Advertisement

Single and dual coil shock efficacy and predictors of shock failure in patients with modern implantable cardioverter defibrillators—a single-center paired randomized study

  • Jacob Moesgaard LarsenEmail author
  • Finn P. Heath
  • Sam Riahi
  • Katja Holm
  • Martin B. Johansen
  • Søren P. Hjortshøj
  • Anna M. Thøgersen
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) can treat life-threatening tachyarrhythmia with high-voltage shocks. The aims were to compare the efficacy of single and dual coil shock vectors in modern ICDs and to identify predictors of shock failure.

Methods

This is a single-center paired randomized study including 216 patients with mixed indications and ICDs from four manufacturers. All patients underwent two implant defibrillation tests using single and dual coil vectors with the test order randomized. Tested shock energy differed slightly between manufacturers because of differences in device programmability: first shock approximately 15 J below maximal output—if failed, second shock approximately 10 J below maximal output—if failed, third shock at maximal output.

Results

First shock success rate was 399/432 (92.4%). Comparing single and dual coil vectors, no differences were seen in first shock efficacy (91.7% vs. 93.1%, P = 0.629) or lowest tested succesfully stored energy (27.2 J vs. 27.1 J, P = 0.620). All successive internal shocks failed in 4/432 (0.9%) of inductions requiring external rescue shocks to restore circulation. Multivariate predictors of first shock failure were QRS duration (relative risk 0.81 per 10 ms, P = 0.001), amiodarone treatment (relative risk 3.30, P = 0.003), and body height (relative risk 1.70 per 10 cm, P = 0.019).

Conclusions

Implant defibrillation testing of modern intravenous ICD systems demonstrates high shock efficacy with no difference between single and dual coil vectors.

Keywords

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator Defibrillation Shock efficacy Leads Coil 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank senior biostatistician Søren Lundbye-Christensen for help planning the statistical analysis and research nurses Charlotte Schmidt Skov, Kasper Villefrance and Pauline Gøgsig Johansen for making completion of the study feasible. The study is dedicated to our deceased colleague, consultant cardiologist Ole Eschen PhD, who was a key investigator.

Funding

The study was funded by the Department of Cardiology at Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.

Compliance with ethical standards

The study protocol was approved by the local science ethics committee of the North Denmark Region (N-20110038) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (2008-58-0028).

References

  1. 1.
    Nanthakumar K, Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, Lee DS. Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a pooled analysis of 10 primary prevention trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:2166–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Connolly SJ, Hallstrom AP, Cappato R, Schron EB, Kuck KH, Zipes DP, et al. Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:2071–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gold MR, et al. Safety of a single successful conversion of ventricular fibrillation before the implantation of cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26:483–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardy GH, Dolack GL, Kudenchuk PJ, Poole JE, Mehra R, Johnson G. Prospective, randomized comparison in humans of a unipolar defibrillation system with that using an additional superior vena cava electrode. Circulation. 1994;89:1090–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schulte B, Sperzel J, Carlsson J, Schwarz T, Ehrlich W, Pitschner HF, et al. Dual-coil vs single-coil active pectoral implantable defibrillator lead systems: defibrillation energy requirements and probability of defibrillation success at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirements. Europace. 2001;3:177–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rinaldi CA, et al. A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26:1684–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gold MR, Foster AH, Shorofsky SR. Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1997;80:1163–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gold MR, Olsovsky MR, Pelini MA, Peters RW, Shorofsky SR. Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:1391–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gold MR, et al. Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2000;11:25–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Libero L, Lozano IF, Bocchiardo M, Marcolongo M, Sallusti L, Madrid A, et al. Comparison of defibrillation thresholds using monodirectional electrical vector versus bidirectional electrical vector. Ital Heart J. 2001;2:449–55.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gold M, Val-Mejias J, Leman RB, Tummala R, Goyal S, Kluger J, et al. Optimization of superior vena cava coil position and usage for transvenous defibrillation. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5:394–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bongiorni MG, Proclemer A, Dobreanu D, Marinskis G, Pison L, Blomstrom-Lundqvist C, et al. Preferred tools and techniques for implantation of cardiac electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey. Europace. 2013;15:1664–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baccillieri MS, Gasparini G, Benacchio L, Zorzi A, Marras E, Zerbo F, et al. Multicentre comparison of shock efficacy using single-vs. dual-coil lead systems and anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015;43:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsu JC, Saxon LA, Jones PW, Wehrenberg S, Marcus GM. Utilization trends and clinical outcomes in patients implanted with a single- vs a dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: insights from the ALTITUDE study. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12:1770–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen JM, Hjortshøj SP, Nielsen JC, Johansen JB, Petersen HH, Haarbo J, et al. Single-coil and dual-coil defibrillator leads and association with clinical outcomes in a complete Danish nationwide ICD cohort. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13:706–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bansch D, et al. Shock efficacy of single and dual coil electrodes-new insights from the NORDIC ICD trial. Europace. 2017;20:971–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sunderland N, et al. Outcomes with single-coil versus dual coil implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a meta-analysis. Europace. 2018;20:e21–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein LM, Love CJ, Wilkoff BL, Chung MK, Hackler JW, Bongiorni MG, et al. Superior vena cava defibrillator coils make transvenous lead extraction more challenging and riskier. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:987–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Healey JS, Hohnloser SH, Glikson M, Neuzner J, Mabo P, Vinolas X, et al. Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE). Lancet. 2015;385:785–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bansch D, et al. Intra-operative defibrillation testing and clinical shock efficacy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the NORDIC ICD randomized clinical trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:2500–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159:702–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birnie D, Tung S, Simpson C, Crystal E, Exner D, Ayala Paredes FA, et al. Complications associated with defibrillation threshold testing: the Canadian experience. Heart Rhythm. 2008;5:387–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Segreti L, di Cori A, Soldati E, Zucchelli G, Viani S, Paperini L, et al. Major predictors of fibrous adherences in transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11:2196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Cori A, et al. Transvenous extraction performance of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene covered ICD leads in comparison to traditional ICD leads in humans. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010;33:1376–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shukla HH, et al. High defibrillation thresholds in transvenous biphasic implantable defibrillators: clinical predictors and prognostic implications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003;26:44–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russo AM, Sauer W, Gerstenfeld EP, Hsia HH, Lin D, Cooper JM, et al. Defibrillation threshold testing: is it really necessary at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion? Heart Rhythm. 2005;2:456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Varma N, Efimov I. Right pectoral implantable cardioverter defibrillators: role of the proximal (SVC) coil. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008;31:1025–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verma A, Kaplan AJ, Sarak B, Oosthuizen R, Beardsall M, Higgenbottam J, et al. Incidence of very high defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and efficacy of subcutaneous (SQ) array insertion during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2010;29:127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilkoff BL, et al. HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing. Europace 2016. 2015;18:159–83.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Osswald BR, de Simone R, Most S, Tochtermann U, Tanzeem A, Karck M. High defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable defibrillator: how effective is the subcutaneous finger lead? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009;35:489–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologyAalborg University HospitalAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Clinical MedicineAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations