This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bardy, G. H. Articles by Ivey, T. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bardy, G. H. Articles by Ivey, T. D.

Circulation, Vol 81, 1252-1259, Copyright © 1990 by American Heart Association

ARTICLES

Transvenous defibrillation in humans via the coronary sinus

GH Bardy, MD Allen, R Mehra, G Johnson, S Feldman, HL Greene and TD Ivey
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.

A consistently effective transvenous defibrillation system for use in automatic defibrillators could significantly alter the approach to patients at risk of sudden death. Transvenous defibrillation systems that use a right ventricular (RV) electrode only or an RV electrode in combination with a chest patch are relatively inefficient at applying current to the posterolateral left ventricle. An RV electrode combined with a coronary sinus (CS) electrode, however, may improve current distribution to the posterolateral left ventricle. The purpose of this investigation, therefore, was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a specially designed transvenous lead system with a CS electrode capable of current delivery to this relatively inaccessible region of the heart. In 20 survivors of cardiac arrest, we determined defibrillation efficacy immediately before defibrillator surgery for monophasic pulses delivered between an RV catheter electrode and a CS catheter electrode system and compared these findings with an RV catheter electrode-thoracic patch defibrillation system. Subsequently, we referenced the efficacy of both transvenous systems to an epicardial patch electrode system at the time of defibrillator implantation. The mean delivered-energy defibrillation threshold for the CS-RV electrode system was 17.5 +/- 7.9 J, which was substantially lower than the RV electrode-thoracic patch system (25.6 +/- 11.4 J, p = 0.0016 [46% more]). Defibrillation threshold voltage was 529 +/- 123 V for the CS- RV electrode system and 647 +/- 164 V (22% more) for the RV electrode- thoracic patch system (p = 0.0013).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Manoharan, N. Evans, D. Allen, J. Anderson, and J. Adgey Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Monophasic Waveform Delivered by the Passive Implantable Atrial Defibrillator With Biphasic Waveforms in Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation Circulation, April 6, 2004; 109(13): 1686 - 1692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Winter, J. E. Heil, C. Schumann, Y. Lin, C. M. Schannwell, U. Michel, J. D. Schipke, H. D. Schulte, and E. Gams Effect of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator lead placement in the right ventricle on defibrillation energy requirements. A combined experimental and clinical study Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., October 1, 1999; 14(4): 419 - 425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Delfaut, S. Saksena, A. Prakash, and R. B. Krol Long-term outcome of patients with drug-refractory atrial flutter and fibrillation after single- and dual-site right atrial pacing for arrhythmia prevention J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., December 1, 1998; 32(7): 1900 - 1908. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. K. Jones, J. E. Poole, P. J. Kudenchuk, G. L. Dolack, G. Johnson, P. DeGroot, M. J. Gleva, M. Raitt, and G. H. Bardy A Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Size on Unipolar Defibrillation System Efficacy Circulation, November 15, 1995; 92(10): 2940 - 2943. [Abstract] [Full Text]