4.5 Article

Single-Coil Defibrillator Leads Yield Satisfactory Defibrillation Safety Margin in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 80, 期 10, 页码 2199-2203

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-16-0428

关键词

Defibrillation threshold; Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Single-coil leads

资金

  1. Medtronic Japan Fellowship for Young Japanese Investigator
  2. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1TR000135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Single-coil defibrillator leads have gained favor because of their potential ease of extraction. However, a high defibrillation threshold remains a concern in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), and in many cases, dual-coil leads have been used for this patient group. There is little data on using single-coil leads for HCM patients. Methods and Results: We evaluated 20 patients with HCM who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) on the left side in combination with a dual-coil lead. Two sets of defibrillation tests were performed in each patient, one with the superior vena cava (SVC) coil on and one with the SVC coil off. ICDs were programmed to deliver 25 joules (J) for the first attempt followed by maximum energy (35 J or 40 J). Shock impedance and shock pulse width at 25 J in each setting as well as the results of the shock were analyzed. All 25-J shocks in both settings successfully terminated ventricular fibrillation. However, shock impedance and pulse width increased substantially with the SVC coil programmed off compared with on (66.4+/-6.1 ohm and 14.0+/-1.3 ms off vs. 41.9+/-5.0 ohm and 9.3+/-0.8 ms on, P<0.0001 respectively). Conclusions: Biphasic 25-J shocks with the SVC coil 'off' successfully terminated ventricular fibrillation in HCM patients, indicating a satisfactory safety margin for 35-J devices. Single-coil leads appear appropriate for left-sided implantation in this patient group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据