Literature DB >> 9869996

Submuscular versus subcutaneous pectoral implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators: effect on high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation efficacy.

D Iskos1, K Lock, K G Lurie, G J Fahy, S Petersen-Stejskal, D G Benditt.   

Abstract

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators are now routinely positioned in a pectoral location, either submuscularly (under the pectoralis muscles) or subcutaneously (over the pectoralis muscles). Furthermore, in current ICDs, the generator shield usually participates in the defibrillation energy pathway ("hot can"). Consequently, the precise generator location could affect defibrillation system efficacy. To assess this issue, we compared high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation threshold (DFT) in 20 patients undergoing submuscular and 46 patients undergoing subcutaneous pectoral implantation of an Angeion Sentinel ICD and an AngeFlex dual-coil defibrillation lead. Measurements were performed at time of ICD implant, pre-hospital discharge, and 1, 3 and/or 6 months later. Following induction of ventricular fibrillation, 569 biphasic waveform shocks were delivered between the generator shield and either the distal defibrillation coil (RV/can configuration) or both proximal and distal coils (RV/SVC/can configuration). Impedance differences between submuscular and subcutaneous implants were approximately 3-4 Ohms (p value of 0.132 to < 0.001 depending on time of follow-up and lead configuration). A significant increase in impedance over time was noted independent of implant location and lead configuration. The DFT at implant or pre-discharge was assessed in 27 individuals, and was 9.9 +/- 3.8 J in 8 patients in the submuscular group, and 7.4 +/- 3.3 J in 19 patients in the subcutaneous group (p = 0.057). In conclusion, anatomic location of a "hot can" ICD generator (submuscular versus subcutaneous) influences impedance to defibrillation current, but the impact is of small magnitude and does not appear to result in clinically important differences in DFT.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9869996     DOI: 10.1023/a:1009764823782

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


  15 in total

1.  Serial defibrillation lead impedance in patients with epicardial and nonthoracotomy lead systems.

Authors:  D Schwartzman; M L Hull; D J Callans; C D Gottlieb; F E Marchlinski
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-08

2.  Complications associated with pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: comparison of subcutaneous and submuscular approaches. Worldwide Jewel Investigators.

Authors:  M R Gold; R W Peters; J W Johnson; S R Shorofsky
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1996-11-01       Impact factor: 24.094

3.  Increase in defibrillation threshold in non-thoracotomy implantable defibrillators using a biphasic waveform.

Authors:  D T Martin; R John; F J Venditti
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1995-08-01       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Early postoperative rise in defibrillation threshold in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems: attenuation with biphasic shock waveforms.

Authors:  D Schwartzman; D J Callans; C D Gottlieb; J Heo; F E Marchlinski
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  1996-06

5.  Importance of electrode design, lead configuration and impedance for successful low energy transcatheter atrial defibrillation in dogs.

Authors:  J M Kalman; J M Power; J M Chen; S J Farish; A M Tonkin
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  One-incision approach for insertion of implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Authors:  A Markewitz; H Kaulbach; S Mattke; U Dorwarth; C Weinhold; E Hoffmann; G Steinbeck; B Reichart
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Internal cardiac defibrillation: histopathology and temporal stability of defibrillation energy requirements.

Authors:  E S Fain; M Billingham; R A Winkle
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1987-03       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy.

Authors:  G K Jones; J E Poole; P J Kudenchuk; G L Dolack; G Johnson; P DeGroot; M J Gleva; M Raitt; G H Bardy
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1995-11-15       Impact factor: 29.690

9.  Early postoperative increase in defibrillation threshold with nonthoracotomy system in humans.

Authors:  H H Hsia; R L Mitra; B T Flores; F E Marchlinski
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 1.976

10.  Technique for implantation of cardioverter defibrillators in the subpectoral position.

Authors:  A H Foster
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 4.330

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Optimizing defibrillation waveforms for ICDs.

Authors:  Mark W Kroll; Charles D Swerdlow
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2007-06-01       Impact factor: 1.900

2.  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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.