Advertisement

Click here for more guidelines.

 
 




CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home
     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 1994; 24:1069-1072
© 1994 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 Strickberger, S.
Right arrow Articles by Kou, W
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Strickberger, S.
Right arrow Articles by Kou, W

Effect of shock polarity on ventricular defibrillation threshold using a transvenous lead system

SA Strickberger, JD Hummel, LE Horwood, J Jentzer, E Daoud, M Niebauer, O Bakr, KC Man, BD Williamson, W Kou, et al.

Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor 48109-0022.

OBJECTIVES. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the polarity of a monophasic shock used with a transvenous lead system affects the defibrillation threshold. BACKGROUND. The ability to implant an automatic defibrillator depends on achieving an adequate defibrillation threshold. METHODS. A transvenous defibrillation lead with distal and proximal shocking electrodes was used in this study. In 29 consecutive patients, the defibrillation threshold, using a stepdown protocol was determined twice in random order: 1) with the distal coil as the anode, and 2) with the polarity reversed. Only the 20 patients in whom an adequate defibrillation threshold could be obtained with the transvenous lead alone were included in this study. These patients were 61 +/- 14 years old (mean +/- SD) and had a mean ejection fraction of 28 +/- 12%. RESULTS. The mean defibrillation threshold was 11.5 +/- 5.0 J with the distal coil as the anode versus 16.9 +/- 7.7 J with the distal coil as the cathode (p = 0.04). The defibrillation threshold was lower by a mean of 9 +/- 7 J with the former configuration in 14 patients and was lower by a mean of 7 +/- 6 J with the latter configuration in 3 patients; in 3 patients it was the same with both configurations. Use of a subcutaneous patch was avoided in five patients by utilizing the distal electrode as the anode. CONCLUSIONS. Defibrillation thresholds with monophasic shocks are approximately 30% lower with the distal electrode as the anode. The use of anodal shocks may obviate the need for a subcutaneous patch and allow more frequent implantation of a transvenous lead system.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
J. Huang, B. H. KenKnight, D. L. Rollins, W. M. Smith, and R. E. Ideker
Ventricular Defibrillation With Triphasic Waveforms
Circulation, March 21, 2000; 101(11): 1324 - 1328.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Am Coll CardiolHome page
S. Windecker, R. E. Ideker, V. J. Plumb, G. N. Kay, G. P. Walcott, and A. E. Epstein
The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 1999; 33(1): 33 - 38.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
Advanced Life Support Working Group of the Europea
The 1998 European Resuscitation Council guidelines for adult advanced life support
BMJ, June 20, 1998; 316(7148): 1863 - 1869.
[Full Text]


Home page
CirculationHome page
J. Huang, B. H. KenKnight, G. P. Walcott, D. L. Rollins, W. M. Smith, and R. E. Ideker
Effects of Transvenous Electrode Polarity and Waveform Duration on the Relationship Between Defibrillation Threshold and Upper Limit of Vulnerability
Circulation, August 19, 1997; 96(4): 1351 - 1359.
[Abstract] [Full Text]



 
  CME Topic Collections Past Issues Search Current Issue Home

Advertisement