OBJECTIVE: Animal studies have shown that defibrillation in coronary veins is more effective than in the right ventricle. We aimed to assess the feasibility of placing defibrillation electrodes in the middle cardiac vein (MCV) in man and its impact on defibrillation requirements. METHODS: A prospective randomised study conducted in a tertiary referral centre. 10 patients (9 male) undergoing ICD implantation (65 (12) yrs) for NASPE/BPEG indications were studied. Defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were measured, using a binary search and an external defibrillator after 10 seconds of ventricular fibrillation, for the following configurations in each patient (order of testing randomised): RV + MCV -->; Can and RV --> SVC + Can. INTERVENTIONS: A dual coil defibrillation electrode was placed transvenously in the right ventricle (RV) in the conventional manner. Using a guiding catheter a 3.2 Fr (67.5 mm length) electrode was placed transvenously in MCV. A test-can was placed subcutaneously in the left pectoral region. RESULTS: Lead placement was possible in 8/10 pts. Time to perform a middle cardiac venogram and place the electrode was 21 (23) mins. No adverse events were observed. Defibrillation current was less (6.7 (2.7) A) with RV + MCV -->; Can compared to the conventional RV --> SVC + Can configuration (8.9 (3.4) A, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in defibrillation voltage or energy. However, shock impedance was higher in the former configuration (57 (10) v. 43 (6) Omega, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of cases placement of a defibrillation lead in MCV is feasible. Defibrillation current requirements are 25% less when the shock is delivered using a MCV electrode.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Animal studies have shown that defibrillation in coronary veins is more effective than in the right ventricle. We aimed to assess the feasibility of placing defibrillation electrodes in the middle cardiac vein (MCV) in man and its impact on defibrillation requirements. METHODS: A prospective randomised study conducted in a tertiary referral centre. 10 patients (9 male) undergoing ICD implantation (65 (12) yrs) for NASPE/BPEG indications were studied. Defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were measured, using a binary search and an external defibrillator after 10 seconds of ventricular fibrillation, for the following configurations in each patient (order of testing randomised): RV + MCV --> Can and RV --> SVC + Can. INTERVENTIONS: A dual coil defibrillation electrode was placed transvenously in the right ventricle (RV) in the conventional manner. Using a guiding catheter a 3.2 Fr (67.5 mm length) electrode was placed transvenously in MCV. A test-can was placed subcutaneously in the left pectoral region. RESULTS: Lead placement was possible in 8/10 pts. Time to perform a middle cardiac venogram and place the electrode was 21 (23) mins. No adverse events were observed. Defibrillation current was less (6.7 (2.7) A) with RV + MCV --> Can compared to the conventional RV --> SVC + Can configuration (8.9 (3.4) A, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in defibrillation voltage or energy. However, shock impedance was higher in the former configuration (57 (10) v. 43 (6) Omega, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In the majority of cases placement of a defibrillation lead in MCV is feasible. Defibrillation current requirements are 25% less when the shock is delivered using a MCV electrode.
Authors: M Usui; R L Callihan; R G Walker; G P Walcott; D L Rollins; P D Wolf; W M Smith; R E Ideker Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 1996-04
Authors: A J Moss; W J Hall; D S Cannom; J P Daubert; S L Higgins; H Klein; J H Levine; S Saksena; A L Waldo; D Wilber; M W Brown; M Heo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S J Connolly; M Gent; R S Roberts; P Dorian; D Roy; R S Sheldon; L B Mitchell; M S Green; G J Klein; B O'Brien Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-03-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Zhongwei Cheng; Mintu Turakhia; Ronald Lo; Anurag Gupta; Paul C Zei; Henry H Hsia; Amin Al-Ahmad; Paul J Wang Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 1.900