Loading…

A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy

The active can unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to defibrillate efficiently, but its current 80-cc size limits use in the pectoral position in many patients. Decreasing can size will facilitate pectoral insertion and will soon be feasible as an inevitable conseque...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Circulation (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 1995-11, Vol.92 (10), p.2940-2943
Main Authors: JONES, G. K, POOLE, J. E, KUDENCHUK, P. J, DOLACK, G. L, JOHNSON, G, DEGROOT, P, GLEVA, M. J, RAITT, M, BARDY, G. H
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3
container_end_page 2943
container_issue 10
container_start_page 2940
container_title Circulation (New York, N.Y.)
container_volume 92
creator JONES, G. K
POOLE, J. E
KUDENCHUK, P. J
DOLACK, G. L
JOHNSON, G
DEGROOT, P
GLEVA, M. J
RAITT, M
BARDY, G. H
description The active can unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to defibrillate efficiently, but its current 80-cc size limits use in the pectoral position in many patients. Decreasing can size will facilitate pectoral insertion and will soon be feasible as an inevitable consequence of technological advancements. However, decreasing the can size has the potential to compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy. It is the purpose of this study, therefore, to prospectively and randomly compare unipolar defibrillation efficacy with 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc can sizes in patients immediately before ICD surgery in anticipation of advances in technology that will make smaller ICDs possible. Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent prospective, randomized evaluation of the effect of ICD can size on defibrillation efficacy during standard ICD surgery. Each patient had the unipolar defibrillation threshold (DFT) measured with 80-cc, 60-cc, or 40-cc active can placed in the left subcutaneous infraclavicular region. The system included a 10.5F tripolar right ventricular electrode that served as the shock anode. The shock waveform used in each instance was a single capacitor biphasic 65% pulse delivered from a 120-microF capacitor. Stored energy at the DFT for the 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc cans were 8.1 +/- 4.7 J, 8.7 +/- 5.8 J, and 9.5 +/- 4.8 J, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between the DFTs for the three unipolar can electrodes (P = 39). Leading edge voltage also did not differ significantly among the three unipolar cans (356 +/- 92 V, 365 +/- 110 V, and 387 +/- 94 V, respectively, P = .29). There was, however, a slight progressive increase in resistance with decreasing can size (57 +/- 7 omega, 60 +/- 9 omega, and 65 +/- 9 omega, respectively, P < .001). Decreasing can volume from 80 cc to 60 cc to 40 cc does not compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy despite a slight rise in shock resistance. These findings indicate that technological advances that allow for smaller-volume ICDs will not compromise defibrillation efficacy for unipolar systems.
doi_str_mv 10.1161/01.CIR.92.10.2940
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77697984</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>24043792</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUUuLFDEQDqKs4-oP8CAEEW89pvLodI7L4GNhQRA9h3RSgSz9MukeGGH_uxl2WMRTUfU9qKqPkLfA9gAtfGKwP9z-2Bu-rxNuJHtGdqC4bKQS5jnZMcZMowXnL8mrUu5r2wqtrsiVVl3LW7EjDzd0yXNZ0K_piDS7Kcxj-oOB4tENm1vTPNE50jQug5tW1w9IvcshzUfMK-YmYEx9TsPg1jnTUqW0KrYpLfPgMv0HPjuVU1lxpBhj8s6fXpMX0Q0F31zqNfn15fPPw7fm7vvX28PNXeOFkWsDzCjtDIiuE971IRoMLAQZQclgtFKOB9nV45Q24ILuNYogwUfTdQohiGvy8dG33vp7w7LaMRWPdasJ561YrVujTScr8f1_xPt5y1PdzXLgmulOtZUEjyRfP1cyRrvkNLp8ssDsORfLwNZcrOHnyTmXqnl3Md76EcOT4hJExT9ccFe8G2INwqfyROMGQHMQfwG8iJg0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>212707856</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>JONES, G. K ; POOLE, J. E ; KUDENCHUK, P. J ; DOLACK, G. L ; JOHNSON, G ; DEGROOT, P ; GLEVA, M. J ; RAITT, M ; BARDY, G. H</creator><creatorcontrib>JONES, G. K ; POOLE, J. E ; KUDENCHUK, P. J ; DOLACK, G. L ; JOHNSON, G ; DEGROOT, P ; GLEVA, M. J ; RAITT, M ; BARDY, G. H</creatorcontrib><description>The active can unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to defibrillate efficiently, but its current 80-cc size limits use in the pectoral position in many patients. Decreasing can size will facilitate pectoral insertion and will soon be feasible as an inevitable consequence of technological advancements. However, decreasing the can size has the potential to compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy. It is the purpose of this study, therefore, to prospectively and randomly compare unipolar defibrillation efficacy with 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc can sizes in patients immediately before ICD surgery in anticipation of advances in technology that will make smaller ICDs possible. Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent prospective, randomized evaluation of the effect of ICD can size on defibrillation efficacy during standard ICD surgery. Each patient had the unipolar defibrillation threshold (DFT) measured with 80-cc, 60-cc, or 40-cc active can placed in the left subcutaneous infraclavicular region. The system included a 10.5F tripolar right ventricular electrode that served as the shock anode. The shock waveform used in each instance was a single capacitor biphasic 65% pulse delivered from a 120-microF capacitor. Stored energy at the DFT for the 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc cans were 8.1 +/- 4.7 J, 8.7 +/- 5.8 J, and 9.5 +/- 4.8 J, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between the DFTs for the three unipolar can electrodes (P = 39). Leading edge voltage also did not differ significantly among the three unipolar cans (356 +/- 92 V, 365 +/- 110 V, and 387 +/- 94 V, respectively, P = .29). There was, however, a slight progressive increase in resistance with decreasing can size (57 +/- 7 omega, 60 +/- 9 omega, and 65 +/- 9 omega, respectively, P &lt; .001). Decreasing can volume from 80 cc to 60 cc to 40 cc does not compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy despite a slight rise in shock resistance. These findings indicate that technological advances that allow for smaller-volume ICDs will not compromise defibrillation efficacy for unipolar systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-7322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1524-4539</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.92.10.2940</identifier><identifier>PMID: 7586263</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CIRCAZ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Defibrillators, Implantable ; Diseases of the cardiovascular system ; Electric Countershock ; Equipment Design ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Prospective Studies ; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ; Tachycardia, Ventricular - therapy ; Ventricular Fibrillation - therapy</subject><ispartof>Circulation (New York, N.Y.), 1995-11, Vol.92 (10), p.2940-2943</ispartof><rights>1996 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Heart Association, Inc. Nov 15, 1995</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2911721$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7586263$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>JONES, G. K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>POOLE, J. E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KUDENCHUK, P. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DOLACK, G. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JOHNSON, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DEGROOT, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GLEVA, M. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RAITT, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BARDY, G. H</creatorcontrib><title>A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy</title><title>Circulation (New York, N.Y.)</title><addtitle>Circulation</addtitle><description>The active can unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to defibrillate efficiently, but its current 80-cc size limits use in the pectoral position in many patients. Decreasing can size will facilitate pectoral insertion and will soon be feasible as an inevitable consequence of technological advancements. However, decreasing the can size has the potential to compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy. It is the purpose of this study, therefore, to prospectively and randomly compare unipolar defibrillation efficacy with 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc can sizes in patients immediately before ICD surgery in anticipation of advances in technology that will make smaller ICDs possible. Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent prospective, randomized evaluation of the effect of ICD can size on defibrillation efficacy during standard ICD surgery. Each patient had the unipolar defibrillation threshold (DFT) measured with 80-cc, 60-cc, or 40-cc active can placed in the left subcutaneous infraclavicular region. The system included a 10.5F tripolar right ventricular electrode that served as the shock anode. The shock waveform used in each instance was a single capacitor biphasic 65% pulse delivered from a 120-microF capacitor. Stored energy at the DFT for the 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc cans were 8.1 +/- 4.7 J, 8.7 +/- 5.8 J, and 9.5 +/- 4.8 J, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between the DFTs for the three unipolar can electrodes (P = 39). Leading edge voltage also did not differ significantly among the three unipolar cans (356 +/- 92 V, 365 +/- 110 V, and 387 +/- 94 V, respectively, P = .29). There was, however, a slight progressive increase in resistance with decreasing can size (57 +/- 7 omega, 60 +/- 9 omega, and 65 +/- 9 omega, respectively, P &lt; .001). Decreasing can volume from 80 cc to 60 cc to 40 cc does not compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy despite a slight rise in shock resistance. These findings indicate that technological advances that allow for smaller-volume ICDs will not compromise defibrillation efficacy for unipolar systems.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Defibrillators, Implantable</subject><subject>Diseases of the cardiovascular system</subject><subject>Electric Countershock</subject><subject>Equipment Design</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</subject><subject>Tachycardia, Ventricular - therapy</subject><subject>Ventricular Fibrillation - therapy</subject><issn>0009-7322</issn><issn>1524-4539</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdUUuLFDEQDqKs4-oP8CAEEW89pvLodI7L4GNhQRA9h3RSgSz9MukeGGH_uxl2WMRTUfU9qKqPkLfA9gAtfGKwP9z-2Bu-rxNuJHtGdqC4bKQS5jnZMcZMowXnL8mrUu5r2wqtrsiVVl3LW7EjDzd0yXNZ0K_piDS7Kcxj-oOB4tENm1vTPNE50jQug5tW1w9IvcshzUfMK-YmYEx9TsPg1jnTUqW0KrYpLfPgMv0HPjuVU1lxpBhj8s6fXpMX0Q0F31zqNfn15fPPw7fm7vvX28PNXeOFkWsDzCjtDIiuE971IRoMLAQZQclgtFKOB9nV45Q24ILuNYogwUfTdQohiGvy8dG33vp7w7LaMRWPdasJ561YrVujTScr8f1_xPt5y1PdzXLgmulOtZUEjyRfP1cyRrvkNLp8ssDsORfLwNZcrOHnyTmXqnl3Md76EcOT4hJExT9ccFe8G2INwqfyROMGQHMQfwG8iJg0</recordid><startdate>19951115</startdate><enddate>19951115</enddate><creator>JONES, G. K</creator><creator>POOLE, J. E</creator><creator>KUDENCHUK, P. J</creator><creator>DOLACK, G. L</creator><creator>JOHNSON, G</creator><creator>DEGROOT, P</creator><creator>GLEVA, M. J</creator><creator>RAITT, M</creator><creator>BARDY, G. H</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><general>American Heart Association, Inc</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19951115</creationdate><title>A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy</title><author>JONES, G. K ; POOLE, J. E ; KUDENCHUK, P. J ; DOLACK, G. L ; JOHNSON, G ; DEGROOT, P ; GLEVA, M. J ; RAITT, M ; BARDY, G. H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Defibrillators, Implantable</topic><topic>Diseases of the cardiovascular system</topic><topic>Electric Countershock</topic><topic>Equipment Design</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</topic><topic>Tachycardia, Ventricular - therapy</topic><topic>Ventricular Fibrillation - therapy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>JONES, G. K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>POOLE, J. E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>KUDENCHUK, P. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DOLACK, G. L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>JOHNSON, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DEGROOT, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GLEVA, M. J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>RAITT, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BARDY, G. H</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Circulation (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>JONES, G. K</au><au>POOLE, J. E</au><au>KUDENCHUK, P. J</au><au>DOLACK, G. L</au><au>JOHNSON, G</au><au>DEGROOT, P</au><au>GLEVA, M. J</au><au>RAITT, M</au><au>BARDY, G. H</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy</atitle><jtitle>Circulation (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><addtitle>Circulation</addtitle><date>1995-11-15</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>92</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2940</spage><epage>2943</epage><pages>2940-2943</pages><issn>0009-7322</issn><eissn>1524-4539</eissn><coden>CIRCAZ</coden><abstract>The active can unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been shown to defibrillate efficiently, but its current 80-cc size limits use in the pectoral position in many patients. Decreasing can size will facilitate pectoral insertion and will soon be feasible as an inevitable consequence of technological advancements. However, decreasing the can size has the potential to compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy. It is the purpose of this study, therefore, to prospectively and randomly compare unipolar defibrillation efficacy with 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc can sizes in patients immediately before ICD surgery in anticipation of advances in technology that will make smaller ICDs possible. Twenty-four consecutive patients underwent prospective, randomized evaluation of the effect of ICD can size on defibrillation efficacy during standard ICD surgery. Each patient had the unipolar defibrillation threshold (DFT) measured with 80-cc, 60-cc, or 40-cc active can placed in the left subcutaneous infraclavicular region. The system included a 10.5F tripolar right ventricular electrode that served as the shock anode. The shock waveform used in each instance was a single capacitor biphasic 65% pulse delivered from a 120-microF capacitor. Stored energy at the DFT for the 80-cc, 60-cc, and 40-cc cans were 8.1 +/- 4.7 J, 8.7 +/- 5.8 J, and 9.5 +/- 4.8 J, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between the DFTs for the three unipolar can electrodes (P = 39). Leading edge voltage also did not differ significantly among the three unipolar cans (356 +/- 92 V, 365 +/- 110 V, and 387 +/- 94 V, respectively, P = .29). There was, however, a slight progressive increase in resistance with decreasing can size (57 +/- 7 omega, 60 +/- 9 omega, and 65 +/- 9 omega, respectively, P &lt; .001). Decreasing can volume from 80 cc to 60 cc to 40 cc does not compromise unipolar defibrillation efficacy despite a slight rise in shock resistance. These findings indicate that technological advances that allow for smaller-volume ICDs will not compromise defibrillation efficacy for unipolar systems.</abstract><cop>Hagerstown, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</pub><pmid>7586263</pmid><doi>10.1161/01.CIR.92.10.2940</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-7322
ispartof Circulation (New York, N.Y.), 1995-11, Vol.92 (10), p.2940-2943
issn 0009-7322
1524-4539
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77697984
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Defibrillators, Implantable
Diseases of the cardiovascular system
Electric Countershock
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Male
Medical sciences
Prospective Studies
Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)
Tachycardia, Ventricular - therapy
Ventricular Fibrillation - therapy
title A prospective randomized evaluation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator size on unipolar defibrillation system efficacy
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T08%3A16%3A22IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20prospective%20randomized%20evaluation%20of%20implantable%20cardioverter-defibrillator%20size%20on%20unipolar%20defibrillation%20system%20efficacy&rft.jtitle=Circulation%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=JONES,%20G.%20K&rft.date=1995-11-15&rft.volume=92&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2940&rft.epage=2943&rft.pages=2940-2943&rft.issn=0009-7322&rft.eissn=1524-4539&rft.coden=CIRCAZ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1161/01.CIR.92.10.2940&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E24043792%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-10957a913883cabdf9ed0dd4f154d9755a2d480065791ad7b7e3d41cf9885e1d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=212707856&rft_id=info:pmid/7586263&rfr_iscdi=true