Literature DB >> 12877701

A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.

C Aldo Rinaldi1, Ron D B Simon, Peter Geelen, Sven Reek, Artur Baszko, Martin Kuehl, Jaswinder S Gill.   

Abstract

ICD implantation is standard therapy for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The advantage of dual and single coil defibrillator leads in the successful conversion of arrhythmias is unclear. This study compared the effectiveness of dual versus single coil defibrillation leads. The study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study comparing a dual with a single coil defibrillation system as part of an ICD using an active pectoral electrode. Seventy-six patients (64 men, 12 women; age 61 +/- 11 years) were implanted with a dual (group 1, n = 38) or single coil lead system (group 2,n = 38). The patients represented a typical ICD cohort: 60% presented with ischemic cardiomyopathy as their primary cardiac disease, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.406 +/- 0.158. The primary tachyarrhythmia was monomorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia in 52.6% patients and ventricular fibrillation in 38.4%. There was no significant difference in terms of P and R wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and lead impedance at implantation and follow-up in the two groups. There was similarly no difference in terms of defibrillation thresholds (DFT) at implantation. Patients in group 1 had an average DFT of 10.2 +/- 5.2 J compared to 10.3 +/- 4.1 J in Group 2, P = NS. This study demonstrates no significant advantage of a dual coil lead system over a single coil system in terms of lead values and defibrillation thresholds. This may have important bearing on the choice of lead systems when implanting ICDs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12877701     DOI: 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2003.t01-1-00253.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  10 in total

Review 1.  Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature.

Authors:  Jörg Neuzner; Jörg Carlsson
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  More safety with more energy: survival of electrical storm with 40-J shocks.

Authors:  D Erkapic; F Amberger; P Bushoven; J Ehrlich
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2011-12

3.  Complications and lead extraction in cardiac pacing and defibrillation.

Authors:  F Bracke
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  [Annual Report 2011 of the German pacemaker and defibrillator register: Section pacemakers and AQUA-Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care].

Authors:  A Markewitz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-12

5.  [2010 annual report of the German pacemaker and defibrillator register: section pacemakers and AQUA-Institute for Applied Quality Improvement and Research in Health Care Ltd].

Authors:  A Markewitz
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2012-12

6.  ICD implantation without intraoperative testing does not increase the rate of system modifications and does not impair defibrillation efficacy tested in follow-up.

Authors:  Dirk Bastian; Stefan Kracker; Matthias Pauschinger; Konrad Göhl
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-06-07

7.  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.

Authors:  Maria Stella Baccillieri; Gianni Gasparini; Luca Benacchio; Alessandro Zorzi; Elena Marras; Francesca Zerbo; Luca Tomasi; Diego Vaccari; Gianni Pastore; Carlo Bonanno; Giulio Molon; Gabriele Zanotto; Antonio Fusco; Massimo Carasi; Andrea Zorzi; Vittorio Calzolari; Barbara Ignatiuk; Sergio Cannas; Alessandro Vaglio; Muhamad Al Bunni; Antonella Pedrini; Armando Olivieri; Roberta Rampazzo; Nadia Minicuci; Domenico Corrado; Roberto Verlato
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  A randomized comparison of defibrillation thresholds in the right ventricular outflow tract versus right ventricular apex.

Authors:  Michael Mollerus; Margaret Lipinski; Thomas Munger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 9.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers: era of "MR Conditional" designs.

Authors:  Jerold S Shinbane; Patrick M Colletti; Frank G Shellock
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 5.364

10.  Cardiac pacing and defibrillation in children and young adults.

Authors:  Harinder R Singh; Anjan S Batra; Seshadri Balaji
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2013-01-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.