This Article Figures Only Full Text 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 Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cooklin, M. Articles by Gold, M. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cooklin, M. Articles by Gold, M. R.

CLINICAL STUDIES

Atrial defibrillation with a transvenous lead

A randomized comparison of active can shocking pathways

^a Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Manuscript received August 12, 1998; revised manuscript received March 6, 1999, accepted April 21, 1999.

Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Michael R. Gold, Division of Cardiology, N3W77, University of Maryland Medical System, 22 South Greene Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201
MGold{at}medicine.ab.umd.edu

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare transvenous atrial defibrillation thresholds with lead configurations consisting of an active left pectoral electrode and either single or dual transvenous coils.

BACKGROUND

Low atrial defibrillation thresholds are achieved using complex lead systems including coils in the coronary sinus. However, the efficacy of more simple ventricular defibrillation leads with active pectoral pulse generators to defibrillate atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of shock configuration on atrial defibrillation thresholds in 32 patients. The lead system was a dual coil Endotak DSP lead with a left pectoral pulse generator emulator. Shocks were delivered either between the right ventricular coil and an active can in common with the proximal atrial coil (triad) or between the atrial coil and active can (transatrial).

RESULTS

Delivered energy at defibrillation threshold was 7.1 ± 6.0 J in the transatrial configuration and 4.0 ± 4.2 J in the triad configuration (p < 0.005). Moreover, a low threshold (3 J) was observed in 69% of subjects in the triad configuration but only 47% in the transatrial configuration. Peak voltage and shock impedance were also lowered significantly in the triad configuration. Left atrial size was the only clinical predictor of the defibrillation theshold (r = 0.57, p < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that low atrial defibrillation thresholds can be achieved using a single-pass transvenous ventricular defibrillation lead with a conventional ventricular defibrillation pathway. These data support the development of the combined atrial and ventricular defibrillator system.

Abbreviations and Acronyms   AF = atrial fibrillation   ICD = implantable cardioverter defibrillator

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. R. J. Mitchell, P. A. R. Spurrell, K. Kamalvand, M. Higson, R. Shanmuganathan, N. R. Patel, and N. Sulke What is the optimal electrode configuration for atrial defibrillators in man? Europace, January 1, 2002; 4(1): 41 - 44. [Full Text] [PDF]