{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03417015341701534, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019525801952580194, 'mean_word_length': 5.029411764705882, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Left Subclavian Vein as an Alternative Site for Implantation of the Second Defibrillation Lead

The optimal placement for the second defibrillation lead in a twolead system has never been addressed. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 33 patients with an average age of 59.2 years (range 41–78 years), predominantly mala (n = 29), who underwent implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for treatment of ventricular tachycardia (n = 19) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 14). In all patients an attempt was made to implant an endovenous ICD device (leads only, no subcutaneous patch). In group I (n = 18) the defibrillation anode, a separate unipolar lead, was placed in the common position, the superior vena cava. In group II (n =15) the lead was placed in the left subclavian vein. At least two consecutive shocks reverting ventricular fibrillation at energies ±24J were required for implantation of the ICD device. All shocks were monophasic. The success rate of endovenous defibrillation was significantly higher in group II than in group I (67% vs 28%, P < 0.05). Thus, it could be demonstrated that the position of the defibrillation anode can influence the defibrillation efficacy in transvenous ICD systems. Prospective randomized trials are needed to investigate the optimal position for the second defibrillation electrode, which may gain increasing importance as soon as dual chamber ICDs become available.