Key result
Two-coil transvenous ICDs show comparable defibrillation thresholds to single-coil systems but lower R wave amplitude.
Why the study?
Does a two-coil transvenous ICD lead system improve defibrillation thresholds or lead parameters compared to a single-coil system in patients requiring ICDs?
Cohort (n=94)
Does a two-coil transvenous ICD lead system improve defibrillation thresholds or lead parameters compared to a single-coil system in patients requiring ICDs?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Both single-coil and two-coil transvenous ICD systems have high implantation success and low complication rates, though two-coil systems may be preferable to obviate the sporadic need for additional endocardial leads due to high defibrillation thresholds.
Two types of new-generation transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems, incorporating a two-coil (62 patients, group 1) versus single-coil (32 patients, group 2) lead system were compared among 94 consecutive patients. The two groups were comparable in age (58 +/- 13 vs 59 +/- 14 years), presenting arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia versus ventricular fibrillation 77%/21% vs 84%/13%), cycle length of induced VT (294 +/- 4 vs 289 +/- 44 ms), number of unsuccessful antiarrhythmic drugs (1.7 +/- 0.8 vs 1.7 +/- 0.7), and left ventricular ejection fraction (35 +/- 12% vs 34 +/- 9%). Both systems were successfully implanted strictly transvenously in all patients. Biphasic shocks were used in all patients. Active shell devices were used in 79% and 84% patients of groups I and II, respectively (P = NS). Intraoperative testing revealed comparable defibrillation threshold (DFT) values (10.2 +/- 3.7 J in group 1 versus 9.3 +/- 3.6 J in group 2 system), and pacing threshold (0.7 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.3 V), but R wave amplitude and lead impedance were lower in group 1 (13 +/- 5 vs 16 +/- 5 mV, P = 0.003; and 579 +/- 115 vs 657 +/- 111 ohms, P = 0.002, respectively). Lead insulation break requiring reoperation occurred in one patient with an Endotak lead, and two patients with Transvene leads had initially high DFT with a single one-lead/active can system, which was converted to a two- or three-endocardial-lead/inactive can configuration. We conclude that both single-coil and two-coil transvenous ICD systems were associated with high rates of successful strictly transvenous ICD implantation and a low incidence of lead-related complications. Significant differences were noted in the sensed R wave and lead impedance, probably reflecting the active fixation characteristics of the Transvene lead. However, in order to obviate the sporadic need for implantation of additional endocardial leads, as was the case in two patients in this series, a double-coil lead may be preferable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manolis et al. (2000) conducted a cohort in Ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation requiring ICD (n=94). Two-coil transvenous ICD system vs. Single-coil transvenous ICD system was evaluated on Defibrillation threshold (DFT) in Joules. Two-coil transvenous ICD systems demonstrated comparable defibrillation thresholds to single-coil systems (10.2 vs 9.3 J) and 100% successful implantation, but lower R wave amplitude and impedance.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: