Advertisement

Single-coil and dual-coil defibrillator leads and association with clinical outcomes in a complete Danish nationwide ICD cohort

Published:November 21, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2015.11.034

      Background

      The best choice of defibrillator lead in patients with routine implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is not settled. Traditionally, most physicians prefer dual-coil leads but the use of single-coil leads is increasing.

      Objective

      The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients with single- and dual-coil leads.

      Methods

      All 4769 Danish patients 18 years or older with first-time ICD implants from 2007 to 2011 were included from the Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register. Defibrillator leads were 38.9% single-coil leads and 61.1% dual-coil leads. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were lowest successful energy at implant defibrillation testing, first shock failure in spontaneous arrhythmias, structural lead failure, and lead extraction outcomes.

      Results

      Single-coil leads were associated with lower all-cause mortality with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.73–0.99; P = .04). This finding was robust in a supplementary propensity score–matched analysis. However, dual-coil leads were used in patients with slightly higher preimplant morbidity, making residual confounding by indication the most likely explanation for the observed association between lead type and mortality. The lowest successful defibrillation energy was higher using single-coil leads (23.2 ± 4.3 J vs 22.1 ± 3.9 J; P < .001). No significant differences were observed for other secondary end points showing high shock efficacies and low rates of lead failures and extraction complications.

      Conclusion

      Shock efficacy is high for modern ICD systems. The choice between single-coil and dual-coil defibrillator leads is unlikely to have a clinically significant impact on patient outcomes in routine ICD implants.

      Abbreviations:

      aHR (adjusted hazard ratio), CCI (Charlson Comorbidity Index), CI (confidence interval), DFT (defibrillation threshold), DPIR (Danish Pacemaker and ICD Register), HR (hazard ratio), ICD (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator), OR (odds ratio), SVC (superior vena cava)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Heart Rhythm
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nanthakumar K.
        • Epstein A.E.
        • Kay G.N.
        • Plumb V.J.
        • Lee D.S.
        Prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a pooled analysis of 10 primary prevention trials.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 2166-2172
        • Connolly S.J.
        • Hallstrom A.P.
        • Cappato R.
        • Schron E.B.
        • Kuck K.H.
        • Zipes D.P.
        • Greene H.L.
        • Boczor S.
        • Domanski M.
        • Follmann D.
        • Gent M.
        • Roberts R.S.
        Meta-analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials: AVID, CASH and CIDS studies.
        Eur Heart J. 2000; 21: 2071-2078
        • Bongiorni M.G.
        • Proclemer A.
        • Dobreanu D.
        • Marinskis G.
        • Pison L.
        • Blomstrom-Lundqvist C.
        Preferred tools and techniques for implantation of cardiac electronic devices in Europe: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey.
        Europace. 2013; 15: 1664-1668
        • Hsu J.C.
        • Saxon L.A.
        • Jones P.W.
        • Wehrenberg S.
        • Marcus G.M.
        Utilization trends and clinical outcomes in patients implanted with a single- vs a dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead: insights from the ALTITUDE Study.
        Heart Rhythm. 2015; 12: 1770-1775
        • Bardy G.H.
        • Dolack G.L.
        • Kudenchuk P.J.
        • Poole J.E.
        • Mehra R.
        • Johnson G.
        Prospective, randomized comparison in humans of a unipolar defibrillation system with that using an additional superior vena cava electrode.
        Circulation. 1994; 89: 1090-1093
        • Gold M.R.
        • Khalighi K.
        • Kavesh N.G.
        • Daly B.
        • Peters R.W.
        • Shorofsky S.R.
        Clinical predictors of transvenous biphasic defibrillation thresholds.
        Am J Cardiol. 1997; 79: 1623-1627
        • Gold M.R.
        • Olsovsky M.R.
        • Pelini M.A.
        • Peters R.W.
        • Shorofsky S.R.
        Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31: 1391-1394
        • Gold M.R.
        • Olsovsky M.R.
        • DeGroot P.J.
        • Cuello C.
        • Shorofsky S.R.
        Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2000; 11: 25-29
        • Libero L.
        • Lozano I.F.
        • Bocchiardo M.
        • Marcolongo M.
        • Sallusti L.
        • Madrid A.
        • Gaita F.
        • Trevi G.P.
        Comparison of defibrillation thresholds using monodirectional electrical vector versus bidirectional electrical vector.
        Ital Heart J. 2001; 2: 449-455
        • Schulte B.
        • Sperzel J.
        • Carlsson J.
        • Schwarz T.
        • Ehrlich W.
        • Pitschner H.F.
        • Neuzner J.
        Dual-coil vs single-coil active pectoral implantable defibrillator lead systems: defibrillation energy requirements and probability of defibrillation success at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirements.
        Europace. 2001; 3: 177-180
        • Rinaldi C.A.
        • Simon R.D.
        • Geelen P.
        • Reek S.
        • Baszko A.
        • Kuehl M.
        • Gill J.S.
        A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2003; 26: 1684-1690
        • Gold M.
        • Val-Mejias J.
        • Leman R.B.
        • Tummala R.
        • Goyal S.
        • Kluger J.
        • Kroll M.
        • Oza A.
        Optimization of superior vena cava coil position and usage for transvenous defibrillation.
        Heart Rhythm. 2008; 5: 394-399
        • Blatt J.A.
        • Poole J.E.
        • Johnson G.W.
        • et al.
        No benefit from defibrillation threshold testing in the SCD-HeFT (Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial).
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52: 551-556
        • Healey J.S.
        • Hohnloser S.H.
        • Glikson M.
        • et al.
        Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE).
        Lancet. 2015; 385: 785-791
        • Epstein L.M.
        • Love C.J.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • et al.
        Superior vena cava defibrillator coils make transvenous lead extraction more challenging and riskier.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61: 987-989
        • Segreti L.
        • Di Cori A.
        • Soldati E.
        • Zucchelli G.
        • Viani S.
        • Paperini L.
        • De Lucia R.
        • Coluccia G.
        • Valsecchi S.
        • Bongiorni M.G.
        Major predictors of fibrous adherences in transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead extraction.
        Heart Rhythm. 2014; 11: 2196-2201
        • Di Cori A.
        • Bongiorni M.G.
        • Zucchelli G.
        • Segreti L.
        • Viani S.
        • Paperini L.
        • Soldati E.
        Transvenous extraction performance of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene covered ICD leads in comparison to traditional ICD leads in humans.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2010; 33: 1376-1381
        • Ellis C.R.
        • Hurt J.T.
        Single-coil versus dual-coil ICD lead shock efficacy in a large ICD registry.
        J Innov Card Rhythm Manage. 2012; 3: 953-958
        • Aoukar P.S.
        • Poole J.E.
        • Johnson G.W.
        • Anderson J.
        • Hellkamp A.S.
        • Mark D.B.
        • Lee K.L.
        • Bardy G.H.
        No benefit of a dual coil over a single coil ICD lead: evidence from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial.
        Heart Rhythm. 2013; 10: 970-976
        • Kutyifa V.
        • Huth Ruwald A.C.
        • Aktas M.K.
        • Jons C.
        • McNitt S.
        • Polonsky B.
        • Geller L.
        • Merkely B.
        • Moss A.J.
        • Zareba W.
        Bloch Thomsen PE. Clinical impact, safety, and efficacy of single- versus dual-coil ICD leads in MADIT-CRT.
        J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2013; 24: 1246-1252
        • Moller M.
        • Arnsbo P.
        • Asklund M.
        • et al.
        Quality assessment of pacemaker implantations in Denmark.
        Europace. 2002; 4: 107-112
        • Pedersen C.B.
        The Danish Civil Registration System.
        Scand J Public Health. 2011; 39: 22-25
        • Sundararajan V.
        • Henderson T.
        • Perry C.
        • Muggivan A.
        • Quan H.
        • Ghali W.A.
        New ICD-10 version of the Charlson Comorbidity Index predicted in-hospital mortality.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2004; 57: 1288-1294
        • Carlson M.D.
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • Maisel W.H.
        • et al.
        Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Device Performance Policies and Guidelines Endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) and the International Coalition of Pacing and Electrophysiology Organizations (COPE).
        Heart Rhythm. 2006; 3: 1250-1273
        • Maisel W.H.
        • Hauser R.G.
        • Hammill S.C.
        • et al.
        Recommendations from the Heart Rhythm Society Task Force on Lead Performance Policies and Guidelines: developed in collaboration with the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA).
        Heart Rhythm. 2009; 6: 869-885
        • Wilkoff B.L.
        • Love C.J.
        • Byrd C.L.
        • et al.
        Transvenous lead extraction: Heart Rhythm Society expert consensus on facilities, training, indications, and patient management: this document was endorsed by the American Heart Association (AHA).
        Heart Rhythm. 2009; 6: 1085-1104
        • Bosco J.L.
        • Silliman R.A.
        • Thwin S.S.
        • Geiger A.M.
        • Buist D.S.
        • Prout M.N.
        • Yood M.U.
        • Haque R.
        • Wei F.
        • Lash T.L.
        A most stubborn bias: no adjustment method fully resolves confounding by indication in observational studies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 64-74
        • Yang F.
        • Patterson R.
        Optimal transvenous coil position on active-can single-coil ICD defibrillation efficacy: a simulation study.
        Ann Biomed Eng. 2008; 36: 1659-1667
        • Jongh A.L.
        • Entcheva E.G.
        • Replogle J.A.
        • Booker III, R.S.
        • Kenknight B.H.
        • Claydon F.J.
        Defibrillation efficacy of different electrode placements in a human thorax model.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 1999; 22 (de): 152-157
        • Varma N.
        • Efimov I.
        Right pectoral implantable cardioverter defibrillators: role of the proximal (SVC) coil.
        Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2008; 31: 1025-1035
        • Eckstein J.
        • Koller M.T.
        • Zabel M.
        • Kalusche D.
        • Schaer B.A.
        • Osswald S.
        • Sticherling C.
        Necessity for surgical revision of defibrillator leads implanted long-term: causes and management.
        Circulation. 2008; 117: 2727-2733
        • Borleffs C.J.
        • van Erven L.
        • van Bommel R.J.
        • van der Velde E.T.
        • van der Wall E.E.
        • Bax J.J.
        • Rosendaal F.R.
        • Schalij M.J.
        Risk of failure of transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads.
        Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2009; 2: 411-416
        • Shariff N.
        • Alluri K.
        • Saba S.
        Failure rates of single- versus dual-coil nonrecalled Sprint Quattro defibrillator leads.
        Am J Cardiol. 2015; 115: 202-205
        • Liu J.
        • Brumberg G.
        • Rattan R.
        • Jain S.
        • Saba S.
        Class I recall of defibrillator leads: a comparison of the Sprint Fidelis and Riata families.
        Heart Rhythm. 2012; 9: 1251-1255