Comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for defibrillation using a nonthoracotomy system

Relative efficacy of different tilts with biphasic defibrillation in humans

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess if tilt bears any impact on defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks.

BACKGROUND

Although it has been shown that biphasic waveform may increase the defibrillation efficacy, this pulsing method has not been as extensively studied in patients, and information regarding the effect of different tilts is lacking.

METHODS

This study consisted of two similar but distinct protocols including 33 patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implant. In 17 patients (Part I) defibrillation threshold was obtained delivering biphasic waveforms with 50%, 65%, and 80% tilt in random fashion. Similarly, in 16 patients (Part II) testing of biphasic waveform with 40%, 50%, and 65% tilt was performed in random order. The electrode system used consisted of two transvenous leads and a subcutaneous patch in all 33 patients.

RESULTS

In Part I, tilt of 50% demonstrated a defibrillation threshold significantly lower than 65% tilt (7.5 +/- 4.3 J vs 9.7 +/- 5.0 J; P = 0.04) and 80% tilt (7.5 +/- 4.3 J vs 11.7 +/- 5.9 J; P < 0.01). Similarly, 65% tilt provided a lower defibrillation threshold than 80% tilt (9.7 +/- 5.0 J vs 11.7 +/- 5.9 J; P = 0.02). In Part II, no significant difference was observed in terms of defibrillation threshold between 40% tilt and the two tilts of 50% and 65%. However, as in Part I, 50% tilt provided a significant reduction of the energy to defibrillate as compared to 65% tilt (6.3 +/- 3.6 J vs 9.0 +/- 4.8 J; P < 0.01). The 50% tilt resulted in better defibrillation efficacy than 65% tilt independent of the lead system used for testing (Medtronic Transvene and CPI Endotak-C).

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic shocks with 50% tilt required less energy for defibrillation than 40%, 65%, and 80% tilts. However, in the clinical setting a programmable tilt may be preferable to account for some patient-to-patient variability.

The current status of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Since its initial application in 1980, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has evolved into a highly sophisticated device that offers programmable tiered therapy (antitachycardia pacing, cardioversion, and defibrillation) for ventricular tachyarrhythmias and backup pacing for bradycardia. It also provides diagnosis information about detected events. Successful implantation of nonthoracotomy systems is now routine. The availability of nonthoracotomy systems has reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality as well as hospital costs. Although the ICD has virtually eliminated sudden cardiac death in recipients, overall cardiac mortality remains considerable in these patients. Several prospective randomized clinical trials comparing ICD therapy to antiarrhythmic drug therapy are under way.

Bipolar transvenous defibrillation: efficacy of two different positions of the anode

For most nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems, the transvenous anode can positioned independently of the right ventricular (RV) cathode. Usually a vertical position in the superior vena cava (SVC) is chosen. However, it is unknown if this position yields the optimal defibrillation threshold (DFT). Therefore, in 15 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation the SVC position was compared in a crossover study design with a horizontal position in the left brachiocephalic vein (BCV). Mean DFT was not different for SVC and BCV (19.2 +/- 9.6 J vs 18.5 +/- 9.1 J) but DFT of individual patients differed by up to 12 joules. A positive correlation between impedance and DFT in the BCV position (r = 0.6; P < or = 0.05) indicated that the improved geometry of the defibrillation field with the BCV position is opposed by a higher impedance found for this position (63 +/- 15 omega vs 52 +/- 7 omega). Thus, defibrillation is not improved in general although individual patients might benefit.

Differential effects of lidocaine on defibrillation threshold with monophasic versus biphasic shock waveforms

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation waveforms and antiarrhythmic drugs have disparate effects on myocardial excitability and refractoriness, making it likely that antiarrhythmic drugs will interact with one waveform differently than with another. The aim of the present study was to determine if the increase in defibrillation threshold (DFT) induced by lidocaine is similar for electrical shocks with monophasic and biphasic waveforms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-six pentobarbital-anesthetized farm-raised pigs were instrumented with pacing catheters and epicardial defibrillation electrodes. Each pig was assigned to one of four groups: (1) monophasic shock waveform and placebo (5% dextrose in water [D5W]) (n = 7), (2) monophasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7), (3) biphasic shock waveform and placebo (D5W) (n = 5), or (4) biphasic shock waveform and lidocaine (n = 7). DFT was measured at baseline and subsequently during treatment (D5W or lidocaine). In the monophasic waveform groups, DFT increased from baseline in response to lidocaine by 92% (P < .0001), whereas DFT values in response to D5W did not change. In the biphasic waveform groups, DFT values did not change from baseline in response to lidocaine (P = NS), whereas DFT values from baseline in response to D5W significantly decreased by 29% (P = .04). In the monophasic waveform groups, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was significantly different than the change from baseline in response to D5W (92 +/- 29% versus -0.5 +/- 29%, respectively) (P < .0002). In the biphasic waveform groups, however, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine was similar to the change from baseline in response to D5W (-5.66 +/- 15% versus -29 +/- 17%, respectively) (P = .48). Furthermore, the change in DFT from baseline in response to lidocaine differed significantly between monophasic and biphasic waveform groups (92 +/- 29% versus -5.66 +/- 15%) (P < .0002), whereas the change from baseline in response to D5W did not differ between monophasic and biphasic waveforms (-0.5 +/- 29% versus -29 +/- 17%) (P = .34).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo groups, DFT values increased during lidocaine treatment to a much greater degree in the monophasic waveform group than in the biphasic waveform group receiving lidocaine. These data support our hypothesis that antiarrhythmic drugs can affect the defibrillation efficacy of monophasic waveforms differently than that of biphasic waveforms.

Effect of rapid pacing and T-wave scanning on the relation between the defibrillation and upper-limit-of-vulnerability dose-response curves

BACKGROUND

The critical-point and upper-limit-of-vulnerability (ULV) hypotheses predict that the ULV dose-response curve should be steeper and to the right of the defibrillation (DF) curve. Yet, some recent experimental data contradict this prediction. Two studies are presented that test two explanations for the contradiction: (1) Testing at a single point in the T wave underestimates the ULV dose-response curve and (2) ULV testing at normal heart rates does not mimic the mechanical or electrical state of the heart in ventricular fibrillation (VF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A nonthoracotomy lead system with a biphasic waveform was used throughout. In eight dogs, the dose-response curve widths (a measure of steepness) were compared between DF data and ULV data gathered at the peak (ULVPK), middownslope (ULVDWN), midupslope (ULVUP), and all times (scanning or ULVSCN) in the T wave. In another eight dogs, ULV data (ULVRAP) were gathered by scanning the T wave after 15 rapidly paced beats (166- to 198-ms pacing interval). The rapid pacing interval was chosen to more closely mimic the hemodynamics and activation rate of early VF. ULV data (ULVSTD) at normal heart rates were gathered for all animals. In the first study, scanning significantly reduced the ULV curve width (ULVSCN, 63.5 +/- 29.7 V; ULVPK, 81.9 +/- 45.2 V; ULVDWN, 116 +/- 36.5 V; DF, 105 +/- 22.0 V; P < .03) and significantly shifted the ULV curve to the right (ULV80 SCN, 410 +/- 62.6 V; ULV80 PK, 266 +/- 35.3 V; ULV80 DWN, 355 +/- 80.4 V; DF80, 427 +/- 60.9 V; P < .001). The subscript 80 signifies that the subject was left in normal sinus rhythm 80% of the time after that stimulus strength was delivered. In the second study, the ULVRAP curve was shifted dramatically to the right, the average ULV50 RAP being greater than the average DF90. Furthermore, 92% of the ULVRAP VF inductions occurred between 10 ms before and 50 ms after the peak of the T wave, suggesting that scanning of the entire T wave may not be necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

With a single rapidly paced ULV sequence with limited T-wave scanning, it may be possible to estimate highly effective defibrillation doses with few VF episodes and high-voltage stimuli.

The subcutaneous array: a new lead adjunct for the transvenous ICD to lower defibrillation thresholds

Despite the benefits of transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), concern exists that patients with high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) have an inadequate safety margin between the DFT and the maximum defibrillator energy. A new transvenous ICD lead adjunct, a subcutaneous lead array (SQ Array), was developed to increase safety margins by lowering DFTs. Composed of three lead elements joined in a common yoke, the SQ Array is tunneled subcutaneously in the left lateral chest. Serving as their own controls, 20 patients were studied intraoperatively comparing transvenous lead-alone DFTs with lead-SQ Array DFTs. Seventeen males and three females were randomized to receive the SQ Array through the CPI Ventak PRx/Endotak 70 series protocol. Mean patient age was 63.7 +/- 2.5 years and mean ejection fraction 0.34 +/- 0.04. DFTs were determine using a precise protocol of step-down/step-up testing commencing at 20 joules. Lead-alone DFTs were tested using the proximal coil as the anode (+). For the lead-SQ Array, the proximal coil and the array were linked as a common anode. The lead-SQ Array resulted in a statistically significant reduction in mean monophasic DFT from 23.3 +/- 2.3 joules (lead-alone) to 13.5 +/- 1.9 joules (lead-SQ Array) (P < 0.001). Six patients had lead-alone DFTs > 25 joules but did not require thoracotomy because of adequate DFT reduction with the SQ Array. We conclude that the SQ Array adjunct to the transvenous ICD lead lowers monophasic DFTs an average of 9.8 joules (40.6%) obviating the need for a thoracotomy in selected patients.

Comparison of monophasic and biphasic defibrillating pulse waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion. Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation Investigators

All transthoracic defibrillators on the US market use nominally monophasic shock waveforms. However, biphasic waveforms have a lower defibrillation threshold than monophasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation of animals and for defibrillation of humans by implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The relative efficacies of Edmark monophasic and Gurvich biphasic transthoracic cardioversion waveforms (200 J into 50 omega) were compared for transthoracic cardioversion in 171 patients undergoing electrophysiologic study for evaluation of ventricular arrhythmias. Patients were randomized in a blinded fashion to receive either a monophasic or a biphasic waveform for the initial shock for conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmias (ventricular fibrillation [VF] = 53, monomorphic ventricular tachycardia [VT] = 80, polymorphic VT = 30, ventricular flutter = 8). Delivered energies for the Edmark and Gurvich waveforms were 215 +/- 11 and 171 +/- 11 J, respectively. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics, use of antiarrhythmic agents, arrhythmia cycle length, or duration of arrhythmia prior to shock for monophasic and biphasic waveform groups. The first shock for all arrhythmias was successful in 75 of 88 patients (85.2%) for the monophasic waveform compared with 81 of 83 patients (97.6%) for the biphasic waveform, p = 0.0054. The first shock for VF was successful in 22 of 28 patients (78.6%) for the monophasic waveform compared with 25 of 25 (100%) for the biphasic waveform, p = 0.0241. The Gurvich biphasic waveforms delivering a mean of 171 J were superior to Edmark monophasic waveforms delivering a mean of 215 J for transthoracic cardioversion of arrhythmias of short duration. This finding may have important implications for the development of future transthoracic defibrillators.

Clinical experience with nonthoracotomy cardioverter defibrillators

A new generation of defibrillators has been introduced that do not require a thoracotomy. The purpose of this report was to examine 100 consecutive nonthoracotomy implantations at our institution and compare them with a series of 102 patients undergoing thoracotomy implantations by the same surgeon over a 4-year period between August 1989 and September 1994. The two groups were comparable for age, sex, comorbidity, cardiac disease status, ejection fraction, and electrophysiologic presentation. Nonthoracotomy systems were implanted successfully in 94% of patients. Patients undergoing a nonthoracotomy implantation had significantly shorter intensive care unit (1.7 +/- 1.7 versus 3.3 +/- 3.9 days; p < 0.005) and postoperative stays (5.0 +/- 2.8 versus 9.5 +/- 5.6 days; p < 0.001) than patients undergoing a thoracotomy approach. This was due to a significant decrease in the incidence of postoperative complications from 29% in the thoracotomy group to 11% in the nonthoracotomy group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall mortality rates. Nonthoracotomy systems are implantable in the majority of patients and are associated with less morbidity and shorter hospital stays than traditional thoracotomy approaches.

Optimizing defibrillation through improved waveforms

Defibrillation of the heart is achieved if an electrical current depolarizes the majority of the unsynchronized fibrillating myocardial cells. The applied current or the corresponding voltage described as a function of time is called the waveform. In pacing, to stimulate myocardial cells close to the electrode, a relatively low voltage is needed for a relatively brief duration. However, in defibrillation, approximately a 100-fold higher voltage is needed and achieved by the use of capacitors. The exponential voltage decay of a capacitor during its discharge determines the basic waveform for defibrillation. In an attempt to lower the energy needed for defibrillation, the steepness of the decay (different capacitances), the duration (fixed duration waveforms) or tilt (fixed tilt waveforms), or the initial polarity can be changed. Additionally, the polarity of the electrodes can be reversed during the discharge of the capacitor once (biphasic waveform) or twice (triphasic waveform). If two capacitors and defibrillation pathways are available, bidirectional defibrillation pulses can be delivered sequentially. In humans, the original standard waveform used with endocardial leads was a single monophasic pulse delivered by a 125-microF capacitor using the endocardial right ventricular electrode as cathode. It is now known that a reversal of the initial polarity and a reversal of polarity during capacitor discharge may significantly lower the energy needed for defibrillation, thereby preventing formerly frequent failures of defibrillation with endocardial lead systems. The use of sequential pulses showed no or only slight reductions of energy requirements and was abandoned due to the additional electrode needed. The use of a smaller capacitance (60-90 microF reduced maximum energy output but generally did not reduce energy requirements for defibrillation. However, with more efficient electrodes, smaller capacitances that will help to reduce the size of the defibrillator might be used. Thus, today defibrillation is optimized with respect to energy, capacitor size, and ease of implantation if an approximately 90-microF capacitor is used to deliver a biphasic pulse via a bipolar lead system using the right ventricular electrode as anode.

Serial defibrillation threshold measures in man: a prospective controlled study

Serial DFT Measures in Man.

INTRODUCTION

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) may change throughout the first year following implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator, but it remains uncertain if changes are a consequence of changes in clinical condition or are related to fundamental alterations at the electrode-tissue interface. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent and time course of DFT changes over the first year following implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) surgery when extraneous clinical and device variables potentially affecting the DFT were excluded.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively enrolled 61 patients undergoing epicardial or nonthoracotomy/transvenous ICD therapy into a series of follow-up studies where the DFT was measured at implant and at 1, 6, 12, and 52 weeks following implantation in a uniform manner. Stored energy DFT was measured and recorded for all patients. Patient exclusion criteria were: (1) inability to complete all five measures of the DFT; (2) institution of Class I or Class III antiarrhythmic drugs at any time during the study; (3) lead system changes (relocation or new leads) or programming changes in pulse width or current pathway; or (4) development of a significant change in their clinical status, such as decompensated congestive heart failure or acute ischemia. Only 20 of the 61 patients satisfied the criteria required to complete the study. Two of the excluded patients developed high DFTs, which required reprogramming of the current pathway. Eight patients had an epicardial lead system, and 12 had a nonthoracotomy lead system.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Transseptal defibrillation is superior for transvenous defibrillation

The conventional electrode configuration of current internal defibrillation systems most commonly use superior vena caval (SVC) or combined SVC and subcutaneous (SC) electrodes as anode, and right ventricular apex (RVA) electrode as cathode. We have demonstrated earlier that the septal mass is important for defibrillation. The purpose of the present study was to compare a transseptal to a conventional electrode arrangement in the canine model. Three endocardial electrodes, 5 French EnGuard were positioned in RVA, SVC, and the right ventricular outflow (RVO) in eight dogs. A 5 French SC electrode was positioned in the fifth left intercostal space. RVA-RVO-/SC+ (configuration 2) was compared to SVC-SC+/RVA- (configuration 1). Defibrillation threshold testing was performed using asymmetrical biphasic shock, 6 msec+/2 msec-. Probit fit was used to compare the results at 40%, 50%, 60%, and 90% probabilities, and the logistic regression analysis to estimate the impact of variables. Electrode configuration had the strongest predictive value. Configuration 2 was superior to configuration 1 (P = 0.0016). At any voltage settings the probability of success for configuration 2 was greater, and current less (P < 0.00005). The energy requirements were reduced by approximately 33% for configuration 2. There were no significant differences in impedance between the two configurations. We conclude that transseptal defibrillation is more effective because of the improved lead geometry and voltage gradient.

Transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads: effect of transvenous electrode polarity on defibrillation threshold

INTRODUCTION

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) of a transvenous-subcutaneous electrode configuration is sometimes unacceptably high. To obtain a DFT with a sufficient safety margin, the defibrillation field can be modified by repositioning the electrodes or more easily by a change of electrode polarity. In a prospective randomized cross-over study, the effect of transvenous electrode polarity on DFT was evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 21 patients receiving transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads, the DFT was determined intraoperatively for two electrode configurations. Two monophasic defibrillation pulses were delivered in sequential mode between either the right ventricular (RV) electrode as common cathode and the superior vena cava (SVC) and subcutaneous electrodes as anodes (configuration I) or the SVC electrode as common cathode and the RV and subcutaneous electrodes as anodes (configuration II). In each patient, both electrode configurations were used alternately with declining energies (25, 15, 10, 5, 2 J) until failure of defibrillation occurred. The DFT did not differ between both configurations (18.3 +/- 8.2 J vs 18.9 +/- 8.9 J; P = 0.72). Eleven patients had the same DFT with both electrode configurations, 5 patients a lower DFT with the RV electrode as cathode, and 5 patients a lower DFT with the SVC as cathode. Four patients had a sufficiently low DFT (< or = 25 J) with only 1 of the 2 configurations.

CONCLUSION

A change of electrode polarity of transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation electrodes may result in effective defibrillation if the first electrode polarity tested fails to defibrillate. In general, neither the RV electrode nor the SVC electrode is superior if used as a common cathode in combination with a subcutaneous anodal chest patch.

A minimal model of the single capacitor biphasic defibrillation waveform

A quantitative model of the single capacitor biphasic defibrillation waveform is proposed. The primary hypothesis of this model is that the first phase leaves a residual charge on the membranes of the unsynchronized cells, which can then reinitiate fibrillation. The second phase diminishes this charge, reducing the potential for refibrillation. To suppress this potential refibrillation, a monophasic shock must be strong enough to synchronize a critical mass of nearly 100% of the myocytes. Since the biphasic waveform performs this protection function by removing the residual charge (with its second phase), its first phase may be of a lower strength than a monophasic shock of equivalent performance. A quantitative model was developed to calculate the residual membrane voltage, Vm, assuming a capacitive membrane being alternately charged and discharged by the first and second phases, respectively. It was further assumed that the amplitude of the first phase would be predicted by a minimum value plus a term proportional to Vm2. The model was evaluated on the pooled data of three relevant published studies comparing biphasic waveforms. The model explained 79% of the variance in the first phase amplitude and predicted optimal durations for various defibrillator capacitances and electrode resistances. Assuming a first phase of optimal duration, the optimal second phase duration appears to be about 2.5 msec for all capacitances and resistances now seen clinically.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of the single capacitor biphasic waveform may be explained by the second phase "burping" of the deleterious residual charge of the first phase that, in turn, reduces the synchronization requirement and the amplitude requirements of the first phase.

Fully transvenous cardioverter defibrillators: rare need for subcutaneous patch with two newer-generation systems

In published series of nonthoractomy ICDs, there has invariably been a need for combining transvenous lead(s) with a subcutaneous patch to obtain adequate DFTs. Since the newer generation transvenous lead ICD systems became available for clinical investigation, we have tested and implanted 38 such systems in patients with drug-refractory malignant ventricular arrhythmias who were first seen with aborted sudden death (n = 10), syncope (n = 3), or sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 25). These patients (mean age 60 +/- 15 years) had coronary artery disease (n = 25), congenital heart disease (n = 1), or cardiomyopathy (n = 12) as the underlying heart disease and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34% +/- 16%. Seventeen (45%) patients had previous cardiac surgery (coronary bypass and/or valve replacement). The transvenous lead system included the Endotak C (single) lead of CPI (n = 27) or the EnGuard double-lead system of Telectronics (n = 11). The integrated pace/sense/defibrillation lead(s) were usually introduced via the left cephalic vein; after endocardiac positioning and testing, the leads were tunneled to the abdominal pocket in which the ICD device was implanted. DFTs were adequate for all patients (100%) and averaged 13.5 +/- 5.4 J (range 2.4 to 25 J). A subcutaneous patch or array was needed in only three patients. Because of protocol requirements, a subcutaneous patch or electrode array was intraoperatively tested in another three patients but was finally not implanted because better DFTs were achieved with the transvenous lead-alone configuration. The leads were combined with second-generation devices in 12 patients and third-generation ICDs in 26 (68%) patients.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Smaller capacitors improve the biphasic waveform

INTRODUCTION

Current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) use relatively large capacitance values. Theoretical considerations suggest, however, that improved defibrillation energy requirements may be obtained with smaller capacitance values.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We compared the energy requirement for defibrillation in a porcine model using a biphasic waveform generated from two capacitance values of 140 microF and 85 microF. Phase 1 reversal of the shock waveform occurred at 65% tilt. Phase 2 pulse width was equal to phase 1. Shocks were delivered through epicardial patch electrodes after 10 seconds of induced ventricular fibrillation. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined by a "down-up" technique requiring three reversals of defibrillation success or failure. The DFT was defined as the average of the values obtained with all trials starting from the successful shock prior to the first failure to defibrillate to the last successful defibrillation. In eight experiments, the measured parameters at DFT were as follows. The average stored and delivered DFT energies for the 85 microF capacitor were 6.1 +/- 2.1 and 6.0 +/- 2.0 J, respectively, compared to 7.5 +/- 1.3 and 7.4 +/- 1.3 J for the 140 microF capacitor (P < 0.04). The phase 1 pulse widths were significantly shorter for the 85 microF capacitor (5.1 +/- 0.8 msec vs 9.2 +/- 1.3 msec) and the impedances were lower (54.4 +/- 5.8 omega vs 59.9 +/- 6.3 omega). The mean leading edge voltage was trending higher for the 85 microF capacitor, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (374 +/- 63 V vs 326 +/- 30 V; P = 0.055).

CONCLUSION

Smaller capacitance values do result in lower energy requirements for the biphasic waveform, at a possibly higher leading edge voltage and a much shorter pulse width. Smaller capacitance values could represent a significant enhancement of well-established benefits demonstrated with the biphasic waveform.

Preliminary experience with a hybrid nonthoracotomy defibrillating system that includes a biphasic device: comparison with a standard monophasic device using the same lead system

OBJECTIVES

This study analyzed the advantage of combining a biphasic device with a transvenous system and compared the results with those obtained with a standard monophasic device.

BACKGROUND

Available lead systems use monophasic pulses and may require lengthy intraoperative testing to achieve adequate defibrillation threshold in a conspicuous number of patients. The option of biphasic waveform may provide further benefits. However, clinical experience with a permanent implant is lacking.

METHODS

Fifty-five patients underwent testing and received a permanent implant using the Endotak lead system associated with a CPI monophasic device. The remaining 36 patients received a permanent implant with the Endotak lead system connected to a biphasic device. In both groups a subcutaneous patch was combined when needed to obtain acceptable defibrillation thresholds.

RESULTS

Biphasic pulses resulted in lower mean (+/- SD) defibrillation thresholds (monophasic 15 +/- 4.7 J vs. biphasic 12 +/- 5 J, p = 0.03) and a better implantation rate (100% biphasic vs. 89% monophasic, p = 0.07). Biphasic pulses allowed implantation with less ventricular fibrillation induction (7.4 +/- 3.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 1.8, p < 0.01) and a mean shorter procedure time (168 +/- 39 vs. 111 +/- 30 min, p < 0.01). With the biphasic waveform a greater proportion of patients met the implantation criteria with the lead system alone (83% vs. 45%, p < 0.01). When needed, the left prepectoral location of the patch electrode was always sufficient in left subscapular position was required in 15 patients in the monophasic group. Implantation of the biphasic device was associated with a shorter mean hospital stay (3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 5.4 +/- 2.2 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of a biphasic device in a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator uniformly increases the efficacy of the system and the ease of implantation.

A prospective randomized cross-over comparison of mono- and biphasic defibrillation using nonthoracotomy lead configurations in humans

INTRODUCTION

For current implantable defibrillators, the nonthoracotomy approach to implantation fails in a substantial number of patients. In a prospective randomized cross-over study the defibrillation efficacy of a standard monophasic and a new biphasic waveform was compared for different lead configurations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Intraoperatively, in 79 patients receiving nonthoracotomy defibrillation leads, the defibrillation threshold was determined in the initial lead configuration for the mono- and biphasic waveform. In each patient, both waveforms were used alternately with declining energies (20, 15, 10, 5 J) until failure of defibrillation occurred. Three different initial lead configurations were tested in different, consecutive, nonrandomized patients using a bipolar endocardial defibrillation lead alone (A; n = 36) or in combination with a subcutaneous defibrillation patch (B; n = 24) or array (C; n = 19) lead. The lowest successful defibrillation energy with the biphasic waveform was less than, equal to, or higher than with the monophasic waveform in 64%, 28%, and 8% of patients, respectively, and on average significantly lower with the biphasic waveform for all three lead configurations (A: 11.3 +/- 4.4 J vs 14.5 +/- 4.5 J; B: 9.7 +/- 4.7 J vs 15.1 +/- 4.5 J; C: 7.9 +/- 4.5 J vs 12.4 +/- 4.9 J). Defibrillation efficacy at 20 J was significantly improved by the biphasic waveform (91% vs 76%).

CONCLUSION

In combination with nonthoracotomy defibrillation leads, the biphasic waveform of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator showed superior defibrillation efficacy in comparison to the standard monophasic waveform. Defibrillation thresholds were improved for lead systems with and without a subcutaneous patch or array lead.

Clinical experience with a new cardioverter defibrillator capable of biphasic waveform pulse and enhanced data storage: results of a prospective multicenter study. European Ventak P2 Investigator Group

A recently introduced cardioverter defibrillator was implanted in 162 patients with refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias and/or aborted sudden cardiac death. The new device is capable of delivering monophasic and biphasic defibrillation waveform pulses, arrhythmia detection, and therapy in two independently programmable zones, antibradycardia and postshock pacing. Additionally, the device enhanced data logs by storing intracardiac "far-field" electrograms of spontaneous arrhythmic episodes. One hundred sixty-two patients (mean age 55.5 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36%) were enrolled in this multicenter investigation; coronary artery disease was the primary cardiac disease in 63.6% of the patients, idiopathic cardiomyopathy in 23.8%. Ventricular fibrillation was present in 49.7% of the patients; 29.3% of the patients experienced ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia; monomorphic ventricular tachycardia alone was present in 19.1% of the patients. In 26 patients the device was implanted with standard epicardial defibrillation leads (mean defibrillation threshold 11.5 +/- 3.7 J). One hundred thirty-nine patients underwent testing for implantation of a nonthoracotomy system and in 136 (98%), a nonthoracotomy system could be implanted. Defibrillation thresholds with a biphasic waveform (mean 10.2 +/- 4.3 J) were lower than with a monophasic waveform (mean 17.4 +/- 5.7 J). Two patients (1.2%) died perioperatively (< 30 days). During study time period follow-up, there were 338 device discharges in 49 patients. Analysis of stored electrograms classified 25% of discharges as inappropriate and due to supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. At a mean follow-up of 10.8 months, cumulative survival from sudden cardiac death was 98.8%, and survival from all-cause mortality was 96.3%. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator in preventing arrhythmic death and the superior defibrillation efficacy of biphasic waveform pulses, which results in a higher implantation rate of nonthoracotomy systems, as well as the accurate arrhythmia classification made possible by the stored electrograms.

Clinical efficacy of shock waveforms and lead configurations for defibrillation

A randomized, prospective comparison of the defibrillation efficacy of various shock waveforms and nonthoracotomy lead configurations was performed in five distinct patient groups undergoing implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator. In the first group using a bidirectional lead configuration, there was no significant difference in the mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) between simultaneous and sequential monophasic shocks (17.8 +/- 5.8 joules versus 17.3 +/- 2.7 joules). In the second group using a bidirectional lead configuration, the mean DFT was 21.9 +/- 7.3 joules with monophasic shocks and 14.9 +/- 5.0 joules with biphasic shocks (p < 0.001). In the third group using a unidirectional lead configuration, the mean DFT was significantly higher (p < 0.001) with monophasic shocks (22.1 +/- 4.2 joules) compared with biphasic shocks (15.0 +/- 5.4 joules). In the fourth group, an intraindividual comparison with monophasic shock waveforms showed no significant differences in DFT using either a bidirectional (21.3 +/- 5.8 joules) or a unidirectional (21.7 +/- 2.6 joules) lead configuration. In the fifth group, a simplified unipolar transvenous defibrillation lead system ("active can") demonstrated significant lower DFTs (9.7 +/- 3.8 joules) compared with a standardized unidirectional lead configuration (18.0 +/- 6.8 joules). It is concluded that: (1) there seems to be no significant difference in the DFT between simultaneous and sequential monophasic shocks; (2) biphasic waveforms require significantly less energy for defibrillation than their corresponding monophasic waveforms; and (3) the unipolar single-electrode defibrillation system is easy to implant and provides DFTs at energies comparable with epicardial lead systems.

Effect of biphasic waveform pulse on endocardial defibrillation efficacy in humans

Several clinical studies have proved increased defibrillation efficacy for implantable cardioverter defibrillators with biphasic pulse waveforms compared to monophasic pulse waveforms. This difference in defibrillation efficacy depends on the type of defibrillation lead system used. The influence of biphasic defibrillation pulse waveforms on the defibrillation efficacy of purely endocardial defibrillation lead systems has not yet been sufficiently examined, we, therefore studied 30 consecutive patients with drug refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias during the implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator. After implanting an endocardial "integrated" sensing/defibrillation lead we performed a prospective randomized comparison of the defibrillation efficacy of monophasic and biphasic defibrillation waveform pulses. For endocardial defibrillation with the biphasic waveform the mean defibrillation threshold was 12.5 +/- 4.9 joules and for the monophasic waveform 22.2 +/- 5.6 joules (P < 0.0001). There was a decrease in the required defibrillation energy of biphasic defibrillation in 29/30 patients. Thus considering purely endocardial defibrillation a statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in defibrillation efficacy can be demonstrated for biphasic defibrillation waveform pulses.