The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Leakage current from transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs): A risk to the rescuer?

Leakage current from transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs): A risk to the rescuer?
Leakage current from transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs): A risk to the rescuer?

Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are a well-established therapy for patients at risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. With rising implant rates, the risk of a rescuer performing chest compressions during discharge is increasing, leading to concerns over rescuer safety from the resultant leakage current. More recently, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) have been developed, which utilise a higher energy and more superficial electrodes compared with transvenous ICDs (T-ICD), raising safety concerns further. Objective We measured the current a rescuer would potentially receive from T-ICDs and S-ICDs if they were in contact with the patient at the time of ICD discharge to assess its magnitude in relation to international safety standards. Methods Surface voltages adjacent to ICD electrodes were measured on patients undergoing defibrillation threshold checks. Rescuer current was then calculated assuming a total rescuer circuit impedance of 1696 Ω. Results Twenty-five patients were recruited. Rescuer current from S-ICDs was significantly higher than those from T-ICDs (S-ICD: Median RMS 135 mA range 91 mA–164 mA, T-ICD: Median RMS 31 mA, range 9 mA–75 mA, P < 0.0001). Surface voltages (median RMS) to which the rescuer is likely to be exposed are higher when performing chest compressions from the patient's left side compared with the right (127 V vs 67 V respectively, 95% CI of difference −34 V to −67 V, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Rescuers performing chest compressions on ICD patients are at risk from leakage current, particularly from S-ICDs. Chest compressions should be performed from the opposite side to the ICD to reduce rescuer risk.

CPR, Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, Resuscitation, Safety
0300-9572
148-153
Petley, Graham W.
4f2da40b-3c7b-4adc-b75c-e24e62bb1cf0
Albon, Beth
83f3d72f-6893-47ee-99ec-71af3bc96d4a
Banks, Phil
41d5666b-582d-4bfc-9f0a-78c84ffda976
Roberts, Paul R.
193431e8-f9d5-48d6-8f62-ed9052b2571d
Deakin, Charles D.
560d993b-bbc9-4548-9990-272ed18a011d
Petley, Graham W.
4f2da40b-3c7b-4adc-b75c-e24e62bb1cf0
Albon, Beth
83f3d72f-6893-47ee-99ec-71af3bc96d4a
Banks, Phil
41d5666b-582d-4bfc-9f0a-78c84ffda976
Roberts, Paul R.
193431e8-f9d5-48d6-8f62-ed9052b2571d
Deakin, Charles D.
560d993b-bbc9-4548-9990-272ed18a011d

Petley, Graham W., Albon, Beth, Banks, Phil, Roberts, Paul R. and Deakin, Charles D. (2019) Leakage current from transvenous and subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs): A risk to the rescuer? Resuscitation, 137, 148-153. (doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.011).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are a well-established therapy for patients at risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. With rising implant rates, the risk of a rescuer performing chest compressions during discharge is increasing, leading to concerns over rescuer safety from the resultant leakage current. More recently, subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) have been developed, which utilise a higher energy and more superficial electrodes compared with transvenous ICDs (T-ICD), raising safety concerns further. Objective We measured the current a rescuer would potentially receive from T-ICDs and S-ICDs if they were in contact with the patient at the time of ICD discharge to assess its magnitude in relation to international safety standards. Methods Surface voltages adjacent to ICD electrodes were measured on patients undergoing defibrillation threshold checks. Rescuer current was then calculated assuming a total rescuer circuit impedance of 1696 Ω. Results Twenty-five patients were recruited. Rescuer current from S-ICDs was significantly higher than those from T-ICDs (S-ICD: Median RMS 135 mA range 91 mA–164 mA, T-ICD: Median RMS 31 mA, range 9 mA–75 mA, P < 0.0001). Surface voltages (median RMS) to which the rescuer is likely to be exposed are higher when performing chest compressions from the patient's left side compared with the right (127 V vs 67 V respectively, 95% CI of difference −34 V to −67 V, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Rescuers performing chest compressions on ICD patients are at risk from leakage current, particularly from S-ICDs. Chest compressions should be performed from the opposite side to the ICD to reduce rescuer risk.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 12 February 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 19 February 2019
Published date: 1 April 2019
Keywords: CPR, Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, Resuscitation, Safety

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 431205
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/431205
ISSN: 0300-9572
PURE UUID: 660748a4-4452-4868-baae-a99beabe1cd9
ORCID for Graham W. Petley: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-3295-0444

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 24 May 2019 16:30
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 02:43

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Beth Albon
Author: Phil Banks
Author: Paul R. Roberts

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

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×