A simplified, single-lead unipolar transvenous cardioversion-defibrillation system

The effect of delivered energy on defibrillation shock impedance

The impedance of internal defibrillator shocks is an important determinant of defibrillation efficacy. To assess the effect of delivered energy on impedance, we studied 97 patients with 4 different lead systems. The lead systems evaluated were two epicardial patches, a hybrid system of a patch and right atrial coil, a dual coil transvenous lead and a transvenous lead with a subcutaneous patch. Impedances were measured for 6 shock energies between 0.1 and 30 J. Shock impedance increased at low energies for all lead systems (p < 0.001), although the rate of increase varied markedly between systems. The energy factor (FE), which is the ratio of impedances for the 0.1 and 10 J shocks, was least for the platinum transvenous lead (1.2 +/- 0.02) and greatest for the titanium hybrid lead (4.2 +/- 0.2). Reversing the polarity of the hybrid lead markedly attenuated the impedance rise. These findings indicate that there is at least a modest rise (20%) of shock impedance at very low delivered energies. The largest increases noted with titanium lead systems are primarily due to polarization. Titanium transvenous leads should be avoided when low energy shocks are utilized such as for the cardioversion of ventricular tachycardia or atrial fibrillation.

Influence of polarity reversal on defibrillation success with biphasic shocks and a transvenous/subcutaneous defibrillator system in a porcine animal model

Clinical studies show that polarity reversal affects defibrillation success in transvenous monophasic defibrillators. Current devices use biphasic shocks for defibrillation. We investigated in a porcine animal model whether polarity reversal influences defibrillation success with biphasic shocks. In nine anesthetized, ventilated pigs, the defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks (14.3 ms and 10.8 ms pulse duration) with "initial polarity" (IP, distal electrode = cathode) and "reversed polarity" (RP, distal electrode = anode) delivered via a transvenous/subcutaneous lead system was compared. Voltage and current of each defibrillating pulse were recorded on an oscilloscope and impedance calculated as voltage divided by current. Cumulative defibrillation success was significantly higher for RP than for IP for both pulse durations (55% vs 44%, P = 0.019) for 14.3 ms (57% vs 45%, P < 0.05) and insignificantly higher for 10.8 ms (52% vs 42%, P = ns). Impedance was significantly lower with RP at the trailing edge of pulse 1 (IP: 44 +/- 8.4 vs RP: 37 +/- 9.3 with 14.3 ms, P < 0.001 and IP: 44 +/- 6.2 vs RP: 41 +/- 7.6 omega with 10.8 ms, P < 0.001) and the leading edge of pulse 2 (IP: 37 +/- 5 vs RP: 35 +/- 4.2 omega with 14.3 ms, P = 0.05 and IP: 37.5 +/- 3.7 vs RP: 36 +/- 5 omega with 10.8 ms, P = 0.02). In conclusion, in this animal model, internal defibrillation using the distal coil as anode results in higher defibrillation efficacy than using the distal coil as cathode. Calculated impedances show different courses throughout the shock pulses suggesting differences in current flow during the shock.

Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with lead systems consisting of an active left pectoral electrode and either single or dual transvenous coils.

BACKGROUND

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximal output.

METHODS

This prospective study was performed in 50 consecutive patients. Each patient was evaluated with two lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. Shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and either an active can alone (single coil) or an active can with the proximal atrial coil (dual coil). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform.

RESULTS

Delivered energy at the defibrillation threshold was 10.1+/-5.0 J for the single-coil configuration and 8.7+/-4.0 J for the dual-coil configuration (p < 0.02). Moreover, 98% of patients had low (<15 J) thresholds with the dual-coil lead system, compared with 88% of patients with the single-coil configuration (p=0.05). Leading edge voltage (p < 0.001) and shock impedance (p < 0.001) were also decreased with the dual-coil configuration, although peak current was increased (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A dual-coil, active pectoral lead system reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with a single-coil, unipolar configuration.

Body surface potentials during discharge of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the hazard for persons in contact with patients experiencing a high-voltage discharge of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Compared to epicardial systems, this risk may be increased with transvenous electrode systems and particularly in active can configurations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 23 patients with a transvenous active can ICD system, body surface potentials Vs and current through an external resistance were measured during 35 discharges. Vs was detected using skin electrodes positioned over the left subpectorally implanted pulse generator [C], apex of the heart [A], and the right pectoral region [RP]. Mean Vs during discharges without an external shunt resistance ranged between 13 and 63.8 V [C to A] and 12.5 to 47.3 V [C to RP] (ICD peak stored/output voltage Vcap = 183 to 606 V, n = 20). Mean current flow [C to A] was 8.2 to 46.8 mA (Vcap = 288 to 633 V, n = 10) and 42 to 120.7 mA (Vcap = 447 to 579 V, n = 5) across a resistance of 1,696 and 797 omega, respectively.

CONCLUSION

During high-output shocks, a considerable potential difference is present on the body surface of ICD patients that, according to the literature, may induce a single cardiac response in a bystander. Analogous to spontaneous extrasystoles, there is only a minimal chance of triggering a tachyarrhythmia by this stimulated extra beat. Direct induction of ventricular fibrillation is unlikely, since reported fibrillation threshold values are much higher than the observed magnitudes of current and voltage.

Effect of shock polarity on biphasic defibrillation thresholds using an active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION

The downsizing of implantable defibrillator pulse generators has made pectoral placement routine. A further reduction of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) may simplify implantation defibrillation testing and allow for smaller, lower output pulse generators while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin. One factor that may affect defibrillation efficacy is shock polarity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients undergoing dual-coil, active left pectoral defibrillator implantation were evaluated. Paired, biphasic DFTs were measured in normal (RV apex = cathode) and reverse (RV apex = anode) polarity with order of testing randomized. Reverse polarity conferred a 15% reduction of mean DFTs (8.5 +/- 5.0 J normal, 7.2 +/- 4.6 J reverse polarity, P = 0.02). The effect of polarity appeared most pronounced among the patients with a high DFT (> or = 15 J) resulting in a 31% reduction with reverse polarity (16.7 +/- 2.5 J normal, 11.5 +/- 5.9 J reverse, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Reversing shock polarity results in significantly lower biphasic DFTs with an active pectoral lead system, particularly in the subgroup of patients with a high normal polarity threshold. Reversing polarity in these patients may simplify acute defibrillation testing and allow for lower output devices.

Prospective evaluation of shoulder-related problems in patients with pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

The pectoral approach to implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has become a standard in defibrillator therapy because of reduced generator size, weight, and volume. But the size of these devices is still comparable to the size of the early conventional antibradycardia pacemakers that were associated with a number of significant pocket- and shoulder-related problems after implantation in the pectoral region. In a prospective, single-center study of 50 patients with subpectoral implantation of a fourth-generation ICD, the ipsilateral shoulder joint was evaluated regarding active shoulder motility, shoulder-related pain, shoulder function, shoulder elevation, insertion tendinitis, and morphologic alterations of the shoulder.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The shoulder was evaluated before implantation and at 3, 6, and 12 months after implantation. Shoulder motility was documented by evaluating active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation. Shoulder-related pain and function were documented by the "Basic Shoulder Evaluation Form," insertion tendinitis was diagnosed by standardized palpation and the impingement test, and morphologic alterations were documented by ultrasound and radiograph of the shoulder. Three months after implantation, 20 (40%) patients had a reduced active abduction, 30 (60%) patients had an impaired active forward flexion, and eight (16%) patients had a reduced external rotation. Thirty-one (62%) patients reported shoulder-related pain or impaired shoulder function according to the "Basic Shoulder Evaluation Form." Twenty-four (48%) patients showed a shoulder elevation and 21 (42%) patients demonstrated clinical signs of insertion tendinitis. After 12 months the number of patients with reduced active abduction, forward flexion, and external rotation dropped to four (8%). Shoulder-related pain and reduced function were documented in seven (13%) patients, four (8%) patients still had shoulder elevation, and five (10%) patients still had signs of insertion tendinitis. None of the postoperatively performed ultrasounds or radiographs showed any pathologic shoulder alterations. No predictors for the occurrence of shoulder-associated problems could be found.

CONCLUSIONS

(1) Decreased active shoulder motility, shoulder-related pain, reduced function, shoulder elevation, and insertion tendinitis of the ipsilateral shoulder joint are diagnosed in many patients 3 months after subpectoral ICD implantation. (2) After 12 months the number of patients with impaired shoulder motility, function, shoulder-related pain, shoulder elevation, and insertion tendinitis decreased significantly. (3) Ultrasound and radiographs of the ipsilateral shoulder showed no evidence of pathologic morphologic alterations after subpectoral ICD implantation. (4) No shoulder-associated problems required an operative revision of the subpectoral generator pocket.

Temporal stability of defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION

Monophasic defibrillation thresholds rise over time with a variety of lead systems. These chronic changes are attenuated or eliminated by biphasic waveforms, although the effect appears dependent upon the lead system. With the downsizing of pulse generator size to allow for routine pectoral implantation, active can lead systems have now become standard. However, the temporal stability of such lead systems has not been evaluated previously.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective assessment of the changes of active pectoral defibrillation thresholds over time. Thresholds were measured at implant, predischarge, and at a mean follow-up of 50 days in 46 patients with a uniform testing protocol and shock polarity. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak DSP lead with an active pectoral pulse generator. Defibrillation thresholds were 9.9+/-5.5 J at implantation, 8.5+/-6.0 J predischarge, and 7.6+/-5.5 J at follow-up (ANOVA, P = 0.007). Moreover, only two patients developed an increased threshold > 5 J, and no patient had an inadequate safety margin at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that active pectoral defibrillation thresholds are stable over the first 2 months postimplantation and question the need for routine serial defibrillation threshold testing.

Simplified implantation of single-lead pectoral cardioverter defibrillators using device-based testing

Device-based testing of single-lead pectoral defibrillators (defibrillation efficacy testing without an external defibrillation system after complete implantation of the device) resulted in an adequate defibrillation threshold (< or = 20 J) in 45 of 50 study patients (90%). Mean surgical implantation time (skin to skin) was 62 +/- 29 minutes without perioperative mortality and without implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection during follow-up. Thus, device-based testing appears to be a simple and safe method to test defibrillation efficacy of single-lead pectoral defibrillators.

Comparison of right- and left-sided pectoral implantation parameters with the Jewel active can cardiodefibrillator. The World Wide Jewel Investigators

A total of 1,207 patients received a Medtronic Jewel active can ICD (models 7218C, 7219C), with a Transvene lead in 97 centers in Europe and North America. Nineteen implants were from the right pectoral region. Patients with right-sided ICDs did not differ in terms of mean age, % male, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association Functional Class, antiarrhythmic drug therapy, indication for the implantable cardioverter defibrillator, and R wave values at implantation, but tended to have slightly higher pacing thresholds (1.2 +/- 0.5 V vs 1.0 +/- 0.6 V, P = 0.012) and higher defibrillation thresholds (14.7 +/- 6.4 J vs 11.5 +/- 6 J, P = 0.11) compared with patients with left sided implants. Patients with right-sided implants had a longer implantation time compared with patients with left-sided implants (118 +/- 70 minutes vs 91 +/- 46 minutes, P = 0.074). In follow-up, 5 patients with right-sided implantation received successful therapy for either ventricular fibrillation, (8 episodes) or ventricular tachycardia (5 episodes). No ineffective therapy from the device was delivered in any patients with right-sided implantation. Right-sided pectoral implants are feasible with the Medtronic Jewel active can ICD.

Subcutaneous single-incision implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators under local anesthesia by electrophysiologists in the electrophysiology laboratory

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have traditionally been implanted at the operating room under general anesthesia. Endocardial lead systems and downsized devices allowed implantation by electrophysiologists in the pectoral region. The present study evaluates the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ICD implantation performed entirely by electrophysiologists using a single-incision approach for lead insertion and device placement under local anesthesia. Between June 1996 and May 1997, 51 of 52 consecutive patients (41 men and 10 women, mean age 58 +/- 9 years) underwent ICD implantation at the electrophysiology laboratory. Local anesthesia and intravenous sedation were administered to all patients. After transvenous lead positioning by either venotomy of the left cephalic vein (n = 16) or puncture of the left subclavian vein (n = 35), all ICDs were implanted subcutaneously at the left subclavicular region. Fifty procedures (98%) were successful at first attempt. The mean implantation time was 76 +/- 22 minutes and the mean fluoroscopy time was 7.5 +/- 5.2 minutes. Patients received ICD devices generating biphasic waveforms. The mean defibrillation threshold was 11 +/- 3 J. Procedure-related complications occurred in 5 patients (10%): 1 lead dislocation, 2 pocket hematomas, and 2 pneumothorax requiring drainage. Mean time from implantation to hospital discharge was 1.8 +/- 1.2 days. During follow-up (38 +/- 14 weeks), all devices were operating appropriately and no major complications occurred. In conclusion, this report demonstrates that a single-incision subcutaneous technique for ICD implantation can be safely and successfully performed by electrophysiologists using local anesthesia and intravenous sedation. The high success rate, low complication occurrence, and short implantation and fluoroscopy times make this cost-effective technique in the electrophysiology laboratory the method of choice.

Effect of the superior vena cava electrode surface area on defibrillation threshold in different lead systems

Little data is available comparing the efficacy of the Transvene, Endotak C 70 series, and the active CAN configuration on defibrillation success. In addition, the impact of the superior vena cava (SVC) electrode surface area and length on the active CAN system is unknown. Therefore, we compared the defibrillation efficacy of the Transvene and Endotak C 70 series lead systems with and without the active CAN in dogs. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was randomly performed in 20 dogs. In protocol I (10 dogs), DFT energy was compared in three RV/SVC lead systems with an SVC electrode defibrillating surface area of 90 mm2 (Transvene-90), 160 mm2 (Transvene-160), 617 mm2 (Endotak), and an RV/CAN configuration. In protocol II (10 dogs), DFT comparison was performed in the Transvene-90/CAN, Transvene-160/CAN, Endotak/CAN, and RV/CAN configurations. In protocol I, increasing the SVC surface area from 90 to 160 mm2 and from 160 to 617 mm2 significantly lowered DFT energy. The Endotak and the RV/CAN systems provided the lowest DFT energy requirements. In protocol II, the Endotak/CAN system significantly lowered DFT energy compared to the other three lead configurations. In both protocols, the impedance decreased as the SVC surface area increased from 90 to 160 mm2. However, no significant reduction in DFT impedance occurred as the SVC surface area increased from the Transvene-160 to the Endotak lead. Increasing the SVC surface area from 90 to 617 mm2 in a two coil lead system lowered DFT energy to similar levels provided by the RV/CAN configuration. The addition of an SVC electrode with a surface area of 90 or 160 mm2 did not reduce DFT energy compared to the RV/CAN configuration. The Endotak/CAN system, however, provided the lowest DFT requirements.

Update on implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. New, safer devices have led to changes in indications

The safety and efficacy of ICDs have improved significantly in the past few years. Recent evidence supports the value of these devices not only for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death, but also for primary prevention in post-myocardial infarction patients with poor left ventricular function, unsustained ventricular tachycardia, and inducible ventricular tachycardia on electrophysiologic study. Transvenous defibrillation using the defibrillator case as the high-voltage electrode and a biphasic shock is currently the procedure of choice. Implantation is simple, and the defibrillation thresholds are acceptably low. However, the possibility of interactions must be considered in patients with cardiac pacemakers.

Effects of polarity on defibrillation thresholds using a biphasic waveform in a hot can electrode system

The polarity of a monophasic and biphasic shocks have been reported to influence DFTs in some studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the first phase polarity on the DFT of a biphasic shock utilizing a nonthoracotomy "hot can" electrode configuration which had a 90-microF capacitance. We tested the hypothesis that anodal first phase was more effective than cathodal ones for defibrillation using biphasic shocks in ten anesthetized pigs weighing 38.9 +/- 3.9 kg. The lead system consisted of a right ventricular catheter electrode with a surface area of 2.7 cm2 and a left pectoral "hot can" electrode with 92.9 cm2 surface area. DFT was determined using a repeated "down-up" technique. A shock was tested 10 seconds after initiation of ventricular fibrillation. The mean delivered energy at DFT was 11.2 +/- 1.7 J when using the right ventricular apex electrode as the cathode and 11.3 +/- 1.2 J (P = NS) when using it as the anode. The peak voltage at DFT was also not significantly different (529.0 +/- 41.3 and 531.8 +/- 28.6 V, respectively). We concluded that the first phase polarity of a biphasic shock used with a nonthroracotomy "hot can" electrode configuration did not affect DFT.

Initial clinical experience with a new small sized third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator: results of a multicenter study. European Ventak Mini Investigator Group

This study reports the acute clinical experience with the new CPI VENTAK MINI: a small sized (68 cc), implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with 33 J stored energy. Implantation of the device was attempted in 113 patients (90 men, mean age 57 +/- 16 years, 64 with coronary artery disease, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 41%) with ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VF). All 113 patients (100%) were ultimately implanted, 12% of them for ICD replacement. Transvenous lead implantation was accomplished in all 104 patients (100%) receiving new leads, 95% of them with a single lead configuration. The safety criteria for implantation (2 consecutive VF conversions at 15 J or 3 at 20 J, in both cases without failures to convert) were demonstrated in all but 7 patients (6%). In 6 of these, safety criteria were not fully assessed while in the last patient defibrillation efficacy was not determined. Of the 104 patients with new leads, 90% underwent pectoral implantation. Of the 9 patients (9%) abdominally implanted, only 4 (4%) (3 children) were judged small sized for pectoral implant. At predischarge testing, reliable VF detection and conversion were noted in 96 of 97 patients tested. There was no perioperative mortality. At a 3.6 +/- 1.3 months follow-up, 34% of the patients had a spontaneous arrhythmic event, and 24% of the patients received shocks. Clinically inappropriate therapies occurred in 8% of the episodes in which any kind of therapy was delivered. This study demonstrates the short-term clinical efficacy and safety of the new device, and that pectoral implantation can be performed in the large majority of patients.

Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation

Lead systems that include an active pectoral shell reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximum output. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with multiple transvenous lead systems including those with an active pectoral shell to determine which system would optimize defibrillation energy requirements. This prospective study was performed on 21 consecutive patients. Each subject was evaluated with 3 lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. The configurations were a dual coil transvenous lead (lead), the distal right ventricular coil and pectoral pulse generator shell (unipolar), and all 3 components (triad). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform. Delivered energy at defibrillation threshold was 11.2 +/- 3.4 J for the lead configuration, 10.1 +/- 5.2 J for the unipolar configuration, and 7.8 +/- 3.6 J for the triad configuration (p <0.01). Leading edge voltage (p <0.01) and shock impedance (p <0.001) were also decreased for the triad configuration compared with the lead or unipolar configurations, whereas peak current was minimized with the unipolar configuration (p <0.01). We conclude that the combination of a dual coil, transvenous lead and an active pectoral shell reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with either the lead alone or unipolar configuration. Moreover, the defibrillation thresholds were < or =15 J in all patients using the triad lead system.

Antiarrhythmic therapy--future trends and forecast for the 21st century

This article discusses recent changes in antiarrhythmic therapy, with a focus on nonpharmacologic therapy (electrode catheter ablation, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICDs]), and puts them into perspective for the coming years. The treatment of supraventricular tachycardias and tachycardia involving accessory pathways is likely to remain the domain of catheter ablation. With promising new techniques under investigation, the spectrum of arrhythmias that can be cured will probably be expanded. Treatment of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias is likely to remain the domain of the ICD in the foreseeable future. With the safety net of the ICD in place, new antiarrhythmic drugs or other forms of antiarrhythmic therapy can be developed and tested.

[The current status of implantable automatic defibrillators]

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator has become an important therapy for patients with sustained or life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Although the concept for the implantable cardioverter defibrillator originated in the late 1960s, the first device was implanted in humans in 1980. Since then, the technology has improved rapidly the design, function and reliability of the devices have been greatly modified. There are currently five companies dealing with defibrillators in Spain incorporating multiple options in defibrillation, pacing and sensing capabilities. New devices with atrioventricular pacing and atrial defibrillation possibilities will soon become available. The purpose of this article is to review the principal functions of implantable cardioverter defibrillators currently available.

Right side implant of the unipolar single lead defibrillation system

The active can defibrillator has been designed for implantation in the left prepectoral region. Whether this system can be successfully implanted on the right side is unknown. We describe six cases in which placement of the unipolar single lead defibrillation system was successfully attempted in the right prepectoral region due to impediments on the left side. The mean age of the patients was 62 +/- 12 years. Five patients had ischemic heart disease and one idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. The endocardial defibrillation electrode was placed in the right ventricle through the right subclavian vein and positioned at the apex in two patients and in the septal position in four patients. Defibrillation threshold testing was performed using a step-up/step-down protocol beginning at 12 J with 3-J increments or decrements. Defibrillation threshold was defined as the lowest energy of the first shock able to terminate ventricular fibrillation. The generator models used were the Medtronic 7218C in 1 patient, the Medtronic 7219C in 3 patients, and the Ventritex Cadet 115 AC in 2 patients. The mean defibrillation threshold was 15 +/- 3 J. The defibrillation thresholds were retested at 1, 3, and 6 months, and showed no significant change in five patients but decreased from 15 J to 12 J in one patient. The presence of impediments on the left side should not preclude attempts to place the unipolar active can system in the right prepectoral region.

Biphasic waveforms prevent the chronic rise of defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare chronic changes in monophasic and biphasic defibrillation thresholds using a uniform transvenous lead system and testing protocol.

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation thresholds increase over time in patients with nonthoracotomy lead systems. This increase can result in an inadequate chronic defibrillation safety margin and could limit the safety of smaller pulse generators, which have a reduced maximal output. However, previous studies of the temporal changes of defibrillation thresholds evaluated complex lead systems or monophasic shock waveforms, neither of which are used with current technology.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of the effects of shock waveforms on the changes of transvenous defibrillation thresholds over time. Paired monophasic and biphasic thresholds were measured both at implantation and at follow-up (250 +/- 105 days) in 24 consecutive patients who were not receiving antiarrhythmic drugs. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak C lead, and reverse polarity shocks (distal coil = anode) were delivered.

RESULTS

Monophasic defibrillation thresholds increased from (mean +/- SD) 13.7 +/- 6.0 J to 16.8 +/- 6.7 J (p = 0.02), whereas biphasic thresholds were unchanged (10.4 +/- 4.3 J to 10.2 +/- 4.8 J, p = 0.86) in the same patients. Shock impedance chronically increased (47.0 omega to 50.5 omega, p = 0.02) and was unaffected by waveform.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that biphasic shocks prevent the chronic increase in defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system.

Clinical predictors of transvenous biphasic defibrillation thresholds

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator placement. However, previous studies of clinical predictors of an adequate nonthoracotomy defibrillation threshold (DFT) evaluated monophasic waveforms or more complex lead systems, including subcutaneous patches. Accordingly, this study is a prospective evaluation of the predictors of an adequate biphasic DFT in 114 consecutive patients undergoing cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a single transvenous lead. For each subject, 38 parameters were assessed, including standard demographic, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and radiographic measurements. An adequate DFT (< or =20 J) was achieved in 92% of patients. Multivariable analysis revealed 2 independent factors predictive of a high threshold: echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular dilation (odds ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.53, p = 0.003) and body size (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.73; p = 0.005). No patient with a normal left ventricular end-diastolic dimension had a high DFT, whereas 14% (9 of 66) of those with left ventricular dilation had elevated thresholds. When the DFT cutoff was lowered to 15 J, as is necessary with some downsized pulse generators, an adequate threshold was observed in 84% of patients and the same 2 independent predictors of high thresholds were found. These results indicate that an adequate transvenous DFT can be predicted from simple clinical parameters.

Optimized first phase tilt in "parallel-series" biphasic waveform

INTRODUCTION

A biphasic defibrillation waveform can achieve a large second phase leading-edge voltage by a "parallel-series" switching system. Recently, such a system using two 30-microF capacitances demonstrated better defibrillation threshold than standard waveforms available in current implantable devices. However, the optimized tilt of such a "parallel-series" system had not been defined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation thresholds were evaluated for five different biphasic "parallel-series" waveforms (60/15 microF) and a biphasic "parallel-parallel" waveform (60/60 microF) in 12 anesthetized pigs. The five "parallel-series" waveforms had first phase tilts of 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% with second phase pulse width of 3 msec. The "parallel-parallel" waveform had first phase tilt of 50% with second phase pulse width of 3 msec. The defibrillation lead system comprised a left pectoral "hot can" electrode (cathode) and a right ventricular lead (anode). The stored energy at defibrillation threshold of the "parallel-series" waveform with first phase tilts of 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% was 7.0 +/- 2.1, 6.1 +/- 2.8, 6.8 +/- 2.8, 7.2 +/- 2.9, and 8.4 +/- 3.1 J, respectively. The stored energy of the "parallel-series" waveform with a 50% first phase tilt was 16% less than the nonswitching "parallel-parallel" waveform (7.3 +/- 2.8 J, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A first phase tilt of 50% maximized defibrillation efficacy of biphasic waveforms implemented with a "parallel-series" switching system. This optimized "parallel-series" waveform was more efficient than the comparable "parallel-parallel" biphasic waveform having the same first phase capacitance and tilt.

The effect of electrode size on transvenous defibrillation energy requirements: a prospective evaluation

Recent technological advances have resulted in high success rates for implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems. Further decreases in defibrillator size, facilitating pectoral placement, will depend in part on lowering defibrillation energy requirements. The purpose of this study was to determine if endocardial defibrillation energy requirements are influenced by electrode size. Thirteen adult mongrel dogs were studied under general anesthesia. A 9 Fr integrated bipolar pace/sense/defibrillation electrode (cathode) was positioned transvenously at the RV apex. The second defibrillation electrode (anode) was positioned at the junction of the RA and SVC. Two diameters of the proximal electrode, 7 Fr and 11 Fr, were sequentially tested in random order in each animal. The DFT for each electrode was determined using a 50-V up-down method. Energy, leading edge voltage, and current, current distribution, and total resistance were measured. The mean defibrillation voltage threshold with the 11 Fr proximal electrode was significantly less than with the 7 Fr proximal electrode (551.1 +/- 76.5 V vs 588.5 +/- 54.6 V, P < 0.01). Similarly, the mean DFT with the 11 Fr electrode was less than with the 7 Fr electrode (20.7 +/- 5.7 J vs 23.3 +/- 4.4 J, P < 0.01). Lower DFTs were found using the larger electrode in 11 of the 13 animals studied. However, there was no difference in defibrillation lead impedance between the two electrode systems. Endocardial defibrillation energy requirements may be lowered with a larger diameter proximal electrode. The mechanism by which this occurs may be due to a more even distribution of current gradients with the larger electrode. Determination of the optimal electrode size requires evaluation in humans, as this may allow further reduction in defibrillation energy requirements and defibrillator size.

Experience with unipolar pectoral defibrillation

With simple, single lead unipolar pectoral defibrillators, ICD technology has reached a level of ease and safety comparable to pacemaker implantation. It will be difficult to further decrease the morbidity associated with ICD implantation; just as it will be difficult to improve upon current device treatment of sudden cardiac death. Even as further incremental improvements in devices and leads will undoubtedly occur, at this point in ICD evolution, it is investigating the expanded use of this therapy as a prevention tool that is likely to have the largest overall impact on cardiac arrest survival.

Does reducing capacitance have potential for further miniaturisation of implantable defibrillators?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether considerably smaller capacitors could replace 125 microF capacitors as the standard for use in implantable defibrillators.

METHODS

Measured energy, impedance, voltage, and current delivered were compared at defibrillation threshold in 10 mongrel dogs for defibrillation using 75 microF and 125 microF capacitors alternated randomly. Defibrillation was attempted with biphasic shocks of comparable tilt between an endocardial lead in the right ventricular apex and a "dummy" active can of an experimental implantable device placed in the subpectoral position.

RESULTS

A reduction of capacitor size of 40% was associated with an increase in voltage of 21% and in current of 22%. With a 65% tilt, no significant differences were found between the two capacitances with respect to the impedance or energy required for defibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple advances in electrode material, electrode configuration, shock morphology, and shock polarity have reduced defibrillation energy requirements. Smaller capacitors could be used in implantable cardioverter/defibrillators without a major decrease in effectiveness.

[Influence of waveform and configuration of electrodes on the defibrillation threshold of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators]

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) is no threshold in the true sense. Between energy levels which defibrillate in all cases and energy levels which never defibrillate, a broad range of energies exists which might or might not defibrillate. Thus, the value of the DFT is dependant on the protocol used for its determination. Usually the DFT presents an energy at which the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) will defibrillate successfully at a rate of approximately 75%. To achieve a 100% success rate the energy has to be programmed 15 J above the DFT or twice the DFT.Using DFT measurements the energy needed for internal defibrillation could be gradually reduced in the last years. Major break throughs have been the introduction of the biphasic defibrillation waveform and the use of pectorally implanted ICD shells as defibrillation electrodes. The shortening of the defibrillation impulse by the use of lower capacitances could not improve DFTs but allowed to construct ICDs of smaller volume. Addition of a superior vena cava electrode or a subcutaneous array electrode at the left lateral chest to the standard bipolar electrode system (right ventricle, pectoral ICD can) allowed for tri- and quadripolar lead configurations which reduced DFTs on average only slightly but reduced the standard deviation of DFTs significantly and thus helped to avoid high DFTs. Besides building smaller ICDs, reduction of DFTs and thus programming of lower defibrillation ICD energies allows for improved battery longevities and reduced capacitor charging times and thus a lower incidence of syncopes.

Unipolar pectoral defibrillation systems

Over the past 15 years, the implantation of automatic defibrillations has evolved from an obscure, impractical, and often morbid procedure to nearly a routine therapy. Initial large abdominally implanted generators with multiple epicardial leads have given way to much smaller, pectorally implanted systems utilizing only a single lead. These systems are better accepted by physicians and patients and rival recent-generation pacemakers in their implantation simplicity. Outcomes with single lead defibrillator implantation have been excellent. They are 99% effective at eliminating sudden death in large cohorts of patients, with overall survival of 94.4% at 18 months. Previously significant perioperative complications and mortality associated with epicardial systems have been virtually eliminated. Transvenous single lead systems now provide defibrillation efficacy at a level that makes epicardial leads unnecessary in most patients. Although inappropriate shocks are not a morbid complication, they still occur in approximately 15%-30% of patients. This is an area for improvement in defibrillator therapy, which, though invisible in total mortality statistics, is significant in terms of patient comfort and acceptance. Incremental improvements in pulse generator design and defibrillator lead technology are being made. Perhaps the most interesting new development will be the dual chamber device, incorporating and atrial electrode for sensing, pacing, and perhaps, atrial defibrillation. Such improvements will continue to make device therapy of all arrhythmias more versatile and improve patient comfort both in terms of device size and inappropriate shocks. It is unlikely, however, that further technological advances can further diminish the already small complication rate or improve the already excellent efficacy of current single lead systems. Defibrillator technology has already reached a maturity where technological improvements are less significant than efforts to better define the patient population who will benefit from the therapy.

Polarity reversal improves defibrillation efficacy in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter defibrillator implantation with biphasic shocks

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of polarity reversal on DFT in patients undergoing implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillators with biphasic shocks. Previous studies have shown higher defibrillation efficacy with using the distal electrode as anode implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillators and monophasic shocks. However, it is as yet unclear whether biphasic shock defibrillation will also be influenced by polarity reversal. Using a transvenous lead system with a proximal electrode in the superior caval vein and a distal electrode in the RV apex, 27 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation were randomized to DFT testing "initial" (distal electrode = cathode) or "reversed" polarity (distal electrode = anode). Defibrillation energy was reduced stepwise until defibrillation failure occurred. At this point, polarity was switched and testing continued until the lowest energy requirement was determined for both polarities. With reversed polarity, DFT was 11.1 +/- 5.7 J versus 13.3 +/- 5.8 J with polarity (P = 0.033). This means a 17% reduction of the DFT. In 10 patients, the threshold was lower with reversed, whereas in 3 patients it was lower with initial polarity. In conclusion, changing electrode polarity in transvenous implantable defibrillators with biphasic shocks may significantly influence defibrillation energy requirements. Therefore, polarity reversal should always be attempted before considering patch implantation.

Transvenous defibrillator systems implanted by electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory

BACKGROUND

A significantly lower perioperative mortality has established the nonthoracotomy approach as the preferred technique in implantable cardioverter defibrillation (ICD) implantation. With the currently available transvenous endocardial leads in combination with the expanded use of biphasic ICD devices, the need for use of an additional subcutaneous lead has almost been eliminated. Thus, implantation of these systems has been simplified and reports have appeared in the literature that the procedure can now be performed by an electrophysiologist alone without surgical assistance in the electrophysiology or catheterization laboratory.

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of ICD implantation by an electrophysiologist in a procedure performed entirely in the catheterization laboratory without the assistance of a surgeon.

METHODS

Over a period of 28 months, we implanted transvenous ICDs in 40 consecutive patients with (n = 34) and without (n = 6) use of general anesthesia in the catheterization laboratory with minor surgical assistance in abdominal pocket fashioning for the first two cases and then working alone for the remainder. The study included 36 men and 4 women, aged 59 +/- 12.5 years, with coronary artery (n = 22) or valvular heart disease (n = 4), cardiomyopathy (n = 12), and long QT syndrome (n = 1) or idiopathic ventricular tachycardia (n = 1), and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%, who presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 30) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 10).

RESULTS

One-lead ICD systems (Endotak, n = 21; Transvene, n = 8; or EnGuard, n = 1) were used in 30 patients, and 2-lead (EnGuard, n = 5 or Transvene, n = 5) systems in 10 patients. Generators were implanted in an abdominal (n = 17) or pectoral (n = 23) pocket. Active can devices were employed in 17 patients. The defibrillation threshold averaged 9 J. All implants were entirely transvenous with no subcutaneous patch. Biphasic ICD devices were employed in all patients. There were three complications (8%); one pulmonary edema that responded to drug therapy, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on the third day, and one pocket hematoma in a patient receiving anticoagulation, with no need for evacuation. There were no operative deaths and no infections. After implant, patients were discharged at a mean of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. During follow-up (12 +/- 8 months), 20 patients received appropriate and 5 patients inappropriate shocks. Three patients died of pump failure at 3, 7, and 19 months, respectively; they had received 0, 42, and 15 appropriate shocks, respectively, over these months. Another patient succumbed to a myocardial infarction at 9 months. At 6 months, one patient developed subacute subclavian vein thrombosis which resolved with anticoagulation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current transvenous biphasic ICD systems allow experienced electrophysiologists to implant them safely alone in the catheterization laboratory without surgical assistance, even for abdominal implants, with a high success rate and no need for use of a subcutaneous patch.

Clinical predictors of transvenous defibrillation energy requirements

Nonthoracotomy and, more recently, transvenous lead systems have become routine for initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Previous studies of clinical predictors of nonthoracotomy defibrillation energy requirements evaluated multiple complex lead systems that included subcutaneous patches. However, the predictors of an adequate transvenous defibrillation threshold (DFT) have not been assessed previously. Accordingly, the present study is a prospective evaluation of DFT using a uniform testing protocol in 119 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation with a single transvenous lead. For each patient, 38 parameters were assessed including standard clinical, echocardiographic, and radiographic measures. An adequate monophasic DFT (< or =20 J) was achieved in 76% of patients. Multivariable analysis revealed 3 independent factors predictive of a high threshold: preoperative amiodarone use (odds ratio = 5.8, p < or =0.002), echocardiographic measures of left ventricular dilation (odds ratio = 0.47, p < or =0.005) and body size (odds ratio = 0.51, p < or =0.006). Patients receiving amiodarone who also had left ventricular dilation constitute a group at considerable (69%) risk for having a high DFT. In contrast, patients with neither of these risk factors have only an 11% chance of having a high threshold. We conclude that an adequate transvenous DFT can be predicted from simple clinical parameters.

Ultrastructural alterations in the right and left ventricular myocardium following multiple low energy endocardial countershocks in anesthetized dogs

Both high energy transthoracic and direct epicardial defibrillation can result in RV and LV myocardial damage, but little is known about the damage due to defibrillation using an endocardial RV electrode. Furthermore, disturbances in postdefibrillation oxidative metabolism have been reported and may be caused by primary injury of mitochondrial integrity and function, but information about ultrastructural mitochondrial alterations is rare. We therefore studied, in 13 fox hounds, RV and LV ultrastructural alterations following multiple low energy endocardial countershocks. Using an ICD and an endocardial defibrillation system a median of 54 (43-74) countershocks with a cumulative energy of 1,558 J (844-2,141 J) was delivered. After termination of countershocks, RV and LV myocardium was examined by electron microscopy. In both ventricles, severe myocardial alterations were found, including swollen mitochondria, disruption of mitochondrial crests, and loss of integrity of the mitochondrial inner and outer membranes. At the first time a semiquantitative score, originally developed for postischemic injury, was successfully used to grade the postcountershock mitochondrial alteration, which showed a more pronounced damage in the RV (2.69 +/- 0.22 points) compared to the LV (2.18 +/- 0.22 P = 0.021). We conclude that even the use of endocardial lead systems with low energy countershocks may lead to severe mitochondrial damage, especially in the RV.

The treatment of patients with infected implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the treatment of patients with infected implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was done of the cases of 21 patients treated for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator infection during an 11-year period.

RESULTS

Of 723 cardioverter-defibrillator implantations (550 primary implants, 173 replacements), nine (1.2%) were complicated by early postoperative device-related infections. Late infections developed in two patients 19 and 22 months, respectively, after implantation. Ten other patients were transferred to our institution for treatment of cardioverter-defibrillator infection. The time from implantation to overt infection was 2.2 +/- 1.3 months, excluding the two late infections. The responsible organisms were Staphylococcus aureus (9), Staphylococcus epidermidis (6), Streptococcus hemolyticus (1), gram-negative bacteria (3), Candida albicans (1), and Corynebacterium (1). All patients were treated with intravenous antibiotic drugs. Total system removal was done in 15 patients and partial removal in 2; in 4, the cardioverter-defibrillator system was not explanted. There were no perioperative deaths. A new implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system was reimplanted in 7 patients after 2 to 6 weeks of antibiotic therapy. Ten patients were treated without reimplantation (2 arrhythmia operation, 8 antiarrhythmic drugs). Four patients (3 patients without explantation and 1 with partial system removal) were treated with maintenance long-term antibiotic therapy. During a mean follow-up of 21 +/- 2.8 months, no patient had clinical recurrence of infection. One patient treated with antiarrhythmic drugs without system reimplantation died suddenly.

CONCLUSIONS

Infections that involve implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems can be safely managed by removing the entire system with reimplantation after intravenous antibiotic therapy. In selected patients in whom the risk for system explantation is high and anticipated life expectancy is short, long-term antibiotic therapy to suppress low-virulence infections may represent an acceptable alternative.

Does an SVC electrode further reduce DFT in a hot-can ICD system?

Pectorally implanted ICDs that defibrillate with the RV electrode and the ICD housing have gained clinical acceptance. However, it is still debatable whether adding an SVC electrode connected to the housing will further reduce the threshold of defibrillation (DFT). This study utilized eight pigs. DFTs were measured with a 50 V step-down protocol starting at 650 V (20 J). Shock strength for 50% success (E50) was estimated with the average of three reversals. In addition to alpha dummy device, Lead I (Pacesetter Models 1558 and 1538) or Lead II (Endotak 72) were used. Leads I are active fixation, true bipolar sensing with 5-cm shocking coils. Lead II has an integrated bipolar sensing with a 4.7-cm RV and 6.9-cm SVC shocking coils. A 95 microF defibrillation system was used to deliver a 44% tilt tuned biphasic 1.6/2.5 ms waveform, and to measure lead impedance. The RV electrode was the anode during phase I. With Lead IRV-->CAN the DFT was 531 +/- 75 V (13.6 +/- 3.8J) and the E50 was 496 +/- 89 (12 +/- 4.3 J). These were not significantly (NS) different than the DFT for RV-->CAN and SVC which was 518 +/- 84 V (13 +/- 4.2 J) or the E50 which was 476 +/- 84 V (11 +/- 3.9 J). Similar results were obtained with Lead II. Despite a decrease in lead impedance there was no apparent benefit from the addition of the SVC electrode. Lead I provided equivalent DFT performance to Lead II.

Clinical results with electrophysiologist-implanted cardioverter-defibrillators

With the advent of nonthoracotomy leads and smaller devices, implantation techniques for implantable cardioverters defibrillators (ICDs) have been simplified. We reviewed the outcome of pectoral ICD implantation by electrophysiologists in 51 consecutive patients, 47 males and 4 females, mean age 60 +/- 12 years, presenting with aborted sudden cardiac death (14) and drug refractory hypotensive ventricular tachycardia (37). Patients were implanted with either the PCD Jewel 7219D (37) or 72197C (14) Medtronic pectoral ICDs. The mean operative time was 98 +/- 31 minutes. There was no operative mortality. Complications occurred in 2 (4%) patients: right ventricular lead dislodgement requiring lead repositioning occurred in 1 patient, and 1 patient treated with anticoagulants, who had received a subcutaneous patch lead, developed a hematoma not requiring surgical reintervention. The mean defibrillation threshold was 18.6 +/- 5.5 J, but was significantly lower for the 7219C (14.1 +/- 5.0 J) compared to the 7219D (20.6 +/- 4.4 J) device, P = 0.0001. A two-lead system consisting of a right ventricular electrode (RVA) and a superior vena caval lead (SVC) was utilized in 29, RVA/SVC-subcutaneous patch in 5 and active can in 17 patients. Patients were discharged after 4.3 +/- 3 days: The procedure time was significantly shorter for the 7219C device (79.7 +/- 18.9 vs 105.2 +/- 32.8 minutes., P = 0.0035). Over the follow-up period of 8 +/- 5 (range 1-20) months, 26% patients received appropriate therapy (95% antitachycardia pacing, 5% shock). Concomitant antiarrhythmic therapy was utilized in 41% of patients. Ninety-eight percent of patients are alive. One patient died of congestive heart failure. Clinical results with electrophysiologist-implanted pectoral ICDs demonstrate low morbidity and no operative mortality in this clinical series and lower DFTs and shorter procedure times may be achieved with 7219C (active can) device.

Complications associated with pectoral implantation of cardioverter defibrillators. World-Wide Jewel Investigators

Pectoral placement of ICD pulse generators is now routine after downsizing of these devices. However, the safety of this approach is not well documented. The aim of this study was to evaluate complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing initial pectoral ICD implantation. The subjects for this study were 1,000 consecutive patients receiving a Medtronic Jewel ICD at 93 centers worldwide. Cumulative follow-up for all patients was 634 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed for 6 months or longer. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture, and dislodgment. In this series, 1.8% of patients experienced a pocket complication with only 3 (0.3%) erosions and 2 (0.2%) infections. Lead complications were observed in 2.1% of subjects, most commonly early dislodgment of the RV lead. We conclude that pectoral implantation of a downsized ICD system can be performed with a low rate of complications. However, careful attention to anchoring techniques and close early monitoring is important given the 1.7% rate of lead dislodgment that occurred primarily during the first month following implantation.

Malignant sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias in women: characteristics and outcome of treatment with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Clinical rhythm, heart disease, ejection fraction, defibrillation threshold, recurrent arrhythmias, and mortality were compared in 268 consecutive recipients (213 men and 55 women) of their first implantable cardioverter defibrillator for life-threatening ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Women were younger than men, less likely to have structural heart disease, and more likely to have clinical ventricular fibrillation, a higher ejection fraction, and a lower defibrillation threshold. Complications of defibrillator placement were similar in both sexes. Unadjusted survival tended to be higher in women than in men (97% vs 90%, respectively, at 2 years, P = 0.08), largely due to fewer deaths from noncardiac causes or cardiac causes other than arrhythmia (P = 0.04). Women also tended to be at lower, albeit still substantial, risk for recurrent arrhythmias during follow-up (37% vs 52% in men at 2 years, P = 0.11). After adjustment for baseline differences, overall survival, arrhythmia death-free survival, nonarrhythmia death-free survival, and frequency of recurrent arrhythmias were not found to be gender related. Despite their apparent "lower risk" status on initial presentation, women remained at substantial risk for recurrent arrhythmias. This underscores the need to avoid being unduly biased by the "appearance" of health in managing women with malignant arrhythmias. That survival and other clinical endpoints were all ultimately independent of gender emphasizes the importance of other clinical variables in assessing risk from ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Cost savings with nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

We analyzed hospital and physician charges for 99 consecutive patients who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation at our institution. Eighteen patients received an epicardial lead system and 81 were scheduled to receive a nonthoracotomy lead system, the generator being implanted either abdominally (n = 62) or pectorally (n = 19). The epicardial group had a significantly longer convalescent stay (11.6 +/- 2.5 days; mean +/- SEM) than the abdominal nonthoracotomy group, analyzed by intention to treat (4.6 +/- 0.5 days) or by treatment received (3.8 +/- 0.2 days; p <0.0001). Postoperative stay for the pectoral group was shorter still (2.9 +/- 0.4 days; p <0.033). Total charges for the epicardial group were $99,081 +/- $25,094, significantly higher than those for any of the nonthoracotomy groups (p <0.017). Total charges for the pectoral group were $44,128 +/- $2,465, significantly less than those for the abdominal nonthoracotomy group, analyzed by intention to treat ($59,961 +/- $1,369; p <0.05) or by treatment received ($56,679 +/- $635; p <0.05). Cost reductions in the nonthoracotomy groups were primarily due to decreased in-hospital convalescence period, lower surgeon and anesthesiologist fees, and lower procedure-day hospital charges in the pectoral group. The use of ICDs with nonthoracotomy leads can result in significantly shorter in-hospital convalescence and a reduction in total implant-related charges of 40% to 55%. The use of pectorally implanted ICDs results in further reduction in hospital stay and further cost reduction of 22% to 26%. The trend toward shorter convalescent stay without postimplant testing is likely to reduce further the overall costs of ICD implantation.

Comparative reproducibility of defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the strength at or above which VF is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. Previous studies have demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between the ULV and the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in groups of patients. However, the correlation between ULV and DFT may not be close in individual patients. This imperfect correlation may be due to physiological factors or to limitations of the measurement methods. The reproducibility of either DFT or ULV has not been studied critically. The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility of clinically applicable methods for determination of DFT and ULV. We prospectively studied 25 patients with a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (Medtronic 7219D) at postoperative electrophysiological study. DFT was defined as the lowest energy that defibrillated after 10 seconds of VF. The ULV was defined as the lowest energy that did not induce VF with three shocks at 0, 20, and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave in ventricular paced rhythm at a cycle length of 500 ms. Both the DFT and the ULV were determined twice for biphasic pulses using a three-step, midpoint protocol. There was no significant difference between the two determinations of DFT (10.1 +/- 5.9 J vs 10.4 +/- 5.8 J), the two determinations of ULV (13.4 +/- 6.8 J vs 13.8 +/- 6.6) or the DFT-ULV Pearson correlation coefficients for each determination (0.84, P < 0.001 vs 0.75, P < 0.001). To analyze reproducibility, Lin concordance coefficients for second determination versus first determination were constructed for both ULV and DFT. This coefficient is similar to the Pearson correlation coefficient, but measures closeness to the line of identity rather than the line of regression. The Lin concordance coefficient for ULV was higher than that for DFT (0.93, 95% CI 0.85-0.97 vs 0.64, 95% CI 0.33-0.82; P < 0.01). For paired comparison of defibrillation efficacy under different experimental conditions, the sample sizes required to detect differences of 2 J, 3 J, and 4 J (80% power, P < 0.05) were 52, 24, and 15 for DFT versus 15, 8, and 6 for ULV. We conclude that a simple, clinically applicable method for determination of ULV is more reproducible than the single point DFT. Measured correlations between the ULV and single point are limited by the reproducibility of the DFT measurement.

Comparison of a unipolar defibrillation system with a dual lead system using an enlarged defibrillation anode

The unipolar system for transvenous defibrillation, consisting of a single right ventricular lead as the cathode and the device shell as anode, has been shown to combine low defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) and simple implantation techniques. We compared the defibrillation efficacy of this system with the defibrillation efficacy of a dual lead system with a 12-cm long defibrillation anode placed in the left subclavian vein. The data of 38 consecutive patients were retrospectively analyzed. The implantation of an active can system was attempted in 20 patients (group 1), and of the dual lead system in 18 patients (group 2). Both groups had comparable demographic data, cardiac disease, ventricular function, or clinical arrhythmia. The criterion for successful implantation was a DFT of < or = 24 J. This criterion was met in all 18 patients of group 2. The active can system could not be inserted in 3 of the 20 group 1 patients because of a DFT > 24 J. In these patients, the implantation of one (n = 2) or two (n = 1) additional transvenous leads was necessary to achieve a DFT < or = 24 J. The DFTs of the 17 successfully implanted group 1 patients were not significantly different from the 18 patients in group 2 (12.3 +/- 5.7 J vs 10.8 +/- 4.8 J). The defibrillation impedance was similar in both groups (50.1 +/- 6.1 omega vs 48.9 +/- 5.2 omega). In group 1, both operation duration (66.8 +/- 17 min vs 80.8 +/- 11 min; P < 0.05) and fluoroscopy time (3.3 +/- 2.1 min vs 5.7 +/- 2.9 min; P < 0.05) were significantly shorter. Thus, the active can system allows reliable transvenous defibrillation and a marked reduction of operation duration and fluoroscopy time. The dual lead system, with an increased surface area defibrillation anode, seems to be a promising alternative for active can failures.

Complications associated with pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: comparison of subcutaneous and submuscular approaches. Worldwide Jewel Investigators

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a subcutaneous or submuscular approach.

BACKGROUND

Pectoral placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators is now routine because of downsizing of these devices. subcutaneous implantation has been advocated by some because it is a simple surgical procedure comparable to pacemaker insertion. Others have favored submuscular insertion to avoid wound complications. These surgical approaches have not been compared previously.

METHODS

The subjects for this study were 1,000 consecutive patients receiving a Medtronic Jewel ICD at 93 centers worldwide. Cumulative follow-up for all patients was 633.7 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed up for > or = 6 months. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture and dislodgment.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous implantation was performed in 604 patients and submuscular implantation in the remaining 396. The median procedural times were shorter for subcutaneous implantation (p = 0.014). In addition, the cumulative percentage of patients free from erosion was greater for subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.03, 100% vs. 99.1% at 6 months). However, lead dislodgment was more common with subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.019, 2.3% vs. 0.5% at 6 months) and occurred primarily during the first month postoperatively. Overall, there were no significant differences in cumulative freedom from complications between groups (4.1% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.1836).

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous pectoral implantation of this ICD can be performed safely and has a low complication rate. This approach requires a simple surgical procedure and, compared with the submuscular approach, is associated with shorter procedure times and comparable overall complication rates. However, early follow-up is important in view of the increased lead dislodgment rate.

Technological advances in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators before the year 2000 and beyond

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has evolved rapidly since its clinical introduction; product life cycles have been exceedingly short. This swift transition from early shock-only devices to small, programmable, tiered-therapy systems has been driven by 2 major factors: minimally invasive implant procedures and technological innovation. Yet, while many new ICD systems have been introduced recently, even more advanced products are on the horizon before the year 2000 and beyond. In general, devices will be smaller and smarter. Certainly, ICD volume will be further reduced without detrimentally affecting longevity. Endocardial lead systems will become smaller and more versatile. Rhythm discrimination algorithms will become more effective. New adaptive-rate pacing systems that limit the maximum paced rate based on hemodynamic indices will become features of tachyarrhythmia products. Pacing schemes for prevention of supraventricular tachyarrhythmias and improvement of hemodynamic function in patients with congestive heart failure will likely be introduced for clinical evaluation.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) indications in 1996: have they changed?

The recent progress in the technology of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and the excellent clinical results achieved with ICD treatment in the prevention of sudden death have facilitated the wide-spread acceptance and diffusion of this therapeutic modality. However, ICD implantation is a costly therapy and its use is still associated with some important unresolved issues. In particular, owing to the absence of randomized controlled clinical trials, it is not yet known whether ICD really reduces overall mortality. Thus, at the present time, it appears logical to exercise restraint in expanding the use of ICDs as first-choice therapy in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. ICD treatment should be restricted to those well-defined categories of high-risk patients who are most likely to benefit from device implantation in terms of life prolongation. Basically, this means patients with hemodynamically poorly tolerated ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation that are not inducible at electrophysiologic study and those who do not respond to, or do not tolerate, drug therapy with amiodarone, sotalol, or beta blockers. Patients with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation also seem to be suitable candidates for ICD implantation. Other indications for ICD therapy are, as yet, more controversial and should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Impact of implant techniques on complications with current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) treatment has been in use since 1980 to prevent sudden cardiac death. The high efficacy of the original epicardial systems to terminate tachyarrhythmias was impaired by a substantial perioperative mortality and morbidity. The more "modern" transvenous ICD systems have shown a similar high efficacy in terminating ventricular tachyarrhythmias, but with a lower mortality and morbidity. As a background for discussing the impact on complications with present transvenous implantation techniques, the literature was reviewed. A large pacemaker series was used for comparison. Lead complications clearly related to design, material, or manufacture were not reviewed. The present review, covering 107 references over 40 years, gives support for the notion that in transvenously implanted ICD patients the incidence of acute and late complications related to implantation technique is now acceptable. The rate of hematomas, symptomatic thromboembolic complications, perforations, and to a certain degree infections could be improved, however. The major risk factors for implantation-related complications are discussed, and suggestions for future improvement are given.

Can implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy reduce healthcare costs?

This article presents a comparison of the costs and the cost effectiveness of defibrillator implantation in a hypothetical scenario for the years 1996-2000, with recently reported actual data from the Dutch prospective study over the years 1989-1993. Recently, technological advances in pulse generator and leads have revolutionized implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Major advances include (1) transvenous single lead positioning and (2) tremendously reduced size, combined with prolonged longevity of the pulse generator. Both have simplified implantation technique and provided for superior effectiveness and lower costs. This suggests that a more favorable cost-effectiveness is to be expected. The study group reported here consisted of patients successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest due to malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias in the chronic stage of myocardial infarction. During a mean follow-up of 27 months, starting on the day of therapeutic decision making, total costs and the cost-effectiveness ratio were estimated. Actual data from the prospective study in 1989-1993 are compared with a hypothetical scenario for 1996-2000. Mortality and costs for hospitalization per day, per procedure, and per device are taken from the prospective study and equalized for both scenarios. Transthoracic lead positioning and abdominal implantation of a Ventak P (CPI) defibrillator with +/- 3 years longevity were characteristic of the recently completed prospective study. The hypothetical future scenario uses the Ventak Mini-2 with assumed 5 years longevity, implanted pectorally and connected to a single transvenous lead. Implantation will be carried out in the catheterization laboratory and as first-choice treatment. Due to prolonged longevity of the device and shorter hospitalization, a cost reduction of US $11,530 per patient is expected. Total costs per patient in the 1989-1993 prospective study in the (1) conventional arm (drugs first choice), (2) early ICD arm (ICD first choice), and (3) early ICD arm in the 1996-2000 study (ICD first choice) are $63,032, $56,067, and $44,537, respectively. The corresponding cost-effectiveness ratios are $87, $64, and $51 per day alive, respectively. Thus, it appears that modem ICD technology will be associated with an increasing reduction in healthcare costs, at least in selected patients. This reduction is associated with a more favorable cost-effectiveness ratio.

Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator implantation. A reduction of pulse generator size has made pectoral placement possible and enabled the pulse generator shell to become an active part of the defibrillation pathway. To directly assess the effect of the addition of an active generator on defibrillation thresholds to a transvenous lead system, we prospectively measured paired, randomized defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) in 21 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. A dual coil lead (Endotak C, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Corp., St. Paul, Minnesota) was used with the distal coil as the cathode for all shocks. The DFT was 8.4 +/- 3.2 J with the active shell, compared with 13.1 +/- 6.9 J with the lead alone (p < 0.01). This reduction was greatest in those patients with higher thresholds with the lead-alone configuration and resulted in DFT < or = 15 J with the active shell configuration in all patients. Shock impedance was reduced from 49 +/- 5 to 42 +/- 4 ohms (p < .001), but peak current at defibrillation threshold was unaffected by the addition of the active pectoral shell. We conclude that the addition of an active pectoral shell to a 2-coil transvenous lead system resulted in a marked reduction of defibrillation energy requirements. The uniformly low DFT ( < or = 15 J) observed suggests that an active pulse generator with a 25 J maximum output could be implanted in most patients while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin.

A second defibrillator chest patch electrode will increase implantation rates for nonthoracotomy defibrillators

Nonthoracotomy defibrillator systems can be implanted with a lower morbidity and mortality, compared to epicardial systems. However, implantation may be unsuccessful in up to 15% of patients, using a monophasic waveform. It was the purpose of this study to prospectively examine the efficacy of a second chest patch electrode in a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system. Fourteen patients (mean age 62 +/- 11 years, ejection fraction = 0.29 +/- 0.12) with elevated defibrillation thresholds, defined as > or = 24 J, were studied. The initial lead system consisted of a right ventricular electrode (cathode), a left innominate vein, and subscapular chest patch electrode (anodes). If the initial defibrillation threshold was > or = 24 J, a second chest patch electrode was added. This was placed subcutaneously in the anterior chest (8 cases), or submuscularly in the subscapular space (6 cases). This resulted in a decrease in the system impedance at the defibrillation threshold, from 72.3 +/- 13.3 omega to 52.2 +/- 8.6 omega. Additionally, the defibrillation threshold decreased from > or = 24 J, with a single patch, to 16.6 +/- 2.8 J with two patches. These changes were associated with successful implantation of a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system in all cases. In conclusion, the addition of a second chest patch electrode (using a subscapular approach) will result in lower defibrillation thresholds in patients with high defibrillation thresholds, and will subsequently increase implantation rates for nonthoracotomy defibrillators.

First experience with a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system

The clinical efficacy and safety of a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system (TVL lead system, Ventritex, inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) was studied in patients with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Implantation of the TVL lead system and a Cadence pulse generator (Ventritex, Inc.) was attempted in 27 patients. A subcutaneous patch lead was added if required to achieve adequate defibrillation energy. Patients were monitored for an average of 6 +/- 4 months (range 1 week to 14 months). Implantation was successful in 26 patients (96%). Twenty-three of those patients (88%) were implanted in a lead-alone configuration; the remaining three (12%) required a subcutaneous patch lead. The mean defibrillation threshold was 401 +/- 120 V (12 +/- 7 J) at implantation, 467 +/- 134 V (15 +/- 8 J) at predischarge testing, and 452 +/- 151 V (14 +/- 9 J) at 4-month follow-up. The mean defibrillation threshold at 4 months was not significantly different from that at implant. No deaths, sensing anomalies, infections, lead fractures, or lead dislodgments occurred. One patient required addition of a subcutaneous patch 4 months after device implantation because of an elevated defibrillation threshold. Eight patients (31%) experienced 545 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes, and all episodes were successfully terminated by the device. In conclusion, the TVL lead system combined with Cadence tiered-therapy defibrillator has a high success rate and low complication rate, and it can be recommended for treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias.