Premium
Changes in the Amplitude of Endocardial Electrograms Following Defibrillator Discharge : Comparison of Two Lead Systems
Author(s) -
JUNG WERNER,
MANZ MATTHIAS,
MOOSDORF RAINER,
TEBBENJOHANNS JüRGEN,
PFEIFFER DIETRICH,
LüDERITZ BERNDT
Publication year - 1995
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.1540-8159.1995.tb04643.x
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , lead (geology) , ventricular fibrillation , sinus rhythm , shock (circulatory) , normal sinus rhythm , atrial fibrillation , fibrillation , amplitude , physics , quantum mechanics , geomorphology , geology
Changes in the amplitude of endocardial electrograms after an unsuccessful shock attempt have been demonstrated to cause failure of redetection of ventricular fibrillation in patients using an integrated sense‐pace defibrillating lead system. Thus, the objective of this study was to compare the effects of defibrillator shocks on the amplitude of endocardial electrograms in 26 patients using two different nonthoracotomy systems, a previous lead (model 0062) or a redesigned version (model 0072). At implant, bipolar endocardial electrograms were obtained before each shock application, during initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation in case the applied shock was unsuccessful, and during intervals of 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 120 seconds after each shock delivery. No significant difference was noted in endocardial amplitudes between the lead models 0062 and 0072 during baseline sinus rhythm (12.2 ± 4.6mV vs 11.4 ± 3.8 mV), and during initial ventricular fibrillation (7.0 ± 2.4 mV vs 7.6 ± 2.3 mV). During redetection of ventricular fibrillation, however, there was a significant difference (P = 0.0006) in endocardial amplitudes (3.4 ± 1.9 mV vs 6.6 ± 2.3 mV) between both leads tested. Comparing lead models 0062 and 0072, marked differences were found in endocardial amplitudes during sinus rhythm 5, 10, and 20 seconds after successful arrhythmia termination: 2.8 ± 1.9 mV vs 8.6 ± 2.9 mV (P < 0.0001), 4.6 ± 2.9 mV vs 9.2 ± 3.2 mV (P = 0.0007), and 6.4 ± 4.0 mV vs 10.5 ± 3.6 mV (P = 0.01). At predischarge testing, failure of redetection of ventricular fibrillation was documented in two patients with the lead model 0062 requiring external defibrillation to restore sinus rhythm. These findings demonstrate a significant less postshock attenuation of the endocardial electrogram amplitudes during persistent ventricular fibrillation after an unsuccessful shock attempt as well as during sinus rhythm immediately following an effective shock delivery using the redesigned lead system model 0072 compared to the electrogram amplitudes obtained in patients using the previous lead model 0062.