Premium
Bidirectional Defibrillation Using Implantable Defibrillators: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Pectoral and Abdominal Active Generators
Author(s) -
SANDSTEDT BENGT,
KENNERGREN CHARLES,
EDVARDSSON NILS
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
pacing and clinical electrophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.686
H-Index - 101
eISSN - 1540-8159
pISSN - 0147-8389
DOI - 10.1046/j.1460-9592.2001.01343.x
Subject(s) - medicine , defibrillation , pectoral muscle , defibrillation threshold , surgery , cardiology
SANDSTEDT, B., et al. : Bidirectional Defibrillation Using Implantable Defibrillators: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Between Pectoral and Abdominal Active Generators. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of active abdominal and pectoral generator positions on DFTs in a bidirectional tripolar ICD system. Twenty‐five consecutive patients had ICD systems implanted under general anesthesia. A transvenous single lead bipolar defibrillation system and an active 57‐cc test emulator in the abdominal and pectoral positions were used in the same patient. A randomized, alternating stepdown protocol was used starting at 15 J with 3‐J decrements until failure. The mean implantation time was 114 ± 23 minutes , the mean arrhythmia duration was 14.5 ± 1.5 seconds , and the mean recovery time was 5.4 ± 1.1 minutes . The mean DFTs in the abdominal and pectoral positions were 10.9 ± 5.1 and 9.7 ± 5.2 J , respectively (NS), the mean intraindividual DFT difference (abdominal minus pectoral) was −0.89 ± 4.15 J ( range −9.5 to + 5.8 J ). The 95% confidence interval showed a −2.60 to + 0.82 J mean difference (NS). The DFT was < 15 J in 72% and 88% of the patients and the defibrillation impedance was 41 ± 3 and 44 ± 3 Ω , abdominal versus pectoral positions. There was no difference in DFT between active abdominal and pectoral generator bidirectional tripolar defibrillation. The pectoral position may be considered the primary option, but in cases of high DFTs the abdominal site should be considered an alternative to adding a subcutaneous patch. In some patients, the anatomy may favor an abdominal position. Possible differences in the long‐term functionality on the leads are not yet well known and need to be further evaluated.