Key result
Transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation was effective in a canine model, but carried a 0.1% risk of VF induction, higher with integrated vs separate bipolar RV sensing (0.3% vs 0%).
Why the study?
Does transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation effectively terminate atrial fibrillation without inducing ventricular fibrillation in a canine model of ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Does transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation effectively terminate atrial fibrillation without inducing ventricular fibrillation in a canine model of ischemic cardiomyopathy?
In a canine model of ischemic cardiomyopathy, transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation is effective but carries a small risk of inducing ventricular fibrillation, which can be mitigated by using true bipolar RV sensing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Single-lead atrial defibrillation is feasible in canine ischemic cardiomyopathy models; leaves open human translation pending sensing optimization and safety data.
Transvenous atrial defibrillation with multiple atrial lead systems has been shown to be effective in models without the potential for ventricular arrhythmias. The specific aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation in a canine model of ischemic cardiomyopathy. Ten dogs had ischemic cardiomyopathy induced by repeated intracoronary microsphere injections. The mean LV ejection fraction decreased from 71% +/- 9% to 38% +/- 14% (P = 0.003). Spontaneous atrial fibrillation (AF) developed in four dogs, and in six AF was induced electrically. Atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) were determined with synchronous low energy shocks using a transvenous tripolar lead with two defibrillation coils (right ventricle, superior vena cava) and an integrated sensing lead (RV coil vs electrode tip). The ADFTs derived by logistic regression were compared at 50% and 90% probability of success (ED50, ED90): ED50 was 2.4 +/- 1.7 J and 2.9 +/- 2.1 J, respectively, for 5- and 10-ms monophasic shocks, and 1.8 +/- 0.9 J, respectively, for 5- and 10-ms biphasic shocks. Immediately after 3 of 2,179 (0.1%) synchronized shocks, ventricular fibrillation (VF) developed. VF was induced in 3 of 1,062 (0.3%) shocks with integrated sensing (RV coil vs electrode tip) compared to 0 of 1,117 shocks when a separate bipolar RV sensing electrode was used for synchronization. In our canine model of ischemic cardiomyopathy, low energy atrial defibrillation via a transvenous single lead system was highly effective. However, there was a small but definite risk of VF induction, which seemed to be greater when an integrated as opposed to a true bipolar RV sensing was used.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osswald et al. (1998) studied Ischemic cardiomyopathy with atrial fibrillation (n=10). Transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation vs. Integrated sensing vs separate bipolar RV sensing was evaluated on Ventricular fibrillation induction. Transvenous single lead atrial defibrillation was effective in a canine model, but carried a 0.1% risk of VF induction, higher with integrated vs separate bipolar RV sensing (0.3% vs 0%).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: