• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

经静脉除颤的导联系统优化

Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation.

作者信息

Gold M R, Foster A H, Shorofsky S R

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.

出版信息

Am J Cardiol. 1997 Nov 1;80(9):1163-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00633-4.

DOI:10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00633-4
PMID:9359543
Abstract

Lead systems that include an active pectoral shell reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximum output. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with multiple transvenous lead systems including those with an active pectoral shell to determine which system would optimize defibrillation energy requirements. This prospective study was performed on 21 consecutive patients. Each subject was evaluated with 3 lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. The configurations were a dual coil transvenous lead (lead), the distal right ventricular coil and pectoral pulse generator shell (unipolar), and all 3 components (triad). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform. Delivered energy at defibrillation threshold was 11.2 +/- 3.4 J for the lead configuration, 10.1 +/- 5.2 J for the unipolar configuration, and 7.8 +/- 3.6 J for the triad configuration (p <0.01). Leading edge voltage (p <0.01) and shock impedance (p <0.001) were also decreased for the triad configuration compared with the lead or unipolar configurations, whereas peak current was minimized with the unipolar configuration (p <0.01). We conclude that the combination of a dual coil, transvenous lead and an active pectoral shell reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with either the lead alone or unipolar configuration. Moreover, the defibrillation thresholds were < or =15 J in all patients using the triad lead system.

摘要

包含有源胸段外壳的导联系统可降低除颤阈值,并使几乎所有患者都能进行经静脉除颤。为了使用最大输出功率降低的更小脉冲发生器,需要进一步提高除颤效果。因此,本研究的目的是比较多种经静脉导联系统(包括带有有源胸段外壳的系统)的除颤阈值,以确定哪种系统能优化除颤能量需求。这项前瞻性研究对21例连续患者进行。每位受试者用3种导联配置进行评估,测试顺序随机。配置分别为双线圈经静脉导联(导联)、右心室远端线圈和胸段脉冲发生器外壳(单极)以及所有3个组件(三联体)。右心室线圈是双相除颤波形第一阶段的阴极。导联配置在除颤阈值时的输送能量为11.2±3.4J,单极配置为10.1±5.2J,三联体配置为7.8±3.6J(p<0.01)。与导联或单极配置相比,三联体配置的前沿电压(p<0.01)和电击阻抗(p<0.001)也降低,而单极配置的峰值电流最小(p<0.01)。我们得出结论,与单独的导联或单极配置相比,双线圈经静脉导联和有源胸段外壳的组合可降低除颤能量需求。此外,使用三联体导联系统的所有患者的除颤阈值均≤15J。

相似文献

1
Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation.经静脉除颤的导联系统优化
Am J Cardiol. 1997 Nov 1;80(9):1163-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00633-4.
2
Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems.单线圈与双线圈主动式胸壁除颤导线系统的比较
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998 May;31(6):1391-4. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(98)00103-x.
3
Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds.用于主动罐除颤阈值的经静脉线圈位置优化。
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2000 Jan;11(1):25-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2000.tb00731.x.
4
Optimization of atrial defibrillation with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system.采用双线圈主动胸导联系统优化心房除颤
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2004 Jul;15(7):790-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.03684.x.
5
Lack of benefit of an active pectoral pulse generator on atrial defibrillation thresholds.有源胸壁脉冲发生器对心房除颤阈值无益处。
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2002 Apr;13(4):332-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2002.00332.x.
6
Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system.
Am J Cardiol. 1996 Sep 1;78(5):540-3. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(96)00361-x.
7
Effect of an active abdominal pulse generator on defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system.主动式腹部脉冲发生器对采用双线圈经静脉植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)导线系统时除颤阈值的影响。
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2006 Jun;17(6):617-20. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2006.00374.x.
8
Atrial defibrillation with a transvenous lead: a randomized comparison of active can shocking pathways.经静脉导线进行心房除颤:主动电极片电击路径的随机比较
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Aug;34(2):358-62. doi: 10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00214-4.
9
A prospective randomized comparison in humans of biphasic waveform 60-microF and 120-microF capacitance pulses using a unipolar defibrillation system.使用单极除颤系统对人类进行双相波形60微法和120微法电容脉冲的前瞻性随机比较。
Circulation. 1995 Jan 1;91(1):91-5. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.91.1.91.
10
Prospective, randomized comparison in humans of a unipolar defibrillation system with that using an additional superior vena cava electrode.在人体中对单极除颤系统与使用额外上腔静脉电极的除颤系统进行前瞻性随机比较。
Circulation. 1994 Mar;89(3):1090-3. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.89.3.1090.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison of Single-Coil Versus Dual-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Extraction-Related Outcomes.单线圈与双线圈植入式心脏复律除颤器装置的比较:疗效及与拔除相关结局的系统评价和荟萃分析
Clin Cardiol. 2025 Feb;48(2):e70083. doi: 10.1002/clc.70083.
2
Comparative efficacy of single-coil versus dual-coil ICD leads: a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.单线圈与双线圈植入式心律转复除颤器(ICD)导线的比较疗效:临床结局的荟萃分析
Future Cardiol. 2025 Mar;21(3):167-175. doi: 10.1080/14796678.2025.2459542. Epub 2025 Jan 30.
3
Single and dual coil shock efficacy and predictors of shock failure in patients with modern implantable cardioverter defibrillators-a single-center paired randomized study.
现代植入式心脏复律除颤器患者单线圈和双线圈电击疗效及电击失败的预测因素——一项单中心配对随机研究
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Jan;54(1):65-72. doi: 10.1007/s10840-018-0443-y. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
4
Multicentre comparison Of shock efficacy using single-vs. Dual-coil lead systems and Anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study.经静脉植入式心脏转复除颤器患者中使用单线圈与双线圈导线系统以及阳极与阴极极性除颤的电击疗效多中心比较。MODALITY研究。
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2015 Jun;43(1):45-54. doi: 10.1007/s10840-015-9980-9. Epub 2015 Feb 19.
5
Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature.双线圈与单线圈植入式除颤器导线:文献回顾。
Clin Res Cardiol. 2012 Apr;101(4):239-45. doi: 10.1007/s00392-011-0407-z. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
6
A computer modeling tool for comparing novel ICD electrode orientations in children and adults.一种用于比较儿童和成人新型植入式心脏除颤器(ICD)电极方向的计算机建模工具。
Heart Rhythm. 2008 Apr;5(4):565-72. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2008.01.018. Epub 2008 Jan 17.