Comparison of coronary venous defibrillation with conventional transvenous internal defibrillation in man
Comparison of coronary venous defibrillation with conventional transvenous internal defibrillation in man
Animal studies have shown that defibrillation in coronary veins is more effective than in the right ventricle. We aimed to assess the feasibility of placing defibrillation electrodes in the middle cardiac vein (MCV) in man and its impact on defibrillation requirements.
Methods: A prospective randomised study conducted in a tertiary referral centre. 10 patients (9 male) undergoing ICD implantation (65 (12) yrs) for NASPE/BPEG indications were studied. Defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were measured, using a binary search and an external defibrillator after 10 seconds of ventricular fibrillation, for the following configurations in each patient (order of testing randomised): RV + MCV rarr Can and RV rarr SVC + Can.
Interventions: A dual coil defibrillation electrode was placed transvenously in the right ventricle (RV) in the conventional manner. Using a guiding catheter a 3.2 Fr (67.5 mm length) electrode was placed transvenously in MCV. A test-can was placed subcutaneously in the left pectoral region.
Results: Lead placement was possible in 8/10 pts. Time to perform a middle cardiac venogram and place the electrode was 21 (23) mins. No adverse events were observed. Defibrillation current was less (6.7 (2.7) A) with RV + MCV rarr Can compared to the conventional RV rarr SVC + Can configuration (8.9 (3.4) A, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in defibrillation voltage or energy. However, shock impedance was higher in the former configuration (57 (10) v. 43 (6) OHgr, p = 0.001).
Conclusions: In the majority of cases placement of a defibrillation lead in MCV is feasible. Defibrillation current requirements are 25% less when the shock is delivered using a MCV electrode.
defibrillation, current, ventricular fibrillation, coronary veins
65-70
Roberts, P.R.
5d0fdeae-59ed-42d0-8f06-83b3426d41af
Paisey, J.R.
c6e4e5a7-1487-47b5-94e6-96159329b20c
Betts, T.R.
29d308cf-9ae7-4d89-8914-b6bda37a695e
Allen, S.
48aec8ad-441b-4cec-8bd8-c90296ed54b2
Whitman, T.
72148024-ff4e-4a85-8182-ea92b5430874
Bonner, M.
703b025c-45cd-4cc4-86d6-af58ce948154
Morgan, J.M.
e1a187e2-3fae-414d-86b6-dfe336ec94f9
2003
Roberts, P.R.
5d0fdeae-59ed-42d0-8f06-83b3426d41af
Paisey, J.R.
c6e4e5a7-1487-47b5-94e6-96159329b20c
Betts, T.R.
29d308cf-9ae7-4d89-8914-b6bda37a695e
Allen, S.
48aec8ad-441b-4cec-8bd8-c90296ed54b2
Whitman, T.
72148024-ff4e-4a85-8182-ea92b5430874
Bonner, M.
703b025c-45cd-4cc4-86d6-af58ce948154
Morgan, J.M.
e1a187e2-3fae-414d-86b6-dfe336ec94f9
Roberts, P.R., Paisey, J.R., Betts, T.R., Allen, S., Whitman, T., Bonner, M. and Morgan, J.M.
(2003)
Comparison of coronary venous defibrillation with conventional transvenous internal defibrillation in man.
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology, 8 (1), .
(doi:10.1023/A:1022300316980).
Abstract
Animal studies have shown that defibrillation in coronary veins is more effective than in the right ventricle. We aimed to assess the feasibility of placing defibrillation electrodes in the middle cardiac vein (MCV) in man and its impact on defibrillation requirements.
Methods: A prospective randomised study conducted in a tertiary referral centre. 10 patients (9 male) undergoing ICD implantation (65 (12) yrs) for NASPE/BPEG indications were studied. Defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were measured, using a binary search and an external defibrillator after 10 seconds of ventricular fibrillation, for the following configurations in each patient (order of testing randomised): RV + MCV rarr Can and RV rarr SVC + Can.
Interventions: A dual coil defibrillation electrode was placed transvenously in the right ventricle (RV) in the conventional manner. Using a guiding catheter a 3.2 Fr (67.5 mm length) electrode was placed transvenously in MCV. A test-can was placed subcutaneously in the left pectoral region.
Results: Lead placement was possible in 8/10 pts. Time to perform a middle cardiac venogram and place the electrode was 21 (23) mins. No adverse events were observed. Defibrillation current was less (6.7 (2.7) A) with RV + MCV rarr Can compared to the conventional RV rarr SVC + Can configuration (8.9 (3.4) A, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in defibrillation voltage or energy. However, shock impedance was higher in the former configuration (57 (10) v. 43 (6) OHgr, p = 0.001).
Conclusions: In the majority of cases placement of a defibrillation lead in MCV is feasible. Defibrillation current requirements are 25% less when the shock is delivered using a MCV electrode.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 2003
Keywords:
defibrillation, current, ventricular fibrillation, coronary veins
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 25943
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/25943
ISSN: 1383-875X
PURE UUID: c2f2205f-f92b-46a2-9704-a9143f554775
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 20 Apr 2006
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 07:06
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
P.R. Roberts
Author:
J.R. Paisey
Author:
T.R. Betts
Author:
S. Allen
Author:
T. Whitman
Author:
M. Bonner
Author:
J.M. Morgan
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics