The optimal placement for the second defibrillation lead in a two-lead
system has never been addressed. We retrospectively reviewed the data
of 33 patients with an average age of 59.2 years (range 41-78 years),
predominantly male (n = 29), who underwent implantation of a cardiove
rter defibrillator (ICD) for treatment of ventricular tachycardia (n =
19) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 14). In all patients an attempt
was made to implant and endovenous ICD device (leads only, no subcutan
eous patch). In group I (n = 18) the defibrillation anode, a separate
unipolar lead, was placed in the common position, the superior vena ca
va. In group II (n = 15) the lead was placed in the left subclavian ve
in. At least two consecutive shocks reverting ventricular fibrillation
at energies less than or equal to 24J were required for implantation
of the ICD device. All shocks were monophasic. The success rate of end
ovenous defibrillation was significantly higher in group II than in gr
oup I (67% vs 28%, P < 0.05). Thus, it could be demonstrated that the
position of the defibrillation anode can influence the defibrillation
efficacy in transvenous ICD systems. Prospective randomized trials are
needed to investigate the optimal position for the second defibrillat
ion electrode, which may gain increasing importance as soon as dual ch
amber ICDs become available.