Premium
Two‐Coil Versus Single‐Coil Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillator Systems: Comparative Data
Author(s) -
MANOLIS ANTONIS S.,
CHILADAKIS JOHN,
MAOUNIS THEMOS N.,
VASSILIKOS VASSILIS,
COKKINOS DENNIS V.
Publication year - 2000
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.1540-8159.2000.tb07072.x
Subject(s) - medicine , implantable cardioverter defibrillator , electromagnetic coil , cardiology , electrical engineering , engineering
Two types of new‐generation transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems, incorporating a two‐coil (62 patients, group 1) versus single‐coil (32 patients, group 2) lead system were compared among 94 consecutive patients. The two groups were comparable in age (58 ± 13 vs 59 ± 14 years), presenting arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia versus ventricular fibrillation 77%/21% vs 84%/13%), cycle length of induced VT (294 ± 4 vs 289 ± 44 ms), number of unsuccessful antiarrhythmic drugs (1.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.7 ± 0.7), and left ventricular ejection fraction (35 ± 12% vs 34 ± 9%). Both systems were successfully implanted strictly transvenously in all patients. Biphasic shocks were used in all patients. Active shell devices were used in 79% and 84% patients of groups I and II, respectively (P = NS). Intraoperative testing revealed comparable defibrillation threshold (DFT) values (10.2 ± 3.7 J in group 1 versus 9.3 ± 3.6 J in group 2 system), and pacing threshold (0.7 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.3 V), but R wave amplitude and lead impedance were lower in group 1 (13 ± 5 vs 16 ± 5 mV, P = 0.003; and 579 ± 115 vs 657 ±111 ohms, P = 0.002, respectively). Lead insulation break requiring reoperation occurred in one patient with an Endotak lead, and two patients with Transvene leads had initially high DFT with a single one‐lead/active can system, which was converted to a two‐ or three‐endocardial‐lead/'inactive can configuration. We conclude that both single‐coil and two‐coil transvenous ICD systems were associated with high rates of successful strictly transvenous ICD implantation and a low incidence of lead‐related complications. Significant differences were noted in the sensed R wave and lead impedance, probably reflecting the active fixation characteristics of the Transvene lead. However, in order to obviate the sporadic need for implantation of additional endocardial leads, as was the case in two patients in this series, a double‐coil lead may be preferable.