Literature DB >> 18313597

Optimization of superior vena cava coil position and usage for transvenous defibrillation.

Michael Gold1, Jesus Val-Mejias, Robert B Leman, Rangarao Tummala, Sanjeev Goyal, Jeffrey Kluger, Mark Kroll, Ashish Oza.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of active pectoral implantable defibrillator (ICD) lead systems demonstrated a lowering of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with the addition of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil. These studies were done on fixed-tilt waveforms where a large reduction in impedance leads to large phase duration changes.
OBJECTIVE: The present study was designed to evaluate the SVC coil benefit and intercoil spacing on DFTs with a "tuned" waveform.
METHODS: This prospective, multicenter study included 113 patients randomized at implant to a 17-cm and a 21-cm intercoil spacing ICD lead. DFTs were measured with SVC coil turned ON versus OFF in a random order, using an optimized binary search method.
RESULTS: DFT voltage (423 +/- 120 vs. 438 +/- 118 V; P = .042) and stored energy (9.8 +/- 5.6 vs. 10.2 +/- 5.8 J; P = .043) were significantly reduced with the SVC coil ON. However, intercoil distance had no significant effect on DFT voltage (437.3 +/- 115.1 vs. 407.7 +/- 123.8 V; P = .19) or stored energy (10.3 +/- 5.4 vs. 9.2 +/- 5.8 J; P = .31). Subgroup analyses showed that the dual-coil leads were most effective when placed in the high position (innominate vein-SVC junction) or when the single-coil shock impedance was > or =58 Omega, regardless of intercoil spacing.
CONCLUSION: With a tuned waveform, the addition of an SVC coil to the shocking pathway reduces DFTs, although this difference was smaller than reported previously. Intercoil distance had no significant effect on the defibrillation parameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18313597     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2007.12.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  7 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.  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

3.  How to Manage a High Defibrillation Threshold in ICD Patients: and Does it Really Matter?

Authors:  Maria Vittoria Matassini; Jeff S Healey
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2013-08

4.  Higher defibrillation threshold in methamphetamine cardiomyopathy patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Authors:  Rakesh Malhotra; Shyam Patel; Tekchand Ramchand; Omar Al Nimri
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2017-07-08

5.  Does defibrillation threshold increase as left ventricular ejection fraction decreases?

Authors:  Jesus E Val-Mejias; Ashish Oza
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2010-01-03       Impact factor: 5.214

6.  High defibrillation threshold: the science, signs and solutions.

Authors:  Sony Jacob; Victorio Pidlaoan; Jaspreet Singh; Aditya Bharadwaj; Mehul B Patel; Antonio Carrillo
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2010-01-07

7.  Coronary vein defibrillator coil placement in patients with high defibrillation thresholds.

Authors:  Moisés Rodríguez-Mañero; Bahij Kreidieh; Sergio H Ibarra-Cortez; Paulino Álvarez; Paul Schurmann; Amish S Dave; Miguel Valderrábano
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2018-12-03
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.