PURPOSE: An optimal active-can lead configuration during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement is important to obtain an adequate defibrillation safety margin. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the rate of the first shock success at defibrillation testing according to the type of lead implant (single vs. dual coil) and shock polarity (cathodal and anodal) in a large series of consecutive patients who received transvenous ICDs. METHODS: This was a multicenter study enrolling 469 consecutive patients. Single- versus dual-coil leads and cathodal versus anodal polarity were evaluated at defibrillation testing. In all cases, the value of the energy for the first shock was set to 20 J less than the maximum energy deliverable from the device. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients underwent defibrillation testing: 158 (34 %) had dual-coil and 311 (66 %) had single-coil lead systems configuration, 254 (54 %) received anodal shock and 215 (46 %) received cathodal shock. In 35 (7.4 %) patients, the shock was unsuccessful. No significant differences in the outcome of defibrillation testing using single- versus dual-coil lead were observed but the multivariate analysis showed an increased risk of shock failure using cathodal shock polarity (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 1.12-5.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems were associated with high rates of successful ICD implantation, and we found no significant differences in ventricular arrhythmias interruption between the two ICD lead systems configuration. Instead, anodal defibrillation was more likely to be successful than cathodal defibrillation.
PURPOSE: An optimal active-can lead configuration during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement is important to obtain an adequate defibrillation safety margin. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the rate of the first shock success at defibrillation testing according to the type of lead implant (single vs. dual coil) and shock polarity (cathodal and anodal) in a large series of consecutive patients who received transvenous ICDs. METHODS: This was a multicenter study enrolling 469 consecutive patients. Single- versus dual-coil leads and cathodal versus anodal polarity were evaluated at defibrillation testing. In all cases, the value of the energy for the first shock was set to 20 J less than the maximum energy deliverable from the device. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients underwent defibrillation testing: 158 (34 %) had dual-coil and 311 (66 %) had single-coil lead systems configuration, 254 (54 %) received anodal shock and 215 (46 %) received cathodal shock. In 35 (7.4 %) patients, the shock was unsuccessful. No significant differences in the outcome of defibrillation testing using single- versus dual-coil lead were observed but the multivariate analysis showed an increased risk of shock failure using cathodal shock polarity (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 1.12-5.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems were associated with high rates of successful ICD implantation, and we found no significant differences in ventricular arrhythmias interruption between the two ICD lead systems configuration. Instead, anodal defibrillation was more likely to be successful than cathodal defibrillation.
Authors: C Narasimhan; P T Panotopoulos; S Deshpande; M R Jazayeri; A Dhala; Z Blanck; M Akhtar; J Sra Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Bruce L Wilkoff; Laurent Fauchier; Martin K Stiles; Carlos A Morillo; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jesœs Almendral; Luis Aguinaga; Ronald D Berger; Alejandro Cuesta; James P Daubert; Sergio Dubner; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Guilherme Fenelon; Fermin C Garcia; Maurizio Gasparini; David E Haines; Jeff S Healey; Jodie L Hurtwitz; Roberto Keegan; Christof Kolb; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Germanas Marinskis; Martino Martinelli; Mark McGuire; Luis G Molina; Ken Okumura; Alessandro Proclemer; Andrea M Russo; Jagmeet P Singh; Charles D Swerdlow; Wee Siong Teo; William Uribe; Sami Viskin; Chun-Chieh Wang; Shu Zhang Journal: J Arrhythm Date: 2016-02-01