Single and dual coil shock efficacy and predictors of shock failure in patients with modern implantable cardioverter defibrillators—a single-center paired randomized study
- 61 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
Implant defibrillation testing of modern intravenous ICD systems demonstrates high shock efficacy with no difference between single and dual coil vectors.
KeywordsImplantable cardioverter defibrillator Defibrillation Shock efficacy Leads Coil
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.
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).
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.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