Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Evaluation of Conventional and Novel Transvenous Pathways for Defibrillation

  • Published:
Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction: Conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillators employ endocardial (shock) electrodes with a lead located in the right ventricular apex (RV) and a “hot-can” electrode located subcutaneously in the left pectoral region. In the event of a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) a third electrode is frequently employed in the superior vena cava (SVC). We report the comparison of conventional and novel locations of additional electrodes with the RV/Can configuration, in a porcine model.

Method: In 12 anesthetized pigs (30–45 kg), endocardial defibrillation electrodes were randomized to the following locations: RV/Can, RV/Can + SVC, RV/Can + main pulmonary artery (MPA) and RV/Can + left pulmonary artery wedge position (PAW), RV/Can + high inferior vena cava (HIVC), RV/Can + Low inferior vena cava (LIVC). Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was induced using 60 Hz alternating current. After 10 seconds VF a rectangular biphasic shock was delivered by the ARD9000 (Angeion Corp). The DFT was determined for each configuration using a modified four-reversal binary search. All configurations were compared using a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical test and the five 3-electrode configurations were compared to the RV/Can position using a Dunnett test.

Results: Mean DFTs: RV = 21.5 ± 4.8 J, SVC = 16.8 ± 4.7 J (p < 0.05 vs. RV), HIVC = 21.1 ± 4.7 J (p <. 0.05), LIVC = 19.1 ± 5.7 J (p <. 0.05 vs. RV), MPA = 16.0 ± 5.8 J (p < 0.01), PAW = 17.5 ± 4.6 J (p < 0.05 vs. RV).

Conclusions: Relative to the RV/can configuration the addition of a third electrode in the PA, PAW or SVC significantly reduces the DFT in the pig. The addition of an electrode to the IVC did not significantly reduce the DFT in our model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Saksena S, Munsif A, Prakash A, Madan N. Future directions for implantable defibrillation. In: Lüderitz B, Saksena S, eds. Interventional Electrophysiology: A Textbook. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Company, 1996, 617–649.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mouchawar GA, Wolsleger WK, Doan PD, Causey JD, Kroll MW. Does an SVC electrode further reduce DFT in a hotcan ICD system? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997;20: 163–167.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Higgins SL, Alexander DC, Kuypers CJ, Brewster SA. The subcutaneous array: A new lead adjunct for the transvenous ICD to lower defibrillation thresholds. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995;18:1540–1548.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Jordaens L, Vertongen P, van Belleghem Y. A subcutaneous lead array for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1993;16:1429–1433.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Kall JG, Kopp D, Lonchyna V, Blakeman B, Cadman C, O'Connor M, Kinder C, Gilkerson J, Avery R, Wilber D. Implantation of a subcutaneous lead array in combination with a transvenous defibrillation electrode via a single infraclavicular incision. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995;18: 482–485.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chen PS, Wolf PD, Claydon FJ, Dixon EG, Vidaillet HJ, Danieley ND, Pilkington TC, Ideker RE. The potential gradient field created by epicardial defibrillation electrodes in dogs. Circulation 1986;74:626–636.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kontos MC, Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA, Damiano RJ, Akosah KO, Nixon JV, Stambler BS, KenKnight BH, Eyuboglu BM, Ideker RE. Factors associated with elevated impedance with a nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system. Impedance to defibrillation countershock: Does an optimal impedance exist? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995;18:2068–2087.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kerber RE, Spencer KT, Kallok MJ, Birkett C, smith R, Yoerger D, Kieso RA. Overlapping sequential pulses. A new waveform for transthoracic defibrillation. Circulation 1994;89:2369–2379.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fain ES, Sweeney MB, Franz MR. Sequential pulse internal defibrillation: Is there an advantage to “switched” current pathways? Am Heart J 1989;118:717–724.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Markewitz A, Kaulbach H, Mattke S, Dorwarth U, Hoffmann E, Weinhold C, Steinbeck G, Reichart B. The left subclavian vein as an alternative site for implantation of the second defibrillation lead. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995;18:401–405.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Nitta J, Khoury DS. Role of proximal electrode position in transvenous ventricular defibrillation. Ann Biomed Eng 1996;24:418–423.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stajduhar KC, Ott GY, Kron J, McAnulty JH, Oliver RP, Reynolds BT, Adler SW, Halperin BD. Optimal electrode position for transvenous defibrillation: A prospective randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:90–94.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Trappe HJ, Pfitzner P, Fain E, Dresler C, Fieguth HG. Transvenous defibrillation leads: Is there an ideal position of the defibrillation anode? Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1997;20:880–892.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bardy GH, Dolack GL, Kudenchuk PJ, Pooole 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;89:1090–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bardy GH, Allen MD, Mehra R, Johnson G. An effective and adaptable transvenous defibrillation system using the coronary sinus in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 1990;16:887–895.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bardy GH, Allen MD, Mehra R, Johnson G, Feldman S, Greene HL, Ivey TD. Transvenous defibrillation in humans via the coronary sinus. Circulation 1990;81:1252–1259.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kudenchuk PJ, Bardy GH, Dolack GL, Poole JE, Mehra R, Johnson G. Efficacy of a single-lead unipolar transvenous defibrillator compared with a system employing an additional coronary sinus electrode. A prospective, randomized study. Circulation 1994;89:2641–2644.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Levy S, Ricard P, Gueunoun M, Yapo F, Trigano J, Mansouri C, Paganelli F. Low-energy cardioversion of spontaneous atrial fibrillation. Immediate and long-term results. Circulation 1997;96:253–259.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Alt E, Schmitt C, Ammer R, Plewan A, Evans F, Paquantonio J, Ideker T, Lehmann G, Putter K, Schomig A. Effect of electrode position on outcome of low-energy intracardiac cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:621–625.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mouchawar GA, Schmidth JA, Johnson CR. Where and how long should the venous electrode be for lead only defibrillation? Circulation 1996;94:I-131 (abstract).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Austin E, Singer I. Operative techniques for implantation and testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. In: Singer I, ed. Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Company, 1994, 327–355.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kallok MJ, Marcaccini S. Efficacy of two transvenous electrode systems for sequential pulse defibrillation. In: Gomez FP, ed. Cardiac Pacing: Electrophysiology. Tachyarrhythmias. Madrid: Editorial Grouz, 1985, 1497–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hillsley RE, Wharton JM. Implantable atrial defibrillators. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 1995;6:634–648.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Alferness C, Ayers GM, Cooper RA, Ideker RE. Lead systems for atrial defibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1994;17:1043–1047.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cooper RA, Smith WM, and Ideker RE. Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: Marked reduction in defibrillation threshold with dual current pathways. Circulation 1997;96(8):2693–2700.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guse PA, Walcott GP, Rollins DL, Smith WM, Ideker RE. Defibrillation electrode configurations developed from cardiac mapping that combine biphasic shocks with sequential timing. Am Heart J 1992;124:1491–1500.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Singer I, Goldsmith J, Maldonado C. Transseptal defibrillation is superior for transvenous defibrillation. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1995;18:229–232.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zipes DP, Fischer J, King RM, Nicoll AdeB, Jolly WW. Termination of ventricular fibrillation in dogs by depolarizing a critical amount of myocardium. Am J Cardiol 1975;36:37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chen PS, Wolf PD, Ideker RE. Mechanism of cardiac defibrillation. A different point of view. Circulation 1991;84:913–919.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tang AS, Wolf PD, Afework Y, Smith WM, Ideker RE. Three-dimensional potential gradient fields generated by intracardiac catheter and cutaneous patch electrodes. Circulation 1992;85:1857–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kallok MJ. Pathways for Defibrillation Current. In: Kroll MW, Lehman MH, eds. Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy: The Engineering-Clinical Interface. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993;105–119.

  32. Bardou AL, Chesnais JM, Birkui PJ, Govaere MC, Auger PM, Von Euw D, Degonde J. Directional variability of stimulation threshold measurements in isolated guinea pig cardiomyocytes: Relationship with orthogonal sequential defibrillating pulses. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 1990;13:1590–1595.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tung L, Sliz N, Mulligan MR. Influence of electrical axis of stimulation on excitation of cardiac muscle cells. Circ Res 1991;69:722–730.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Gold JH, Schuder JC, Stoeckle H. Ventricular defibrillation with myocardial electrodes in the dog, calf, pony, and pig. Med Instrum 1980;14:19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Crick SJ, Sheppard MN, Ho SY, Gebstein L, Anderson RH. Anatomy of the pig heart: Comparisons with normal human cardiac structure. J Anat 1998;105–119.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Angeion Corporation, Minneapolis, MN

    Jon Fredric Urban, David Emerson Euler, Roger William Dahl & Michael John Kallok

  2. Department of Electrophysiology, Wessex Cardiothoracic Centre, Southampton University Hospitals, United Kingdom

    Paul Richard Roberts, Stuart Allen, David Charles Smith & John Mark Morgan

Authors
  1. Paul Richard Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stuart Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Charles Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon Fredric Urban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Emerson Euler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roger William Dahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael John Kallok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John Mark Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roberts, P.R., Allen, S., Smith, D.C. et al. A Systematic Evaluation of Conventional and Novel Transvenous Pathways for Defibrillation. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 3, 231–238 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009895623802

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009895623802

Search

Navigation