Literature DB >> 29572716

Comparison of single-coil lead versus dual-coil lead of implantable cardioverter defibrillator on lead-related venous complications in a canine model.

Ziqing Yu1,2,3, Yuan Wu1, Shengmei Qin1,2, Jingfeng Wang1,2, Xueying Chen1,2, Ruizhen Chen1,4, Yangang Su5,6, Junbo Ge7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Dual- coil lead (DCL) of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is preferred clinically in patients. However, it is related to higher risk of venous stenosis and thrombosis. The present study was done to compare the fibrosis and extraction of the leads between the single-coil lead (SCL) and DCL in animal models.
METHODS: This was a chronic animal study with a follow-up duration of 6 months. Twenty mongrel dogs were randomly divided into DCL group or SCL group. Venography was performed before the sacrifice to evaluate the venous stenosis in vivo. The maximum pulling-out tension of the ICD lead was measured by a tensometer. Hematoxylin-eosin stain and toluidine blue O stain were applied to show the pathological changes of the superior vena cava (SVC) to evaluate the fibrosis and the thickness of the SVC adjacent to the leads.
RESULTS: The DCL group showed higher incidence of venous stenosis (OR = 31.5; 95% CI, 2.35-422.3; p = 0.005). It revealed increased tension to extract the leads in the DCL group (5.96 ± 1.86 vs. 3.68 ± 1.46 N, p = 0.027). The difference of venous wall thickness of SVC was 4.3 ± 0.3 fold-changes between two groups (p = 0.007). Moreover, the degree of venous wall fibrosis in DCL group was more serious than that it in SCL group (3.61 ± 1.26 vs. 1.08 ± 1.35 mm2, p = 0.015).
CONCLUSION: The DCL was proved to increase thrombosis, fibrosis, and stenosis in the SVC. Likewise, the DCL was mechanically harder to be extracted than the SCL. Our study showed that lead-related complications of the DCLs were higher than those of the SCLs regardless of the equal defibrillation thresholds between them. Results of the present study would help to choose the proper lead which could be removed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dual-coil lead; Fibrosis; Implantable cardioverter defibrillator; Single-coil lead; Stenosis

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29572716     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-018-0312-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  18 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

Review 2.  Strategic choices to reduce implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related morbidity.

Authors:  Oussama Wazni; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 32.419

3.  ICD implantation after crossing a totally occluded subclavian vein via collaterals from the superior vena cava.

Authors:  Ravi Ranjan; Charles A Henrikson
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 1.976

4.  Clinical predictors of adverse patient outcomes in an experience of more than 5000 chronic endovascular pacemaker and defibrillator lead extractions.

Authors:  Michael P Brunner; Edmond M Cronin; Valeria E Duarte; Changhong Yu; Khaldoun G Tarakji; David O Martin; Thomas Callahan; Daniel J Cantillon; Mark J Niebauer; Walid I Saliba; Mohamed Kanj; Oussama Wazni; Bryan Baranowski; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 6.343

Review 5.  Defibrillators: Selecting the Right Device for the Right Patient.

Authors:  Sana M Al-Khatib; Paul Friedman; Kenneth A Ellenbogen
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 6.  Venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators.

Authors:  Grzegorz Rozmus; James P Daubert; David T Huang; Spencer Rosero; Burr Hall; Charles Francis
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.900

7.  Shock efficacy of single and dual coil electrodes-new insights from the NORDIC ICD Trial.

Authors:  Dietmar Bänsch; Hendrik Bonnemeier; Johan Brandt; Frank Bode; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Oliver Ritter; Johannes Aring; Klaus-Jürgen Gutleben; Ralph Schneider; Angelika Felk; Tino Hauser; Anika Buchholz; Gerhard Hindricks; Karl Wegscheider
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 5.214

8.  Implantable intravascular defibrillator: defibrillation thresholds of an intravascular cardioverter-defibrillator compared with those of a conventional ICD in humans.

Authors:  Petr Neuzil; Vivek Y Reddy; Bela Merkely; Laszlo Geller; Levente Molnar; Jacek Bednarek; Krzysztof Bartus; Mark Richey; T J Ransbury Bsee; William E Sanders
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  Incidence of venous obstruction following insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. A study of systematic contrast venography on patients presenting for their first elective ICD generator replacement.

Authors:  Lars Lickfett; Alexander Bitzen; Aravind Arepally; Khurram Nasir; Christian Wolpert; Kyung Mi Jeong; Ulf Krause; Rainer Schimpf; Thorsten Lewalter; Hugh Calkins; Werner Jung; Berndt Lüderitz
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.214

10.  Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry.

Authors:  Eran Leshem; Mahmoud Suleiman; Avishag Laish-Farkash; Yuval Konstantino; Michael Glikson; Alon Barsheshet; Ilan Goldenberg; Yoav Michowitz
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 5.214

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Comparing the safety of subcutaneous versus transvenous ICDs: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Li Su; Jia Guo; Yingqun Hao; Hong Tan
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2021-01-11       Impact factor: 1.900

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.