BACKGROUND:Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing has been suggested to improve hemodynamics and to help prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Pacing from the RVOT is feasible and equivalent in terms of sensing and stimulation threshold. However, physicians have been reluctant to use RVOT pacing because of concerns that defibrillation efficacy might be adversely affected. To date, there have been no randomized-controlled trials published comparing the defibrillation threshold in leads implanted in the RVOT and the right ventricular apex (RVA). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds (DFT) in the RVOT and RVA. Ventricular sensing and stimulation thresholds were also compared. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study included 87 patients (70 males, age 69 +/- 11 years). At implantation, the patient's ventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead position was randomized to either the RVOT or RVA. A four-shock Bayesian up-down method was used to determine the DFT. Patients were followed for 3 months postimplant. RESULTS:DFTs were not significantly different in leads implanted in the RVOT (median 8.8 J [6.28, 12.9] vs. 7.9 J [6.20, 12.6], P = 0.65). Threshold and impedance measurements were stable in both RVOT and RVA groups from implant to follow-up. All ICD leads remained stable chronically at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION:DFTs in leads placed in the RVOT and RVA are comparable. RVOT ICD lead placement is safe and exhibits similar lead stability, threshold, and impedance measurements as the traditional RVA location.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing has been suggested to improve hemodynamics and to help prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Pacing from the RVOT is feasible and equivalent in terms of sensing and stimulation threshold. However, physicians have been reluctant to use RVOT pacing because of concerns that defibrillation efficacy might be adversely affected. To date, there have been no randomized-controlled trials published comparing the defibrillation threshold in leads implanted in the RVOT and the right ventricular apex (RVA). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds (DFT) in the RVOT and RVA. Ventricular sensing and stimulation thresholds were also compared. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, multicenter study included 87 patients (70 males, age 69 +/- 11 years). At implantation, the patient's ventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead position was randomized to either the RVOT or RVA. A four-shock Bayesian up-down method was used to determine the DFT. Patients were followed for 3 months postimplant. RESULTS: DFTs were not significantly different in leads implanted in the RVOT (median 8.8 J [6.28, 12.9] vs. 7.9 J [6.20, 12.6], P = 0.65). Threshold and impedance measurements were stable in both RVOT and RVA groups from implant to follow-up. All ICD leads remained stable chronically at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: DFTs in leads placed in the RVOT and RVA are comparable. RVOT ICD lead placement is safe and exhibits similar lead stability, threshold, and impedance measurements as the traditional RVA location.
Authors: Christof Kolb; Stylianos Tzeis; George Andrikopoulos; Stefan Asbach; Bernd Lemke; Claudius Hansen; Isabel Deisenhofer; Bernhard Zrenner; Frank Birkenhauer; Panos E Vardas Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 1.900