Advertisement

Comparison of single-coil lead versus dual-coil lead of implantable cardioverter defibrillator on lead-related venous complications in a canine model

  • Ziqing Yu
  • Yuan Wu
  • Shengmei Qin
  • Jingfeng Wang
  • Xueying Chen
  • Ruizhen Chen
  • Yangang Su
  • Junbo Ge
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Dual- coil lead (DCL) of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is preferred clinically in patients. However, it is related to higher risk of venous stenosis and thrombosis. The present study was done to compare the fibrosis and extraction of the leads between the single-coil lead (SCL) and DCL in animal models.

Methods

This was a chronic animal study with a follow-up duration of 6 months. Twenty mongrel dogs were randomly divided into DCL group or SCL group. Venography was performed before the sacrifice to evaluate the venous stenosis in vivo. The maximum pulling-out tension of the ICD lead was measured by a tensometer. Hematoxylin-eosin stain and toluidine blue O stain were applied to show the pathological changes of the superior vena cava (SVC) to evaluate the fibrosis and the thickness of the SVC adjacent to the leads.

Results

The DCL group showed higher incidence of venous stenosis (OR = 31.5; 95% CI, 2.35–422.3; p = 0.005). It revealed increased tension to extract the leads in the DCL group (5.96 ± 1.86 vs. 3.68 ± 1.46 N, p = 0.027). The difference of venous wall thickness of SVC was 4.3 ± 0.3 fold-changes between two groups (p = 0.007). Moreover, the degree of venous wall fibrosis in DCL group was more serious than that it in SCL group (3.61 ± 1.26 vs. 1.08 ± 1.35 mm2, p = 0.015).

Conclusion

The DCL was proved to increase thrombosis, fibrosis, and stenosis in the SVC. Likewise, the DCL was mechanically harder to be extracted than the SCL. Our study showed that lead-related complications of the DCLs were higher than those of the SCLs regardless of the equal defibrillation thresholds between them. Results of the present study would help to choose the proper lead which could be removed.

Keywords

Single-coil lead Dual-coil lead Implantable cardioverter defibrillator Stenosis Fibrosis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

All the defibrillation leads used in this experiment were generously provided by St. Jude Medical (Shanghai). Besides, we especially appreciate SQ Hou on giving modification of this article to improve its language.

Authors’ contributions

Zq Yu participated in conception and design, animal experiment, acquisition of data, and drafting and revising the manuscript; Y Wu took part in study design, animal experiment, acquisition of data, and subsequent analysis as well as giving revised edition of the manuscript; Rz Chen carried out acquisition of data and statistical analysis; Jf Wang, Xy Chen, and Sm Qin took part in setting up animal model and acquisition of data; Jb Ge carried out design, having given final approval of the version to be published; Yg Su participated in study design and the implement of animal experiment, and having given final approval of the version to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No: 81671934), Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (Grant No: 17140902400), and Zhongshan Hospital Science Funding (Grant No: fund-044).

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Khatib SM, Friedman P, Ellenbogen KA. Defibrillators: selecting the right device for the right patient. Circulation. 2016;134(18):1390–404.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.021889.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sanders WJ, Richey MW, Malkin RA, Masson SC, Ransbury TJ, Urtz MW, et al. Novel intravascular defibrillator: defibrillation thresholds of intravascular cardioverter-defibrillator compared to conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in a canine model. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8(2):288–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.10.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sunderland N, Kaura A, Murgatroyd F, Dhillon P, Scott PA. Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a meta-analysis. Europace. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw438.
  4. 4.
    Neuzil P, Reddy VY, Merkely B, Geller L, Molnar L, Bednarek J, et al. Implantable intravascular defibrillator: defibrillation thresholds of an intravascular cardioverter-defibrillator compared with those of a conventional ICD in humans. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(2):210–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2013.10.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bansch D, Bonnemeier H, Brandt J, Bode F, Svendsen JH, Ritter O, et al. Shock efficacy of single and dual coil electrodes-new insights from the NORDIC ICD Trial. Europace. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eux075.
  6. 6.
    Larsen JM, Hjortshoj SP, Nielsen JC, Johansen JB, Petersen HH, Haarbo J, et al. Single-coil and dual-coil defibrillator leads and association with clinical outcomes in a complete Danish nationwide ICD cohort. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(3):706–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.11.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leshem E, Suleiman M, Laish-Farkash A, Konstantino Y, Glikson M, Barsheshet A, et al. Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantablecardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry. Europace. 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euw199.
  8. 8.
    Lickfett L, Bitzen A, Arepally A, Nasir K, Wolpert C, Jeong KM, et al. Incidence of venous obstruction following insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. A study of systematic contrast venography on patients presenting for their first elective ICD generator replacement. Europace. 2004;6(1):25–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eupc.2003.09.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brunner MP, Cronin EM, Duarte VE, Yu C, Tarakji KG, Martin DO, et al. Clinical predictors of adverse patient outcomes in an experience of more than 5000 chronic endovascular pacemaker and defibrillator lead extractions. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(5):799–805.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.01.016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pecha S, Yildirim Y, Gosau N, Aydin MA, Willems S, Treede H, et al. Laser lead extraction allows for safe and effective removal of single- and dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: a single-centre experience over 12 years. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;24(1):77–81.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivw298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neuzner J, Carlsson J. Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature. Clin Res Cardiol. 2012;101(4):239–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-011-0407-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kleemann T, Becker T, Doenges K, Vater M, Senges J, Schneider S, et al. Annual rate of transvenous defibrillation lead defects in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators over a period of >10 years. Circulation. 2007;115(19):2474–80.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.663807.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rozmus G, Daubert JP, Huang DT, Rosero S, Hall B, Francis C. Venous thrombosis and stenosis after implantation of pacemakers and defibrillators. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2005;13(1):9–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-005-1140-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haghjoo M, Nikoo MH, Fazelifar AF, Alizadeh A, Emkanjoo Z, Sadr-Ameli MA, et al. Predictors of venous obstruction following pacemaker or implantablecardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a contrast venographic study on 100 patients admitted for generator change, lead revision, or device upgrade. Europace. 2007;9(5):328–32.  https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eum019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ranjan R, Henrikson CA, et al. ICD implantation after crossing a totally occluded subclavian vein via collaterals from the superior vena cava. PACE. 2010;33(2):e14–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02582.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leclercq C, Gadler F, Kranig W, Ellery S, Gras D, Lazarus A, et al. A randomized comparison of triple-site versus dual-site ventricular stimulation in patients with congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(15):1455–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.11.074.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lenarczyk R, Kowalski O, Kukulski T, Pruszkowska-Skrzep P, Sokal A, Szulik M, et al. Mid-term outcomes of triple-site vs. conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy: a preliminary study. Int J Cardiol. 2009;133(1):87–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2007.12.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wazni O, Wilkoff BL. Strategic choices to reduce implantable cardioverter-defibrillator-related morbidity. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010;7(7):376–83.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2010.50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ziqing Yu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Yuan Wu
    • 1
  • Shengmei Qin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jingfeng Wang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xueying Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ruizhen Chen
    • 1
    • 4
  • Yangang Su
    • 1
    • 2
  • Junbo Ge
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan HospitalFudan UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Shanghai Institute of Medical ImagingShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Shanghai Medical CollegeFudan UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Key Laboratory of Viral Heart Diseases, Ministry of Public Health, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan HospitalFudan UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations