M. Bahu et al., Randomized comparison of a 90 uF capacitor three-electrode defibrillation system with a 125 uF two-electrode defibrillation system, J INTERV C, 2(1), 1998, pp. 41-45
Citations number
20
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems
Journal title
JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
Introduction: A variety of factors, including the number of defibrillation
electrodes and shocking capacitance, may influence the defibrillation effic
acy of an implantable defibrillator system. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to compare the defibrillation energy requirement using a 125 uF t
wo-electrode defibrillation system and a 90 uF three-electrode defibrillati
on system.
Methods and Results: The defibrillation energy requirements measured with b
oth systems were compared in 26 consecutive patients. The two-electrode sys
tem used a single transvenous lead with two defibrillation coils in conjunc
tion with a biphasic waveform from a 125 uF capacitor. The three-electrode
system used the same transvenous lead, utilized a pectoral implantable defi
brillator generator shell as a third electrode, and delivered the identical
biphasic waveform from a 90 uF capacitor. The two-electrode system was ass
ociated with a higher defibrillation energy requirement (10.8 +/- 5.5 J) th
an was the three-electrode system (8.9 +/- 6.7 J, p < 0.05), however, the l
eading edge voltage was not significantly different between systems (361 +/
- 103 V vs. 397 +/- 123 V, P = 0.07). The two-electrode system also had a h
igher shocking resistance (49.0 +/- 9.0 ohms vs. 41.4 +/- 7.3 ohms, p < 0.0
01) and a lower peak current (7.7 +/- 2.6 A vs. 10.1 +/- 3.7 A, p < 0.001)
than the three-electrode system,
Conclusions: A three-electrode defibrillation system that utilizes a dual c
oil transvenous lead and a subcutaneous pectoral electrode with lower capac
itance is associated with a lower defibrillation energy requirement than is
a dual coil defibrillation system with higher capacitance. This finding su
ggests that the utilization of a pectoral generator as a defibrillation ele
ctrode in conjunction with smaller capacitors is a more effective defibrill
ation system and may allow for additional miniaturization of implantable de
fibrillators.