A comparison of biventricular and conventional transvenous defibrillation: a computational study using patient derived models.
Conventional transvenous defibrillation is performed with an ICD using a dual current pathway. The defibrillation energy is delivered from the RV electrode to the superior vena cava (SVC) electrode and the metallic case (CAN) of the ICD. Biventricular defibrillation uses an additional electrode placed in the LV free wall with sequential shocks to create an additional current vector. Clinical studies of biventricular defibrillation have reported a 45% reduction in mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) energy. The aim of the study was to use computational methods to examine the biventricular defibrillation fields together with their corresponding DFTs in a variety of patient derived models and to compare them to simulations of conventional defibrillation. A library of thoracic models derived from nine patients was used to solve for electric field distributions. The defibrillation waveform consisted of a LV --> SVC + CAN monophasic shock followed by a biphasic shock delivered via the RV --> SVC + CAN electrodes. When the initial voltage of the two shocks is the same, the simulations show that the biventricular configuration reduces the mean DFT by 46% (3.5 +/- 1.3 vs 5.5 +/- 2.7 J, P = 0.005). When the leading edge of the biphasic shock is equal to the trailing edge of the monophasic shock, there is no statistically significant difference in the mean DFT (4.9 +/- 1.9 vs 5.5 +/- 2.7 J, P > 0.05) with the DFT decreasing in some patients and increasing in others. These results suggest that patient-specific computational models may be able to identify those patients who would most benefit from a biventricular configuration.[1]References
- A comparison of biventricular and conventional transvenous defibrillation: a computational study using patient derived models. Mocanu, D., Kettenbach, J., Sweeney, M.O., Kikinis, R., Kenknight, B.H., Eisenberg, S.R. Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE. (2004) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
