Biomedical subjects

Avram Scheiner

Publications and source records attributed to Avram Scheiner.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Coronary sinus electrode does not reduce atrial defibrillation thresholds.

BACKGROUND: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with a conventional dual-coil, active pectoral implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead system. Shocking vectors that incorporate an additional electrode in the CS have been used, but it is unclear if they improve atrial DFTs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective, randomized study was to determine if a coronary sinus (CS) electrode reduces atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). METHODS: This was a prospective study of 36 patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. A defibrillation lead with superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular (RV) shocking coils was implanted in the RV. An active can emulator (Can) was placed in a pre-pectoral pocket. A lead with a 4 cm long shocking coil was placed in the CS. Atrial DFTs were determined in the following 3 shocking configurations in each patient, with the order of testing randomized: RV --> SVC + Can (Ventricular Triad), distal CS --> SVC + Can (Distal Atrial Triad), and proximal CS --> SVC + Can (Proximal Atrial Triad). RESULTS: The Proximal and Distal Atrial Triad configurations were both associated with significant reductions in peak current (p < 0.01), but this effect was offset by significant increases in shock impedance (p < 0.01), resulting in no net change in the peak voltage or DFT energy in comparison to the Ventricular Triad configuration (Ventricular Triad: 4.9 +/- 6.6 J, Proximal Atrial Triad: 3.3 +/- 4.1J, Distal Atrial Triad: 4.4 +/- 6.7 J, p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: Shocking vectors that incorporate a CS coil do not significantly improve atrial defibrillation efficacy. Since the Ventricular Triad shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.

Atrial Fibrillation↗

PubMed2005

Improved extraction of ePTFE and medical adhesive modified defibrillation leads from the coronary sinus and great cardiac vein.

BACKGROUND: Permanent leads with shocking coils for defibrillation therapy are sometimes implanted in the coronary sinus (CS) and great cardiac vein (GCV). These shocking coils, as documented by pathologic examination of animal investigations, often become tightly encapsulated by fibrosis and can be very difficult to remove. METHODS: One of three configurations of the Guidant model 7109 Perimeter coronary sinus shocking lead was implanted into the distal portion of the GCV of 24 sheep for up to 14 months. Group 1 had unmodified coils (control), group 2 had coils backfilled with medical adhesive (MA), and Group 3 had coils coated with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE). Eighteen leads, three from each group at 6 and 14 months were transvenously extracted from the left jugular vein. The remaining six animals were not subject to extraction. All animals were euthanized for pathological and microscopic examination. RESULTS: All six of the control, three of the MA, and one of the ePTFE leads required the use of an electrosurgical dissection sheath (EDS) for extraction. Five control, two MA, and none of the ePTFE leads had significant fibrotic attachments to the shocking coils. Significant trauma was observed at necropsy for those leads requiring the use of the EDS for extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue ingrowth is a major impediment to the removal of defibrillation leads implanted in the CS and GCV of sheep. Reduction of tissue ingrowth by coating the shocking coils with ePTFE or by backfilling with MA facilitates transvenous lead removal with reduced tissue trauma.

Adhesives↗

PubMed2002

Mapping the coronary sinus and great cardiac vein.

The purpose of this study was to develop a better understanding of the pacing and sensing characteristics of electrodes placed in the proximal cardiac veins. A detailed mapping of the coronary sinus (CS) and great cardiac vein (GCV) was done on 25 patients with normal sinus rhythm using a deflectable electrophysiological catheter. Intrinsic bipolar electrograms and atrial and ventricular pacing voltage thresholds were measured. For measurement purposes, the GCV and the CS were each subdivided into distal (D), middle (M), and proximal (P) regions, for a total of six test locations. Within the CS and GCV, the average atrial pacing threshold was always lower (P < 0.05) than the ventricle with an average ventricular to atrial ratio > 5, except for the GCV-D. The average atrial threshold in the CS and GCV ranged from 0.2- to 1.0-V higher than in the atrial appendage. Diaphragmatic pacing was observed in three patients. Atrial signal amplitude was greatest in the CS-M, CS-D, and GCV-P and smaller in the CS-P, GCV-M, and GCV-D. Electrode spacing did not significantly affect P wave amplitude, while narrower electrode spacing attenuated R wave amplitude. The average P:R ratio was highest with 5-mm-spaced electrodes compared to wider spaced pairs. The P:R ratio in the CS was higher (P < 0.05) than in all positions of the GVC. It is possible to pace the atrium independent of the ventricle at reasonably low thresholds and to detect atrial depolarization without undue cross-talk or noise using closely spaced bipolar electrode pairs. The areas of the proximal, middle, and distal CS produced the best combination of pacing and sensing parameters.

Adult↗