Premium
Comparison of Simultaneous Versus Sequential Defibrillation Pulsing Techniques Using a Nonthoracotomy System
Author(s) -
HSIA HENRY H.,
KLEIMAN ROBERT B.,
FLORES BELINDA T.,
MARCHLINSKI FRANCIS E.
Publication year - 1994
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 - 10.1111/j.1540-8159.1994.tb01489.x
Subject(s) - defibrillation , medicine , defibrillation threshold , coronary sinus , cardiology , shock (circulatory) , ventricular fibrillation , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , lead (geology) , geomorphology , geology
The defibrillation threshold (DFT) using simultaneous (SIML) versus sequential (SEQ) pathways for shock delivery was compared in 16 patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator. All patients had three‐lead nonthoracotomy systems (NTL) using a left chest subcutaneous patch, a right ventricular endocardial lead, and a lead in the coronary sinus (n = 5) or superior vena cava (n = 11). The DFT were determined 2–44 days (17 ± 17 days) after implantation. The DFT was defined as the lowest energy shock that resulted in successful defibrillation. The first pathway tested was SIML in 12 and SEQ in 4 patients with output beginning at or above the intraoperative DFT, routinely 18 J. The second pathway was tested beginning 2–4 J above the DFT of the first tested pathway. All shocks were delivered in 2–4 J decrement or increment steps. The SEQ pathway shocks resulted in a significantly lower DFT than SIML pathway shocks (14 ± 6 vs 18 ± 6 J; I < 0.01). There was no difference in the time delay after ventricular fibrillation initiation before shock delivery for the successful defibrillation between SIML versus SEQ pathways (7 ± 2 secs for both pathways). In 7 of 16 patients, defibrillation using SEQ pathway resulted in a > 5 J lowering of DFT, while only one patient had > 5 J lowering of DFT using SIML shocks (P <0.05). These results have important implications for selecting the optimal pathway for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy with a multilead NTL system.