Sequential Pulse Countershock Between Two Transvenous Catheters: Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
YEE, R., et al.: Sequential Pulse Countershock Between Two Transvenous Catheters: Feasihility, Safety, and Efficacy We evalualed the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of sequential pulse countershock (SqCS) delivered solely through two endocardial catheters for the termination of ventricular tachycardia (VT) and fibrillation (VF) in patients undergoing electrophysiology studies (EPS). Thirty‐four patients (31 men, 3 women) with a mean age of 56.8 ± 10.1 years were studied. Etiology of VT/VF was ischemic heart disease (n = 26), cardiomyopathy (4) repaired tetralogy of Fallot (n = 1), heart transplant (n = 1), and no identifiable heart disease (n = 2). Catheters were positioned successfully in 29 patients. These were positioned in the right ventricular apex (RVA) and the coronary sinus (CS), respectively. The RVA electrode served as the common cathode for both pulses. The two electrodes located near the right atrium/superior vena cava junction served as anode for pulse 1 while the distal CS electrodes served as anode for pulse 2. Twenty‐nine induced VT episodes with cycle length (CL) 220–370 msec were treated. SqCS successfully terminated 15 VT (100–500V) while 14 were accelerated or degenerated to VF. VTCL was longer in success ful SqCS episodes than in those that were accelerated (285 ± 17.3 vs 245 ± 30.8 msec, P < .003). Of 26 VF episodes, 21 were terminated with SqCS (500–900V) and 5 were terminated by transthoracic rescue shocks. On 2 occasions, failure to defibrillate was attributable to poor catheter position at the time of shock. No complications occurred. We conclude that SqCS delivered solely between endocardial catheter electrodes is feasible and effective using energy doses within the range of existing implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit: