OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the optimal position for the proximal electrode in a two-electrode transvenous defibrillation system. BACKGROUND: Minimizing the energy required to defibrillate the heart has several potential advantages. Despite the increased use of two-electrode transvenous defibrillation systems, the optimal position for the proximal electrode has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: Defibrillation thresholds were determined twice in random sequence in 16 patients undergoingimplantation of a two-lead transvenous defibrillation system; once with the proximal electrode at the right atrial-superior vena cava junction (superior vena cava position) and once with the proximal electrode in the left subclavian-innominate vein (innominate vein position). RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) defibrillation threshold with the proximal electrode in the innominate vein position was significantly lower than with the electrode in the superior vena cava position (13.4 +/- 5.7 J vs. 16.3 +/- 6.6 J, p = 0.04). Defibrillation threshold with the proximal electrode in the innominate vein position was lower or equal to that achieved in the superior vena cava position in 75% of patients. In patients with normal heart size (cardiothoracic ratio < or = 0.55), the improvement in defibrillation threshold with the proximal electrode in the innominate vein position was more significant than in patients with an enlarged heart (innominate vein 13.0 +/- 6.5 J vs. superior vena cava 17.9 +/- 5.1 J, p < 0.01). In patients with an enlarged heart, no difference between the two sites was observed (innominate vein 13.9 +/- 4.5 J vs. superior vena cava 13.6 +/- 8.3 J, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: During implantation of a two-lead transvenous defibrillation system, positioning the proximal defibrillation electrode in the subclavian-innominate vein will lower defibrillation energy requirements in the majority of patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to determine the optimal position for the proximal electrode in a two-electrode transvenous defibrillation system. BACKGROUND: Minimizing the energy required to defibrillate the heart has several potential advantages. Despite the increased use of two-electrode transvenous defibrillation systems, the optimal position for the proximal electrode has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: Defibrillation thresholds were determined twice in random sequence in 16 patients undergoing implantation of a two-lead transvenous defibrillation system; once with the proximal electrode at the right atrial-superior vena cava junction (superior vena cava position) and once with the proximal electrode in the left subclavian-innominate vein (innominate vein position). RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) defibrillation threshold with the proximal electrode in the innominate vein position was significantly lower than with the electrode in the superior vena cava position (13.4 +/- 5.7 J vs. 16.3 +/- 6.6 J, p = 0.04). Defibrillation threshold with the proximal electrode in the innominate vein position was lower or equal to that achieved in the superior vena cava position in 75% of patients. In patients with normal heart size (cardiothoracic ratio < or = 0.55), the improvement in defibrillation threshold with the proximal electrode in the innominate vein position was more significant than in patients with an enlarged heart (innominate vein 13.0 +/- 6.5 J vs. superior vena cava 17.9 +/- 5.1 J, p < 0.01). In patients with an enlarged heart, no difference between the two sites was observed (innominate vein 13.9 +/- 4.5 J vs. superior vena cava 13.6 +/- 8.3 J, p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: During implantation of a two-lead transvenous defibrillation system, positioning the proximal defibrillation electrode in the subclavian-innominate vein will lower defibrillation energy requirements in the majority of patients.
Authors: P R Roberts; S Allen; D C Smith; J F Urban; D E Euler; R W Dahl; M J Kallok; J M Morgan Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 1.900