Effect of an Active Abdominal Pulse Generator on Defibrillation Thresholds with a Dual‐Coil, Transvenous ICD Lead System

Introduction: Many patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have older lead systems, which are usually not replaced at the time of pulse generator replacement unless a malfunction is noted. Therefore, optimization of defibrillation with these lead systems is clinically important. The objective of this prospective study was to determine if an active abdominal pulse generator (Can) affects chronic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with a dual‐coil, transvenous ICD lead system.

[1]  R. Peters,et al.  Effect of Shock Polarity on Defibrillation Thresholds with a Hybrid Patch-Coil Lead System , 2003, Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology.

[2]  M. Gold,et al.  Comparison of the effects of active left and right pectoral pulse generators on defibrillation efficacy. , 2001, The American journal of cardiology.

[3]  R. Peters,et al.  Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system. , 2001, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[4]  M. Gold,et al.  Effect of Shock Polarity on Biphasic Defibrillation Thresholds Using an Active Pectoral Lead System , 1998, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[5]  M. Schlepper,et al.  Effect of the addition of an abdominal hot can cardioverter/defibrillator pulse generator on the defibrillation energy requirements in a single-lead endocardial defibrillation system. , 1997, European heart journal.

[6]  F. Morady,et al.  Probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement in patients with an implantable defibrillator. , 1997, Circulation.

[7]  M. Gold,et al.  Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system. , 1996, The American journal of cardiology.

[8]  M. Gold,et al.  Effects of waveform and polarity on defibrillation thresholds in humans using a transvenous lead system. , 1996, The American journal of cardiology.

[9]  M. Gold,et al.  Transvenous Defibrillation Lead Systems , 1996, Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.

[10]  A. Natale,et al.  Effects of Initial Polarity on Defibrillation Threshold with Biphasic Pulses , 1995, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[11]  M. Niebauer,et al.  Effect of first-phase polarity of biphasic shocks on defibrillation threshold with a single transvenous lead system. , 1995, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[12]  D. L. Derfus,et al.  Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Lead Technology: Improved Performance and Lower Defibrillation Thresholds , 1995, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[13]  M. Niebauer,et al.  Effect of shock polarity on ventricular defibrillation threshold using a transvenous lead system. , 1994, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[14]  George A. Johnson,et al.  A Simplified, Single‐Lead Unipolar Transvenous Cardioversion‐Defibrillation System , 1993, Circulation.

[15]  D. Lang,et al.  Defibrillation Threshold: Clinical Utility and Therapeutic Implications , 1992, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[16]  G. Klein,et al.  Defibrillation with the sequential pulse technique: reproducibility with repeated shocks. , 1986, American heart journal.