JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1993; 21:1632-1637
© 1993 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Leitch, J.
Right arrow Articles by Yee, R
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Leitch, J.
Right arrow Articles by Yee, R

Predictors of defibrillation efficacy in patients undergoing epicardial defibrillator implantation. The Multicenter Pacemaker-Cardioverter-Defibrillator (PCD) Investigators Group

JW Leitch and R Yee

Newcastle University, New South Wales, Australia.

OBJECTIVES. The objective of this study was to identify predictors of defibrillation threshold in patients undergoing epicardial defibrillator implantation. BACKGROUND. Factors that predict epicardial defibrillation efficacy are poorly defined. METHODS. The data from 375 consecutive adult patients were reviewed. After exclusion of 137 patients in whom defibrillation threshold was not obtained, 238 patients (32 women and 206 men) with a mean age of 58.9 +/- 13.3 years formed the study group. Coronary heart disease was present in 175 patients and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 35.8 +/- 15.4%. At device implantation, three epicardial patch sizes were available and shocks could be delivered over one current pathway (two patches) or over two current pathways (three patches with simultaneous or sequential shocks). Defibrillation threshold was defined as the lowest programmed energy that successfully defibrillated the heart, provided there had been an unsuccessful shock at a lower energy level or successful defibrillation at < or = 5 J. RESULTS. The mean defibrillation threshold was 8.6 +/- 5.3 J. With univariate analysis, female gender, sequential shocks with three patches, higher left ventricular ejection fraction and lower New York Heart Association functional class predicted a lower defibrillation threshold. In the multivariate analysis, female gender (coefficient -3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9 to -5.0 J), ejection fraction (coefficient -0.6; CI -0.1 to -1.0 J/decile) and sequential shocks (coefficient -2.5; CI -1.0 to -4.0 J) were independently associated with a lower defibrillation threshold. Total epicardial patch conductive surface area normalized to body surface area reached borderline significance (coefficient 0.004; CI 0 to 0.01; p = 0.10). Antiarrhythmic drug use, including amiodarone, did not predict defibrillation threshold. CONCLUSIONS. Female gender, high left ventricular ejection fraction and the use of sequential pulse shocks were important determinants of improved defibrillation efficacy.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol.Home page
G. L. Pierpont, S. S. Chugh, J. A. Hauck, and C. C. Gornick
Endocardial activation during ventricular fibrillation in normal and failing canine hearts
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, October 1, 2000; 279(4): H1737 - H1747.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1993 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.