Efficacy and safety of monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks using a braided endocardial defibrillation lead system

Saksena, Sanjeev; Scott, Steven E.; Accorti, Peter; Boveja, Birinder; Abels, Debra; Callaghan, Frank

doi:10.1016/0002-8703(90)90246-t

Cited by 24 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 17 patients defibrillation testing was performed using a triple lead system {Transvene, Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN, USA), wbereas in tbe remaining 16 ) was introduced using a subclavian entry and positioned in tbe "bigb" superior vena cava. Tbe defibrillating sbadow area of tbis electrode was 3.61 cm^.…”

Section: Lead Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Efficacy of Different Tilts with Biphasic Defibrillation in Humans

Natale¹,

Sra

Krum

et al. 1996

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Lead Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relative Efficacy of Different Tilts with Biphasic Defibrillation in Humans

Natale¹,

Sra

Krum

et al. 1996

Pacing Clinical Electrophis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is due to the introduction of new lead models, as well as the use of an active ICD can and a biphasic defibrillating impulse [1–3]. But despite that, there is still a group of patients, in whom the maximal shock output of the implanted device fails to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF), or the DFT is too high to enable a sufficient safety margin between the DFT and the maximal available output of the device.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implantation of additional subcutaneous array electrode reduces defibrillation threshold in ICD patients – preliminary results

Kempa¹,

Budrejko²,

Drelich³

et al. 2013

aoms

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAmong the recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), there is a group of patients in whom the defibrillation threshold (DFT) is too high to enable a sufficient safety margin between the DFT and the maximal available output of the device. The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of an additionally implanted single-coil subcutaneous array electrode to reduce the DFT in such patients.Material and methodsMedtronic 6996SQ electrode was implanted in 15 patients selected from our follow-up group of 741 ICD patients: 10 of them had insufficient post-implant DFT safety margin, and 5 had ineffective first maximal energy shock as recorded by the device. In 6 cases the patients had CRT-D devices, in 5 cases – dual-chamber ICDs, and in 4 cases – single-chamber ICDs. In all patients but one the defibrillating electrode was single-coil. In one patient it was dual-coil. The underlying disease was coronary artery disease in 10 patients, dilated cardiomyopathy in 4 patients and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 1 patient.ResultsThe subcutaneous electrode was successfully implanted in all the patients qualified for the procedure. No technical issues or perioperative complications were observed. Mean DFT was reduced from 33.3 ±4.1 J before the procedure to 25.3 ±4.4 J after the implantation procedure (p < 0.01).ConclusionsOur results show that the use of a single-coil subcutaneous electrode to reduce the DFT is a safe and effective procedure. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

show abstract

Literatur

Jung¹

1995

Der Implantierbare Kardioverter-Defibrillator

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy and safety of monophasic and biphasic waveform shocks using a braided endocardial defibrillation lead system

Cited by 24 publications

References 16 publications

Relative Efficacy of Different Tilts with Biphasic Defibrillation in Humans

Relative Efficacy of Different Tilts with Biphasic Defibrillation in Humans

Implantation of additional subcutaneous array electrode reduces defibrillation threshold in ICD patients – preliminary results

Literatur

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About