Ohm). Regarding the probabilities of successful defibrillation, there were no significant differences between the two patient groups. The probabilities of defibrillation at the three multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement using a dual- and single-coil lead system were 82, 89·7 and 93·6 and 77·8, 94·1 and 95·8%, respectively (P=0·88, P=0·42, P=0·62, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Dual- and single-coil active pectoral defibrillator systems show no difference in defibrillation energy requirements and no difference in the probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the minimum defibrillation energy requirement. The use of more simplified defibrillator lead systems may contribute to a future lead design focusing on improvement in lead durability.
Key Words: Single-coil, dual-coil defibrillator leads, defibrillation energy requirements, defibrillation probability
Correspondence: PD Dr Joerg Neuzner F.E.S.C., Department of Cardiology, Kerckhoff-Klinik – Bad Nauheim, Benekestrasse 2–8, 61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany. E-mail: neuzner{at}t-online.de
[1] Bardy GH, Johnson G, Poole JE, et al. A simplified, single-lead unipolar transvenous cardioversion-defibrillation system. Circulation 1993; 88: 543–547.
[2] Gold MR and Shorofsky SR. Transvenous defibrillation lead systems. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1996; 7: 570–580.[Web of Science][Medline]
[3] Bardy GH, Yee R, Jung W. Multicenter experience with a pectoral unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Active can investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 28: 400–410.[Abstract]
[4] Bardy GH, Dolack GL, Kudenchuk PJ, Mehra R, Johnson G. Prospective, randomized comparison in humans of a unipolar defibrillation system with that using an additional superior vena cava electrode. Circulation 1994; 89: 1090–1093.
[5] Gold MR, Foster AH, Shorofsky SR. Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80: 1163–1167.[CrossRef][Medline]
[6] Gold MR, Olsovsky MR, Pelini MA, Peters RW, Shorofsky SR. Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 1391–1394.
[7] Strickberger SA, Daoud EG, Davidson T, et al. Probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement in patients with an implantable defibrillator. Circulation 1997; 96: 1217–1223.
[8] Neuzner J, Liebrich A, Jung J, et al. Safety and efficacy of implantable defibrillator therapy with programmed shock energy at twice the augmented step-down defibrillation threshold: results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter low energy Endotak trial. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 34D–39.[CrossRef][Medline]
[9] Gold MR, Olsovsky MR, Degroot PJ, Cuello C, Shorofsky SR. Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2000; 11: 25–29.[Medline]
[10] Min X and Mehra R. Finite element analysis of defibrillation in human torso model of ventricular defibrillation. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 1998; 69: 353–386.[Medline]
[11] Winter J, Vester EG, Kuhls S, et al. Defibrillation energy requirements with single endocardial (Endotak) lead. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1993; 16: 540–546.[CrossRef][Medline]
[12] Winter J, Heil JE, Schumann C, et al. Effect of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator lead placement in the right ventricle on defibrillation energy requirements. A combined experimental and clinical study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998; 14: 419–425.
[13] Gold MR, Foster AH, Shorofsky SR. Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78: 540–543.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[14] Windecker S, Ideker RE, Plumb VJ, Kay GN, Walcott GP, Epstein AE. The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33: 33–38.
[15] Singer I and Lang D. Defibrillation threshold: clinical utility and therapeutic implications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1992; 15: 932–949.[CrossRef][Medline]
[16] Lawton JS, Wood MA, Gilligan DM, Stambler BS, Damiano RJ, Ellenbogen KA. Implantable transvenous cardioverter defibrillator leads: the dark side. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1996; 19: 1273–1278.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. H. Maass, T. W. Waterbolk, and I. C. Van Gelder Pitfalls of internal cardioverter defibrillator implantation: Part II Europace, February 1, 2009; 11(2): 268 - 270. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Przybylski, R. Baranowski, J. J. Zebrowski, and H. Szwed Verification of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interventions by nonlinear analysis of heart rate variability - preliminary results Europace, January 1, 2004; 6(6): 617 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||