Hybrid nonthoracotomy ICD systems: lessons from the brouhaha

Comparison of bipolar and integrated sensing for redetection of ventricular fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator function is critically dependent on reliable sensing of intracardiac signals. Lead systems that use integrated sensing, in which the distal shocking coil is part of both the sensing and shocking pathways, may be prone to undersensing of ventricular fibrillation, especially during redetection after a failed first shock. To assess the effect of endocardial lead system on redetection, we compared a dedicated rate-sensing lead and 2 generations of integrated sensing defibrillator leads with a uniform testing algorithm and pulse generator.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 72 patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Three transvenous rate-sensing leads were evaluated: a standard pacing lead, incorporating true bipolar sensing without ventricular coils, or an integrated shocking and sensing lead (Endotak C) with either 6-mm (60 series) or 12-mm (70 series) spacing between the sensing tip and shocking coil. Redetection was assessed from a failed first shock just below defibrillation threshold.

RESULTS

Compared with the dedicated bipolar lead, redetection was prolonged with the 60 series lead (8.3 +/- 3.6 vs 6.6 +/- 2.3 seconds, P =.04). Moreover, prolonged redetection (>8 seconds) was observed in 41% of patients with 60 series leads compared with only 11% with dedicated bipolar leads (P <.01). No significant effects on redetection were noted with an integrated lead with greater spacing between the tip and coil (70 series).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed redetection is frequently noted with an integrated lead with close spacing between the tip and coil. Detailed evaluation of detection and redetection of these leads should be performed at the time of pulse generator replacement.