Epstein A E, Kay G N, Plumb V J, Voshage-Stahl L, Hull M L
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham 35294-0006, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1995 Nov;6(11):979-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1995.tb00374.x.
Although myriad factors influence the defibrillation threshold, the relation between the site of transvenous lead entry into the vascular system and the defibrillation threshold has not been reported. This study examines the influence that venous entry site has on defibrillation success for a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead with two defibrillating coils.
The study population comprised 345 patients. Their mean age was 61 +/- 13 years and, left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.33 +/- 0.13. A left-sided approach was used in 324 (93.9%) of the patients, and a right-sided approach was used in the remaining 21 (6.1%) patients. There was no difference in the gender, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, or underlying cardiac disease in the two groups. For all patients, with a transvenous lead used either alone or with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch, the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.9 +/- 4.8 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.0 +/- 7.3 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.02). When a transvenous lead was used with a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (115 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 9.5 +/- 4.3 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 12.0 +/- 10.0 J when a right-sided approach was used (P = 0.98). When a transvenous lead was used without a submuscular or subcutaneous patch (230 patients), the biphasic defibrillation threshold was 10.1 +/- 5.0 J when a left-sided approach was used, and 14.6 +/- 6.6 J when a right-sided approach was used (P < 0.01). For the entire group of patients and for each specific lead arrangement, there was no significant difference in the defibrillating lead system impedance when right-sided versus left-sided approaches were compared.
Left-sided approaches to implant transvenous leads with two coils for defibrillation result in lower biphasic defibrillation thresholds than when right-sided approaches are used.
尽管有众多因素影响除颤阈值,但经静脉导线进入血管系统的部位与除颤阈值之间的关系尚未见报道。本研究探讨静脉入路部位对带有两个除颤线圈的经静脉植入式心律转复除颤器导线除颤成功的影响。
研究人群包括345例患者。他们的平均年龄为61±13岁,左心室射血分数为0.33±0.13。324例(93.9%)患者采用左侧入路,其余21例(6.1%)患者采用右侧入路。两组患者在性别、年龄、左心室射血分数或基础心脏病方面无差异。对于所有患者,无论单独使用经静脉导线还是与肌下或皮下补片联合使用,采用左侧入路时双相除颤阈值为9.9±4.8J,采用右侧入路时为14.0±7.3J(P=0.02)。当经静脉导线与肌下或皮下补片联合使用时(115例患者),采用左侧入路时双相除颤阈值为9.5±4.3J,采用右侧入路时为12.0±10.0J(P=0.98)。当不使用肌下或皮下补片单独使用经静脉导线时(230例患者),采用左侧入路时双相除颤阈值为10.1±5.0J,采用右侧入路时为14.6±6.6J(P<0.01)。对于整个患者组以及每种特定的导线配置,比较右侧与左侧入路时除颤导线系统阻抗无显著差异。
与右侧入路相比,采用左侧入路植入带有两个线圈用于除颤的经静脉导线时,双相除颤阈值更低。