Key result
A distal right ventricular coil configuration significantly reduced the mean delivered energy at defibrillation threshold compared to a proximal configuration (8.2 vs 11.2 J; P<0.01).
Why the study?
Does a distal right ventricular coil configuration reduce defibrillation thresholds compared to a proximal configuration in patients receiving a defibrillation lead?
RCT (n=31)
randomized
Does a distal right ventricular coil configuration reduce defibrillation thresholds compared to a proximal configuration in patients receiving a defibrillation lead?
A distal right ventricular coil configuration significantly reduces defibrillation thresholds compared to a proximal configuration, suggesting that defibrillation leads should be designed with the shortest possible tip-to-coil distance.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Distal RV coil placement lowers defibrillation energy requirements; supports lead redesign with minimal tip-to-coil distance.
UNLABELLED: Distal RV Coil Position Reduces DFTs. INTRODUCTION: Understanding the factors that affect defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) has important implications both for optimization of defibrillation efficacy and for the design of new transvenous leads. The aim of this prospective study was to test the hypothesis that defibrillation efficacy is improved with the right ventricular (RV) coil in a distal position compared with a more proximal RV coil position. METHODS AND RESULTS: A novel defibrillation lead with three adjacent RV defibrillation coils (distal 0.8 cm, middle 3.7 cm, proximal 0.8 cm) was used for this study to permit comparison of DFTs with the proximal and distal RV coil positions without lead repositioning. In the distal RV configuration, the distal and middle RV coils were connected electrically as the anode for defibrillation. In the proximal RV configuration, the middle and proximal coils were the anode. A superior vena cava (SVC) coil and active can were connected electrically as the cathode (reversed polarity, RV-->Can+SVC). In each patient, the DFT was measured twice using a binary search protocol with the distal RV and proximal RV configurations, with the order of testing randomized. The study cohort consisted of 31 subjects (mean age 65 +/- 12 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30% +/- 16%, 81% male predominance). The mean delivered energy (8.2 +/- 5.3 J vs 11.2 +/- 6.1 J), leading-edge voltage (335 +/- 109 V vs 393 +/- 118 V), and peak current (11.6 +/- 5.2 A vs 14.9 +/- 7.3 A) at DFT all were significantly lower with the distal RV configuration compared to the proximal RV configuration (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: DFTs are significantly reduced with the distal RV configuration compared to the proximal RV configuration. Defibrillation leads should be designed with the shortest tip to coil distance that can be achieved without compromising ventricular fibrillation sensing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rashba et al. (2003) conducted an RCT in Defibrillation threshold testing (n=31). Distal RV coil configuration vs. Proximal RV coil configuration was evaluated on Mean delivered energy at defibrillation threshold (p=<0.01). A distal right ventricular coil configuration significantly reduced the mean delivered energy at defibrillation threshold compared to a proximal configuration (8.2 vs 11.2 J; P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: