Decreased Defibrillation Threshold and Minimized Myocardial Damage With Left Axilla Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation.

BACKGROUND: To reduce myocardial damage caused by implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock, the left axilla was studied as an alternative pulse generator implantation site, and compared with the traditional implantation site, the left anterior chest. METHODS AND RESULTS: Computer simulation was used to study the defibrillation conduction pattern and estimate the simulated defibrillation threshold (DFT) and myocardial damage when pulse generators were placed in the left axilla and left anterior chest, respectively; pulse generators were also newly implanted in the left axilla (n=30) and anterior chest (n=40) to compare the corresponding DFT. On simulation, when ICD generators were implanted in the left axilla, compared with the left anterior chest, the whole heart may be defibrillated with a lower defibrillation energy (left axilla 6.4 J vs. left anterior chest 12.0 J) and thus the proportion of cardiac myocardial damage may be reduced (2.1 vs. 4.2%). Clinically, ventricular fibrillation was successfully terminated with a defibrillation output ≤5 J in 86.7% (26/30) of the left axillary group, and in 27.5% (11/40) of the left anterior group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically and theoretically, the left axilla was shown to be an improved ICD implantation site that may reduce DFT and lessen myocardial damage due to shock. Lower DFT also facilitates less myocardial damage, as a result of the lower shock required.

Efficacy and Myocardial Injury With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators　- Computer Simulation of Defibrillation Shock Conduction.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator (S-ICD) systems have a lower invasiveness than traditional ICD systems, and expand the indications of ICD implantations. The S-ICD standard defibrillation shock output energy, however, is approximately 4 times that of the traditional ICD system. This raises concern about the efficacy of the defibrillation and myocardial injury. In this study, we investigated the defibrillation efficacy and myocardial injury with S-ICD systems based on computer simulations. METHODS AND RESULTS: First, computer simulations were performed based on the S-ICD system configurations proposed in a previous study. Furthermore, simulations were performed by placing the lead at the left or right parasternal margin and the pulse generator in the superior and inferior positions (0-10 cm) of the recommended site. The simulated defibrillation threshold (DFT) for the 4 S-ICD system configurations were 30.1, 41.6, 40.6, and 32.8 J, which were generally similar to the corresponding clinical results of 33.5, 40.4, 40.1, and 34.3 J. CONCLUSIONS: The simulated DFT were generally similar to their clinical counterparts. In the simulation, the S-ICD system had a higher DFT but relatively less severe myocardial injury compared with the traditional ICD system. Further, the lead at the right parasternal margin may correspond to a lower DFT and cause less myocardial injury.