Key result
An active left subpectoral ICD can tended to lower the mean atrial cardioversion threshold compared to an inactive can (3.4 vs 4.5 J; P=0.07) and increased success at ≤3 J (57% vs 26%; P<0.04).
Why the study?
The influence of an active pectoral ICD can on the atrial cardioversion threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators was not well established.
RCT (n=40)
randomized
Active pectoral cans were associated with lower atrial cardioversion thresholds; leaves open whether this configuration improves outcomes in combined atrial-ventricular ICDs.
Recent studies have shown that transvenous atrial cardioversion is feasible with lead configurations primarily designed for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of an active pectoral ICD can on the atrial cardioversion threshold (ADFT). Forty consecutive patients received a transvenous single lead system (Endotak DSP 0125, CPI, St. Paul, MN, USA) in combination with a left subpectoral ICD (Ventak Mini, CPI) for treatment of malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Patients were randomized into two groups: 21 received a Hot Can 1743 and 19 patients a Cold Can 1741. Step-down testing of the ventricular defibrillation threshold (VDFT) was performed intraoperatively and evaluation of the ADFT for induced atrial fibrillation (AF) at predischarge. After testing, each patient received a 2-J shock and was asked to quantify discomfort on a numerical scale ranging from 0 to 10. Both groups were comparable with regard to all clinical parameters studied. The mean VDFT in patients with a Hot Can device was significantly lower than in patients with a Cold Can (7.5 +/- 2.3 J vs 9.8 +/- 3.8 J; P < 0.03). The mean ADFT in the Hot Can group tended to be lower than in the group with Cold Cans (3.4 +/- 1.4 J vs 4.5 +/- 2.4 J; P = 0.07), and the proportion of patients in whom atrial cardioversion was accomplished at low energies (< or = 3 J) was higher in patients with active compared with patients with inactive pulse generators (57% vs 26%; P < 0.04). The mean discomfort reported after delivery of a 2-J shock was comparable in both groups (Hot Can 5.2 +/- 1.9; Cold Can: 5.3 +/- 2.1; P = NS). We conclude that the inclusion of an active left subpectoral can in the defibrillation vector of a ventricular ICD seems to reduce the energy requirements for atrial cardioversion without increasing the discomfort caused by low energy shocks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heisel et al. (1999) conducted an RCT in malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias (n=40). Active pectoral ICD can (Hot Can) vs. Inactive pectoral ICD can (Cold Can) was evaluated on Atrial cardioversion threshold (ADFT) (p=0.07). An active left subpectoral ICD can tended to lower the mean atrial cardioversion threshold compared to an inactive can (3.4 vs 4.5 J; P=0.07) and increased success at ≤3 J (57% vs 26%; P<0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: