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 Kudenchuk, P. J. Articles by Johnson, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kudenchuk, P. J. Articles by Johnson, G.

Circulation, Vol 89, 2641-2644, Copyright © 1994 by American Heart Association

ARTICLES

Efficacy of a single-lead unipolar transvenous defibrillator compared with a system employing an additional coronary sinus electrode. A prospective, randomized study

PJ Kudenchuk, GH Bardy, GL Dolack, JE Poole, R Mehra and G Johnson
Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle 98195.

BACKGROUND: Recent development of a prototype single-lead unipolar transvenous defibrillator offers the possibility of device implantation with the ease of a permanent pacemaker. Lowering defibrillation energy requirements would allow for a further reduction in defibrillator generator size and enhance the feasibility of pacemaker-like placement. However, if achieving a lower defibrillation energy requires placing additional intracardiac leads, the potential advantage of a smaller generator may be offset by the disadvantages of a more complex lead system. The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation energy requirements of a single-lead unipolar defibrillator with a three- electrode system employing an additional lead in the coronary sinus. METHODS AND RESULTS: Testing of a single-lead unipolar biphasic pulse defibrillation system versus a three-electrode system with an additional coronary sinus lead was performed in prospective, randomized fashion in 15 patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with alternating current, and defibrillation threshold was measured by a pulse given 10 seconds after arrhythmia induction. The mean defibrillation threshold stored energy and mean leading edge voltage did not significantly differ between the two systems (11.3 +/- 5.9 J versus 9.9 +/- 5.2 J and 418 +/- 118 V versus 390 +/- 112 V, respectively; P > .4). Using either defibrillation system, all patients were successfully defibrillated by < 24 J and over half of patients by < 10 J. CONCLUSIONS: A unipolar transvenous biphasic defibrillation system is an effective means of treating ventricular fibrillation. The added complexity of additional leads is not offset by any significant improvement in defibrillation efficacy or energy requirements. Given the simplicity and effectiveness of a single-lead system coupled with a small generator, placement of defibrillation systems may now approach the ease of pacemaker implantation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Butter, E. Meisel, J. Tebbenjohanns, L. Engelmann, E. Fleck, B. Schubert, S. Hahn, and D. Pfeiffer Transvenous Biventricular Defibrillation Halves Energy Requirements in Patients Circulation, November 20, 2001; 104(21): 2533 - 2538. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Yamanouchi, K. A. Mowrey, M. J. Niebauer, P. J. Tchou, and B. L. Wilkoff Additional Lead Improves Defibrillation Efficacy With an Abdominal `Hot Can' Electrode System Circulation, December 16, 1997; 96(12): 4400 - 4407. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				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]

				G. H. Bardy, J. E. Poole, P. J. Kudenchuk, G. L. Dolack, R. Mehra, P. DeGroot, M. H. Raitt, G. K. Jones, and G. Johnson A Prospective Randomized Comparison in Humans of Biphasic Waveform 60-µF and 120-µF Capacitance Pulses Using A Unipolar Defibrillation System Circulation, January 1, 1995; 91(1): 91 - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text]