Improved low energy defibrillation efficacy in man with the use of a biphasic truncated exponential waveform

Effect of shock polarity on ventricular defibrillation threshold using a transvenous lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the polarity of a monophasic shock used with a transvenous lead system affects the defibrillation threshold.

BACKGROUND

The ability to implant an automatic defibrillator depends on achieving an adequate defibrillation threshold.

METHODS

A transvenous defibrillation lead with distal and proximal shocking electrodes was used in this study. In 29 consecutive patients, the defibrillation threshold, using a stepdown protocol was determined twice in random order: 1) with the distal coil as the anode, and 2) with the polarity reversed. Only the 20 patients in whom an adequate defibrillation threshold could be obtained with the transvenous lead alone were included in this study. These patients were 61 +/- 14 years old (mean +/- SD) and had a mean ejection fraction of 28 +/- 12%.

RESULTS

The mean defibrillation threshold was 11.5 +/- 5.0 J with the distal coil as the anode versus 16.9 +/- 7.7 J with the distal coil as the cathode (p = 0.04). The defibrillation threshold was lower by a mean of 9 +/- 7 J with the former configuration in 14 patients and was lower by a mean of 7 +/- 6 J with the latter configuration in 3 patients; in 3 patients it was the same with both configurations. Use of a subcutaneous patch was avoided in five patients by utilizing the distal electrode as the anode.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation thresholds with monophasic shocks are approximately 30% lower with the distal electrode as the anode. The use of anodal shocks may obviate the need for a subcutaneous patch and allow more frequent implantation of a transvenous lead system.

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.

Integration of absolute ventricular fibrillation voltage correlates with successful defibrillation

Previous work has suggested that at higher absolute ventricular fibrillation voltages (AVFV), the heart is more amenable to defibrillation. This study investigated in a canine model whether voltage integration of the AVFV is associated with the defibrillation success rate. The moving-average filter was used to process the ventricular fibrillation (VF) waveform recorded from Lead II of the electrocardiogram (ECG). In seven animals, defibrillation trials were analyzed using a dc shock (DCS) successful approximately 50% of the time when delivered randomly. For each of a total of 84 DCS (40% successes, 60% failures), the fibrillation waveform just prior to DCS was analyzed. The integration of the AVFV waveform was performed over various sample sizes including 1, 4, 8, 16, 64, and 128 ms, as well as the time equal to the mean VF cycle length. The results suggest that dc shocks delivered at instants of higher values of integrated AVFV over the various window sizes are associated with successful defibrillation. Window sizes less than 16 ms appeared to offer the best discrimination. The integration of AVFV over the entire VF cycle length was significantly higher for successful rather than unsuccessful DCS. This interesting observation is consistent with the clinical observation that "coarse" VF (high AVFV) is easier to defibrillate than "fine" VF (low AVFV). The use of voltage integration of AVFV may have potential implications in the improvement of defibrillation success in implantable devices.

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.

Comparison of simultaneous versus sequential defibrillation pulsing techniques using a nonthoracotomy system

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) using simultaneous (SIML) versus sequential (SEQ) pathways for shock delivery was compared in 16 patients with an implanted cardioverter defibrillator. All patients had three-lead nonthoracotomy systems (NTL) using a left chest subcutaneous patch, a right ventricular endocardial lead, and a lead in the coronary sinus (n = 5) or superior vena cava (n = 11). The DFT were determined 2-44 days (17 +/- 17 days) after implantation. The DFT was defined as the lowest energy shock that resulted in successful defibrillation. The first pathway tested was SIML in 12 and SEQ in 4 patients with output beginning at or above the intraoperative DFT, routinely 18 J. The second pathway was tested beginning 2-4 J above the DFT of the first tested pathway. All shocks were delivered in 2-4 J decrement or increment steps. The SEQ pathway shocks resulted in a significantly lower DFT than SIML pathway shocks (14 +/- 6 vs 18 +/- 6 J; P < 0.01). There was no difference in the time delay after ventricular fibrillation initiation before shock delivery for the successful defibrillation between SIML versus SEQ pathways (7 +/- 2 secs for both pathways). In 7 of 16 patients, defibrillation using SEQ pathway resulted in a > 5 J lowering of DFT, while only one patient had > 5 J lowering of DFT using SIML shocks (P < 0.05). These results have important implications for selecting the optimal pathway for implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy with a multilead NTL system.

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.

Comparison of biphasic and monophasic waveforms in epicardial atrial defibrillation

OBJECTIVES

Because biphasic waveforms have previously been shown to be more efficient than monophasic waveforms in defibrillation of the ventricle, we compared the efficiency of the two waveforms in defibrillation of the atria.

BACKGROUND

The development of an implantable atrial defibrillator would offer significant advantages over current approaches to the management of atrial fibrillation. Patient tolerance of atrial shocks from such a device, however, would depend critically on the deployment of an efficient waveform.

METHODS

Both the monophasic and biphasic shocks were of 8-ms duration, and the biphasic was a dual-capacitor waveform with equal first- and second-phase duration and leading-edge voltage. One hundred randomized atrial shocks were evaluated in 21 patients during cardiopulmonary bypass. Atrial fibrillation was induced by the application of alternating current. Atrial shocks were delivered through customized, contoured epicardial paddles applied to the posterior left atrial wall (surface area 11 cm2) and to the anterior right atrial wall (surface area 26 cm2).

RESULTS

For the monophasic waveform the delivered energy (joules) associated with 50% success (E50) was 1.44 J (95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 11.2) and with 80% (E80) success 3.9 J (95% CI 2.42 to 109.8); for the biphasic waveform 50% success was achieved with 0.37 J (95% CI 0.36 to 0.38) (p = NS) and 80% success with 0.57 J (95% CI 0.56 to 0.58) (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A biphasic waveform is more efficient than a monophasic waveform in atrial defibrillation. This may have implications for the development of an implantable atrial defibrillator for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in addition to improvement of elective transthoracic and endocardial cardioversion of chronic atrial fibrillation.

Early postoperative increase in defibrillation threshold with nonthoracotomy system in humans

The stability of the defibrillation threshold (DFT) early after implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator was evaluated in 15 patients. All but one patient had a three lead nonthoracotomy system using a subcutaneous patch, a right ventricular endocardial lead, and a lead in coronary sinus (n = 5) or superior vena cava (n = 9). Shocks were delivered using simultaneous in nine, sequential in three, and single pathway (coronary sinus not used) in one patient. DFTs were measured at implant (n = 15), 2-8 days postoperation (postop, n = 15), and 4-6 weeks later (n = 8). The DFT was defined as the lowest energy shock that resulted in successful defibrillation. The DFT was assessed with output beginning at 18 joules or 2-4 joules above the implant DFT. All shocks were delivered in 2- to 4-joule increments or decrements. DFTs were significantly higher postoperatively than DFTs at implant (22.7 +/- 7.0 J vs 16.9 +/- 3.9 J; P < 0.05). Eight of 15 patients had DFT determined at all three study periods. In these patients, DFT increased at postop (22.8 +/- 8.3 J vs 16.4 +/- 3.9 J at implant; P < 0.05) and returned to baseline at 4-6 weeks (16 +/- 7.1 J vs 16.4 +/- 3.9 J at implant; P = N.S.). Thus, in patients with a multilead nonthoracotomy system, a DFT rise was observed early after implant. The DFT appears to return to baseline in 4-6 weeks. These results have important implications for programming energy output after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.

A report using a hybrid ICD system: the need for compatibility among implanted defibrillator components

The successful implantation of an ICD system with hardware from three different manufacturers is described. This case exemplifies the need for compatibility of components among different manufacturers. This is most relevant at a time when rapidly changing technology and hardware availability may require a mixing, by informed practitioners, of ICD system components. The parallel to the development of the uniform IS-1 standard for bradycardia devices is made.

Impact of pulse characteristics on atrial defibrillation energy requirements

In summary, many issues pertaining to pulse characteristics and atrial defibrillation remain unsolved. Perhaps the most burning questions are whether a further reduction in atrial defibrillation energy requirements can be achieved by the combination of biphasic waveforms with dual pathway sequential shocks to produce a more homogenous distribution of charge, whether right and left atrial polarity of the first phase of asymmetrical biphasic shocks can reduce energy requirements in individual patients and whether the delivery of very long biphasic shocks (possibly > 20 msec) can reduce the discomfort of shorter shocks by decreasing the peak current density. Only then will the wide-spread acceptance of the implantable atrial defibrillator become closer to reality.

Options in managing the patient with high defibrillation thresholds

The desired defibrillation threshold (DFT) obtained during intraoperative testing of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) should be 10 J lower than the maximal energy delivered by the ICD generator. Of the 206 patients undergoing ICD implantation since December 1986, 8 (3.9%) have had initial DFTs with less than the 10-J safety margin using the standard large patch-large patch configuration. Patches were implanted by left thoracotomy in 6 and sternotomy in 1, and 1 had implantation of a transvenous defibrillation lead and subcutaneous patch. Of note, 6 (75%) of the 8 patients with high DFTs had prior open heart operations, half were on a regimen of long-term amiodarone therapy, and the mean left ventricular mass index was quite large but not significantly greater than that of patients with low DFTs. Multiple techniques was tried to improve the DFTs in this group. Satisfactory DFTs were eventually obtained in 7 (88%); the threshold was lowered from a mean of 41.4 +/- 3.8 J to 26.9 +/- 8.8 J (p = 0.002). The most effective techniques were addition of a superior vena cava lead attached by a Y connector to one of the large patch leads in some patients and conversion to a biphasic-waveform generator in 2 others. Adding a third epicardial lead did not lower the DFTs. There were no major postoperative complications or deaths attributable to these supplemental procedures. Using these techniques, satisfactory DFTs were obtained in almost all patients with an ICD.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation: impact of new experimental defibrillator waveforms

Six possible explanations for why some biphasic waveforms have lower defibrillation thresholds than monophasic waveforms of the same duration are as follows: (1) the impedance for the second phase of the biphasic shock is very low because electrode polarization develops during the first phase; (2) the large change in voltage between the first and second phases of a biphasic waveform is responsible for the increased defibrillation efficacy; (3) biphasic waveforms cause less severe detrimental effects in regions of high potential gradient; (4) the first phase of the biphasic waveform restores activity of the sodium channels, which makes defibrillation easier for the second phase; (5) the potential gradient required for defibrillation is less for biphasic waveforms than for monophasic waveforms; and (6) biphasic waveforms are better able to stimulate the myocardium to induce new action potentials or to cause refractory period prolongation. Evidence shows that, while a few of these proposed mechanisms are incorrect, several of the others may together contribute to the general superiority of biphasic waveforms.

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.

The role of cardioversion therapy in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators

Stable ventricular tachycardias can be treated with pacing or electrical countershock. Use of pacing includes several advantages, but it is not always effective; when pacing is not effective, shocks can be used for cardioversion of the arrhythmia. Use of such shocks includes advantages and disadvantages, but generally they are well tolerated and form an important part of the treatment of patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias.

Prospective, randomized comparison in humans of a unipolar defibrillation system with that using an additional superior vena cava electrode

BACKGROUND

A unipolar defibrillation system using a single right ventricular (RV) electrode and the active shell or "CAN" of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator itself situated in a left infraclavicular pocket has been shown to be as efficient in defibrillation as an epicardial lead system. The purpose of this study was to determine whether defibrillation efficacy can be improved further by adding a superior vena cava (SVC) electrode to this already efficient defibrillation system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively and randomly compared the defibrillation efficacy of a simplified unipolar defibrillation system, RV-->CAN, with that of one incorporating a high SVC electrode, RV-->SVC + CAN, in 15 consecutive cardiac arrest survivors undergoing implantation of a presently available transvenous defibrillation system. The RV defibrillation electrode was a 5-cm coil located on a 10.5F lead used as the anode in both lead configurations examined. The active CAN was a 108-cm2 surface area shell of a titanium alloy pulse generator used as the cathode in both configurations and placed in a left infraclavicular pocket. The SVC electrode was a 6F 5-cm-long coil and was used as an additional cathode positioned at the junction of the SVC and the left innominate vein. The defibrillation pulse used was a 65% tilt, asymmetric biphasic waveform delivered from a 120-microF capacitor. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) stored energy, leading edge voltage, current, and pulsing resistance were measured for both lead systems. The single-lead unipolar system, RV-->CAN, resulted in a stored energy DFT of 7.4 +/- 5.2 J, and the three-electrode dual pathway system, RV-->SVC + CAN, resulted in a DFT of 6.0 +/- 3.4 J (P = .20). There was no difference in defibrillation efficacy with the more complicated three-electrode system over the unipolar system despite a decrease in pulsing resistance to 48.6 +/- 3.5 omega compared with 61.2 +/- 5.9 omega for the unipolar system (P < .0001) and a slight rise in delivered current to 6.3 +/- 1.8 A compared with 5.5 +/- 2.0 A for the unipolar system (P = .062).

CONCLUSIONS

The unipolar single-lead transvenous defibrillation system provides defibrillation at energy levels comparable to that reported with present epicardial lead systems. Coupling of this lead system to a third SVC electrode increases system complexity but offers little defibrillation advantage despite a large decrease in pulsing resistance and a modest increase in delivered current.

Combination biphasic waveform plus sequential pulse defibrillation improves defibrillation efficacy of a nonthoracotomy lead system

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that combining biphasic waveform and sequential pulse defibrillation techniques would lower the defibrillation threshold of a nonthoracotomy lead system in humans below that obtained with biphasic or sequential pulse defibrillation alone.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that sequential pulse monophasic shocks and biphasic waveform shocks are more effective than single monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation.

METHODS

Thirteen patients aged 48 to 71 years undergoing nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead testing participated in the study. Transvenous electrodes were positioned in the right ventricular apex, superior vena cava and coronary sinus. A cutaneous patch electrode was placed on the left chest wall. All electrodes were connected to an external defibrillator. In random order, defibrillation threshold measurements were made for biphasic defibrillation alone, sequential defibrillation alone and combined biphasic plus sequential defibrillation.

RESULTS

The mean defibrillation threshold-delivered energy was 18.0 +/- 11.9 J for biphasic defibrillation and 16.3 +/- 9.0 J for sequential defibrillation. Biphasic plus sequential defibrillation significantly reduced the threshold energy to 10.2 +/- 5.3 J (p < 0.001). Threshold peak voltage and current values showed corresponding reductions. The combined waveform resulted in a greater reduction in defibrillation threshold in patients with threshold energies > 18 J versus those with threshold values < or = 18 J for sequential (p = 0.001) or biphasic (p < 0.01) waveform alone. The nonthoracotomy lead implantation rate was improved from 62% with each of the single techniques (biphasic waveform or sequential pulse defibrillation) to 85% with the combined waveform.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding biphasic waveform to sequential pulse defibrillation significantly reduced the defibrillation threshold compared with either technique alone, and nonthoracotomy lead system implantation can be enhanced by this combined technique.

Why do some patients have high defibrillation thresholds at defibrillator implantation? Answers from basic research

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias. However, for the few patients with unacceptably high defibrillation thresholds at implantation the risk of sudden death may remain high. If a small number of defibrillation attempts are used to determine a defibrillation threshold, then a high defibrillation threshold may occur in some patients due to the probabilistic nature of defibrillation: a small percentage of shocks will fail even at optimal shock strengths. Basic investigations have suggested mechanisms for high defibrillation thresholds in other patients. The extracellular potential gradients produced by a shock correlate with ability to defibrillate and may be used to classify mechanisms for high defibrillation thresholds. Computerized mapping studies have demonstrated that extracellular potential gradient fields produced by defibrillation shocks are uneven with high gradient areas close to the electrodes and low gradient areas distant from the electrodes. A high defibrillation threshold may occur because: (1) a shock creates a subthreshold potential gradient in the low gradient areas; (2) a patient has a higher minimum potential gradient threshold than other patients; or (3) a shock leads to refibrillation in the high gradient areas. This article reviews experimental evidence to support each of these three possibilities then suggests experimental and clinical investigations that may clarify the causes of high defibrillation thresholds in patients.

Biphasic waveform defibrillation using a three-electrode transvenous lead system in humans

INTRODUCTION

Biphasic waveform defibrillation is not always more efficacious than monophasic waveform defibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Waveform efficacy appears to vary with the lead system used. In this prospective, randomized study, defibrillation efficacy with biphasic and monophasic single capacitor 120-microF, 65% tilt pulses was compared for a lead system consisting of right ventricular (RV), chest patch (CP), and superior vena cava (SVC) electrodes. Although this lead system is commonly used with monophasic pulses in transvenous defibrillators, few studies have examined the defibrillation efficacy of this lead system in man for biphasic waveform defibrillation. Fourteen cardiac arrest survivors undergoing defibrillator implantation were included in the study using pulses delivered from a cathodal RV electrode simultaneously to anodal SVC and CP electrodes. Biphasic and monophasic waveforms were recorded oscilloscopically to acquire defibrillation threshold (DFT) data on leading edge voltage requirements and for stored energy. The monophasic DFT voltage was 661 +/- 177 V compared to the biphasic DFT voltage of 451 +/- 185 V (P < 0.0001). The monophasic DFT stored energy was 28.0 +/- 13.4 J compared to the biphasic DFT stored energy of 14.1 +/- 12.4 J (P < 0.0001). The stored energy DFT was < or = 15 J in only 2 of 14 patients (15%) with monophasic defibrillation but < or = 15 J in 10 of 14 (71%) patients with biphasic defibrillation.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that biphasic defibrillation with an RV, SVC, CP transvenous electrode system is substantially more efficient than monophasic defibrillation, allowing for higher numbers of patients to receive transvenous defibrillators with a relatively simple lead system at a satisfactory cutoff DFT safety margin of 15 J.

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.

Rise in chronic defibrillation thresholds in nonthoracotomy implantable defibrillator

BACKGROUND

To establish the chronic stability of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) in a transvenous cardioverter/defibrillator (TCD) system, we studied 37 consecutive patients with TCD systems implanted for > 6 months.

METHODS AND RESULTS

DFT was measured by a step-down method at implant and 2 and 6 months later. The mean ejection fraction was 34.5 +/- 14.3%. Coronary artery disease with previous myocardial infarction was present in 31 patients. The mean DFT rose from 13.3 +/- 4.3 J at implant to 16.5 +/- 4.7 J at 2 months (P < .001) and 17.6 +/- 5.4 J at 6 months (P < .0001). ANOVA revealed a statistically significant rise in DFT over time (P < .0005). At 2 months, 25 patients had a rise in DFT, and 14 had a rise > or = 5 J. The observed rise at 2 months persisted in 19 patients. A chronic rise, defined as > or = 5 J rise at 6 months, occurred in 17 patients. Univariate analysis of clinical as well as implant variables revealed no predictors of a rise in DFT in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there is a significant rise in DFT at 2 and 6 months in this TCD system. Although the chronic threshold remained well within the available energy range of the pulse generator, this observation has important implications for implantation guidelines, programming, and future pulse generator development for TCD patients.

Refractory period prolongation by biphasic defibrillator waveforms is associated with enhanced sodium current in a computer model of the ventricular action potential

Mechanisms through which biphasic waveforms lower defibrillation threshold are unknown. Previous work showed that low-intensity biphasic shocks (BS2), delivered during the refractory period of a control action potential (S1), produced significantly longer responses than monophasic shocks (MS2). To test the hypothesis that longer responses are due to hyperpolarization-induced excitation channel recovery during the first portion of the biphasic waveform, we used the Beeler-Reuter ventricular action potential computer model with the Drouhard-Roberge (BRDR) modification to study refractory period stimulation with MS2 (10 msec) and symmetrical BS2 (10 msec each pulse). At 1.5 times diastolic threshold, BS2 prolonged action potential duration when delivered 50 msec into the S1 refractory period, and produced a maximum BS2 versus MS2 response duration difference of 62 msec. Longer BS2 responses corresponded to enhanced BS2-induced sodium current compared to MS2. Maximum BS2 vs MS2 sodium current difference was 400 uA/cm2. These results show that, in a computer model of the ventricular action potential, hyperpolarization by the first phase of a biphasic waveform enhances S2 sodium current and prolongs duration of refractory-period responses. This effectively shortens the cellular refractory period. Prolonged refractory period responses, produced by biphasic defibrillator waveforms, may underlie enhanced defibrillating efficacy at low shock intensities.

Optimization of biphasic waveforms for human nonthoracotomy defibrillation

BACKGROUND

Biphasic waveforms reduce defibrillation threshold (DFT) in a wide variety of models. Although there are several human studies of long-duration, high-tilt biphasic waveform defibrillation, the specific biphasic waveform shape required to achieve optimal DFT reduction is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study tested the effect of single capacitor biphasic waveform tilt modification on DFT using a paired study design in 18 patients undergoing nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation. Baseline DFT was obtained using a 65% tilt, simultaneous pulse, bidirectional monophasic shock from a right ventricular cathode to a coronary sinus or superior vena cava lead and a subscapular patch. The single-capacitor biphasic waveform shocks, delivered over the same pathways, consisted of either both phases at 65% tilt (65/65 biphasic waveform) to produce an overall tilt of 88% and a delivered energy 11% greater than monophasic shock or both phases at 42% tilt (42/42 biphasic waveform) to produce an overall tilt of 66% and delivered energy equal to monophasic shock. The 65/65 biphasic waveform reduced stored energy DFT 25%, from 16.2 +/- 4.4 J with monophasic shock to 12.1 +/- 5.3 J (P < .02); however, it did not significantly reduce the delivered energy DFT. In contrast, the 42/42 biphasic waveform required 49% less stored energy (16.2 +/- 4.4 J, monophasic shock, vs 8.3 +/- 3.3 J, biphasic waveform; P < .001) and 49% less delivered energy (14.2 +/- 3.8 J, monophasic shock, vs 7.3 +/- 2.9 J, biphasic waveform; P < .001) than monophasic shock for successful defibrillation. The 42/42 biphasic waveform delivered energy DFT was 4.6 +/- 5.2 J (39%) less than 65/65 biphasic waveform DFT (P < .002).

CONCLUSIONS

DFT reduction is an inherent electrophysiological property of biphasic waveforms that is independent of delivered energy. Overall biphasic waveform tilt and the relative amplitudes of the waveform phases are important factors in defibrillation efficacy. Defibrillation with a 42/42 biphasic waveform is more efficacious than 65/65 biphasic waveform defibrillation; however, the optimal biphasic waveform remains unknown.

A model study of extracellular stimulation of cardiac cells

Point source extracellular stimulation of a myocyte model was used to study the efficacy of excitation of cardiac cells, taking into account the shape of the pulse stimulus and its time of application in the cardiac cycle. The myocyte was modeled as a small cylinder of membrane (10 microns in diameter and 100 microns in length) capped at both ends and placed in an unbounded volume conductor. A Beeler-Reuter model modified for the Na+ dynamics served to simulate the membrane ionic current. The stimulus source was located on the cylinder axis, close to the myocyte (50 microns) in order to generate a nonlinear extracellular field (phi e). The low membrane impedance associated with the high frequency component of the make and break of the rectangular current pulse leads to a current flow across the membrane and an abrupt change in intracellular potential (phi i). Because the intracellular space is very small, phi i is nearly uniform over the length of the myocyte and the membrane potential (V = phi i-phi e) is governed by the applied field phi e. There is then a longitudinal gradient of membrane polarization which is the inverse of the gradient of extracellular potential. With an anodal (positive) pulse, for instance, the proximal portion of the myocyte is hyperpolarized and the distal portion is depolarized. Based on this principle and considering the voltage-dependent activation/inactivation dynamics of the membrane, it is shown that a cathodal (negative) pulse is the most efficacious stimulus at diastolic potentials, an anodal current is preferable during the plateau phase of the action potential, and a biphasic pulse is optimal during the relative refractory phase. Thus a biphasic pulse would constitute the best choice for maximum efficacy at all phases of the action potential.

Low-energy endocardial defibrillation using an axillary or a pectoral thoracic electrode location

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients receiving endocardial defibrillation lead systems must accept either high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with lower safety margins or lead implantation by thoracotomy. We examined the feasibility of achieving universal application of endocardial leads and lower defibrillation energy requirements by optimizing the lead system location in conjunction with biphasic shocks.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two defibrillation catheter electrodes were positioned in the right ventricle and superior vena cava. Thoracic patch electrodes were placed at three sites (apical, pectoral, and axillary). Fifteen-joule, 10-J, and 5-J bidirectional simultaneous biphasic shocks were delivered across three different triple electrode configurations (right ventricle, superior vena cava, and patch) after inducing ventricular fibrillation (VF), and DFT was determined. All patients in whom VF was reproducibly inducible (14 patients) could be reproducibly defibrillated at 15 J at one or more patch electrode locations. Fifteen-joule shocks were effective at three thoracic electrode locations in 12 patients and at two electrode locations in 6 patients. The lowest mean single-shock DFT was 8.1 +/- 3.8 J. In 4 patients, ventricular flutter was reproducibly induced and reverted at 15 J in all patients. Mean DFT for the axillary location was 8.3 +/- 3.5 J and was significantly lower than apical (12.8 +/- 5.6 J, P = .008) and pectoral (11.6 +/- 4.1 J, P < .04) patch locations. The probability of success was significantly higher at 10 J with axillary location (78% of patients, P < .03 compared with both other sites) and at 15 J (P < .05 compared with the apical location). Low-energy endocardial defibrillation (< or = 10 J) was feasible in 10 of 14 tested patients at more than 1 thoracic electrode location at 10 J, whereas only 1 of 7 successful patients could be reverted at more than 1 electrode location at 5 J (P < .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of axillary or pectoral patch lead location can allow endocardial defibrillation with biphasic shocks at energies < or = 15 J in this lead configuration. Virtually universal application of endocardial defibrillation lead systems can be predicted from these data. Reduction in maximum pulse generator output to < or = 25 J using these two thoracic electrode locations with bidirectional shocks can be feasible and maintain an adequate safety margin and permit thoracic pulse generator implantation. Lowering endocardial defibrillation energy < 10 J requires increasing specificity of thoracic electrode location.

Interventional electrophysiology--state-of-the-art 1993

The field of clinical electrophysiology has broadened significantly in the last several years, spawning a new discipline known as Interventional or Therapeutic Electrophysiology. In the United States, Electrophysiology has its own training path and accreditation requirements. One of the reasons for the growth of interest in electrophysiology is the exciting introduction of nonpharmacologic methods of arrhythmia therapy, including curative radiofrequency catheter ablation and implanted devices for antitachycardia pacing/defibrillation. The arrhythmia specialist now has at his/her disposal a wide range of options for patients with symptomatic or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias.

Effective defibrillation in pigs using interleaved and common phase sequential biphasic shocks

Previous studies have shown that low internal defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) can be attained by using two pairs of electrodes and combining biphasic shocks with sequential timing. The purpose of this two-part study was to test the defibrillation efficacy of two new shock sequences, an interleaved biphasic, and a common phase sequential biphasic, that utilized two pairs of electrodes and were developed from the concept of sequential biphasic shocks. In the first part, defibrillation catheters were placed in the right ventricle and the superior vena cava of six anesthetized pigs. A small patch electrode was placed on the LV apex through a subxiphoid incision and a cutaneous patch was placed on the left thorax. The mean DFT energies for the interleaved biphasic (5.2 +/- 0.4 J) and the common phase sequential biphasic waveforms (5.4 +/- 0.4 J) were substantially less (P < 0.0001) than those for either the sequential monophasic (10.6 +/- 1.0 J) or single biphasic waveforms (9.0 +/- 1.0 J). In the second study, which used nine anesthetized pigs, the importance of phase reversal was demonstrated by the finding that the DFT energy of a common phase sequential biphasic shock (6.2 +/- 0.4 J) was much less than a common phase sequential monophasic shock (17.9 +/- 1.3 J, P < 0.0001); furthermore, the average DFT for four common phase sequential biphasic configurations (5.7 +/- 0.2 J) was much less than for a configuration that was similar except that current flow was not reversed in one phase so that no biphasic effect was present (19.7 +/- 1.2 J). The efficacy of common phase sequential biphasics was comparable to that of sequential biphasics. The effectiveness of sequential biphasics, interleaved biphasics, and common phase sequential biphasics is possibly due to two mechanisms: (A) an increase in the potential gradient during a later phase in regions that were low during the first phase, and (B) the exposure of most of the myocardium to a biphasic shock that reduces the minimum extracellular potential gradient needed to defibrillate.

Is the second phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform the defibrillating phase?

Why some biphasic waveforms defibrillate with lower energies than monophasic waveforms of similar duration is unknown. One hypothesis is that the first phase of a biphasic waveform acts as a conditioning, hyperpolarizing prepulse to prepare for defibrillation by a second depolarizing phase. To test whether the second phase of a biphasic waveform is the defibrillating phase, three monophasic waveforms, an ascending ramp (A), a square wave (S), and a descending ramp (D), were compared to three biphasic waveforms with A, S, or D in the first phase (biphasic first phase) and three biphasic waveforms with A, S, or D in the second phase (biphasic second phase). Two defibrillation thresholds for each waveform were performed in 18 open chest pigs and mean defibrillation thresholds were compared. In nine pigs 16-msec monophasic and 16/16-msec biphasic waveforms were ranked by mean current and energy at defibrillation threshold. The ranks were the same for monophasic and biphasic second phase waveforms: for mean current A < S = D and for energy A < S < D. The ranks were different for the biphasic first phase waveforms: for mean current S < A = D and for energy S < A = D. Although ranks for the 16-msec monophasic waveforms matched those for the 16/16-msec biphasic second phase waveforms, the biphasic waveforms had higher mean currents and energies at defibrillation threshold. In nine pigs defibrillation thresholds for 6-msec monophasic and 6/6-msec biphasic waveforms were ranked. For mean current the ranks were monophasic: A < S = D; biphasic first phase: A = S = D; and biphasic second phase: S = D < A. For energy the ranks were monophasic: A = S < D; biphasic first phase: A = S = D; and biphasic second phase: S = D < A. Thus, ranks for the 6-msec monophasic waveforms differed from those for the 6/6-msec biphasic second phase waveforms. For 16/16-msec biphasic waveforms, less effective for defibrillation than corresponding 16-msec monophasic waveforms, these results support the hypothesis that the second phase of a biphasic waveform defibrillates since the defibrillation efficacy of a 16/16-msec biphasic waveform is related to the defibrillation efficacy of its second phase waveshape. However, for clinically useful 6/6-msec biphasic waveforms, more effective for defibrillation than 6-msec monophasic waveforms, the hypothesis is not supported because the ability of a 6/6-msec biphasic waveform to defibrillate is unrelated to the defibrillation efficacy of its second phase waveshape.

Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in sheep

BACKGROUND

The cardioversion efficacy of multiple defibrillation waveforms and electrode systems was compared in a sheep model of atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sustained atrial fibrillation could be induced with rapid atrial pacing in 23 (55%) of the animals. This study was performed in four parts. Six sheep with sustained atrial fibrillation were used for data analysis for each part, except in part 4 where five sheep without sustained atrial fibrillation were used. In part 1, four lead systems and four single capacitor truncated exponential defibrillation waveforms (two monophasic and two biphasic) were tested. In part 2, two transvenous lead systems were compared; one was a right-to-left system with one electrode located in the right side of the heart and the other electrode located in the left side of the heart, and the other was a totally right-sided system with both electrodes located in the right side of the heart. Eight (four monophasic and four biphasic) waveforms were tested with each lead system. In part 3, eight transvenous lead systems were compared, and two waveforms (one monophasic and one biphasic) were tested with each lead system. For parts 1-3, probability of success curves were determined for each waveform/lead system configuration using an up-down technique with 15 shocks per configuration. In part 4, shocks were synchronized to the QRS and given through two lead configurations during sinus rhythm in 20-V steps starting with 40 and ending with 500 V, and two waveforms were tested with each lead system (one monophasic and one biphasic). Ventricular fibrillation thresholds were determined by giving shocks during the T wave of sinus rhythm. For part 1, the three lead systems that used only intravenous catheter electrodes had significantly lower defibrillation requirements than the catheter-to-chest wall patch system. A 3/3-msec biphasic waveform had significantly lower defibrillation requirements than any of the other three waveforms in part 1. In part 2, the 3/3-msec biphasic waveform with a right-to-left lead system configuration had significantly lower defibrillation requirements than any other waveform lead system combination tested, and for each waveform tested, the right-to-left configuration had significantly lower requirements than the totally right-sided configuration. In part 3, for each waveform the right-to-left configuration had significantly lower voltage and energy requirements than the corresponding totally right-sided configuration. Furthermore, in part 3, waveform/lead configurations that probably generated high potential gradients near the sinoatrial node and near the atrioventricular node resulted in more postshock conduction disturbances. In part 4, there were no episodes of ventricular arrhythmias with shocks synchronized to the QRS. However, with synchronization to the T wave, ventricular fibrillation was induced in all five animals with the minimum tested voltage, which was 40 V.

CONCLUSIONS

This acute model yielded sustained atrial fibrillation in approximately 55% of the animals. Cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in sheep is possible with very low energy requirements using transvenous electrode systems (50% successful energy of 1.3 +/- 0.4 J for the 3/3-msec biphasic waveform with a right-to-left lead system). The biphasic waveform had the lowest defibrillation requirements of any waveforms tested, and right-to-left lead systems resulted in lower defibrillation requirements than totally right-sided lead systems. Also, lead systems that probably generated high potential gradients near the sinoatrial and atrioventricular node areas resulted in more frequent episodes of postshock conduction disturbances. Furthermore, synchronization of the shock to the QRS was vital to avoid potentially lethal postshock ventricular arrhythmias...

Endocardial pacing, cardioversion and defibrillation using a braided endocardial lead system

The clinical efficacy and safety of a second-generation braided endocardial pacing, cardioversion and defibrillation lead system was evaluated in 25 patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The lead system consisted of two 8Fr active fixation endocardial leads each with pacing and defibrillation electrodes and a thoracic patch electrode. Monophasic and biphasic shocks were delivered using a triple-electrode configuration with a right ventricular common cathode and right atrial and thoracic patch anodes. VT and VF were electrically induced. Rapid VT (rate > or = 180 beats/min) and VF were initially terminated by 20 J (550 V) shocks and slow VT (rate < 180 beats/min) by 10 J (400 V) shocks. One hundred fourteen episodes (rapid VT/VF 73, slow VT 41) were treated with 128 shocks (monophasic 80, biphasic 48). Mean ventricular pacing threshold was 0.7 +/- 0.5 ms before and 0.9 +/- 0.5 ms after endocardial shock delivery (p > 0.2). Mean ventricular electrogram amplitude in sinus rhythm was 11.9 +/- 5.7 mV before and 11.4 +/- 5.1 mV after shock delivery (p > 0.2). Simultaneous monophasic endocardial shocks terminated 53% of VF episodes at < or = 20 J. Simultaneous biphasic shocks terminated 94% of all VF episodes at < or = 20 J (p < 0.03). Efficacy of > or = 10 J shocks for rapid VT/VF was greater for biphasic (92%) versus monophasic (74%) shocks (p < 0.05) at lower average shock energy (15 +/- 7 J vs 19 +/- 7 J, respectively, p < 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Ventritex Cadence

The Ventritex Cadence Model V-100 Tiered Therapy Defibrillator is a third generation antitachyarrhythmia device currently completing clinical trials in the United States. The implantable pulse generator is capable of high energy defibrillation, low energy cardioversion, as well as antitachycardia and bradycardia pacing. In addition, this microprocessor controlled device can deliver monophasic or biphasic defibrillation/cardioversion shocks, is noncommitted to deliver shock therapy after initiating charging for defibrillation or cardioversion therapy, and can store electrograms of spontaneous tachyarrhythmia episodes. These expanded device capabilities should improve therapy efficacy and patient management, and represent a major advance in the treatment of patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

The effect of phase separation on biphasic waveform defibrillation

It has been hypothesized that the defibrillation efficacy of a biphasic shock is caused by the large change in voltage between the two phases. This study examined the effects of separating the two phases in time thus splitting in half the rapid voltage change at phase reversal. The study was performed in three parts each using six dogs. Part I determined defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) for two exponentially truncated biphasic waveforms (3.5/2 msec and 6/6 msec) with interphase time delays of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 msec. In Part II, probability of success curves were generated using an up down method with 15 shocks for each delay for the 3.5/2 msec biphasic waveform with interphase delays of 0, 2, 3, 4, and 5 msec. In Part III, DFTs were determined using a 3.5/2 msec and 6/6 msec biphasic as well as a third waveform that consisted of two sequential 6-msec pulses of the same polarity with interphase delays of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 50, and 100 msec. In all three parts the defibrillating cathode was a 6.17 cm2 transvenous spring electrode positioned in the RV apex and the anode was a 113 cm2 cutaneous left chest wall electrode patch. With all waveforms, the trailing edge voltage of the first phase was equal to the negative of the leading edge voltage of the second phase. There was no statistical difference in DFTs or in 50% successful defibrillation points for phase separations from 0 to 6 msec and 0 to 5 msec for Parts I and II, respectively. In Part I there was a significant increase in DFTs for phase separations of 8 and 10 msec compared to a phase separation of 0 msec. In Part III there was no significant difference for separations of 0 and 5 msec; however, there was a significant increase in DFT requirements for separations from 5 to 50 msec, which then decreased with a separation of 100 msec for all three waveforms tested. In conclusion, defibrillation efficacy was unchanged with phase separations up to 6 msec. With phase separation, the rapid voltage change during phase reversal is split in half and, thus, cannot explain the improved efficacy of biphasic waveforms.

Biphasic versus sequential pulse defibrillation: a direct comparison in humans

It has been demonstrated recently that both biphasic and sequential pulse defibrillation shocks are superior to monophasic defibrillation shocks in animals and humans. There is little information directly comparing these two waveforms when pulse characteristics, subjects, and total electrode surface areas are kept constant. We determined the defibrillation threshold intraoperatively in 12 patients undergoing arrhythmia surgery, with the use of two or three patch electrodes (Medtronic 6891 and 6892), while keeping the electrode surface area constant. Patients were randomized in a crossover design for determinations of defibrillation threshold by means of biphasic and sequential pulse shocks. Leading-edge delivered current and delivered energy were significantly lower with sequential pulse shocks than with biphasic shocks (delivered energy means +/- SEM 3.6 +/- 0.7 joules vs 5.5 +/- 0.9 joules, respectively). We conclude that sequential pulse defibrillation with three defibrillating electrodes provides an important current delivery system not matched by biphasic shocks with two electrodes when subjects, waveform characteristics, and total electrode surface areas are kept constant.

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

A comparison of defibrillation thresholds was made using biphasic and monophasic shocks delivered by a nonthoracotomy lead system in 2 clinically distinct groups of patients. The first group were patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator who were studied before surgery with their chests closed. The second group were patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) who were studied before surgery with their chests open but reapproximated. Biphasic defibrillation thresholds (stored energy) were significantly (p < 0.001) less than monophasic ones in subjects with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (12.3 +/- 5.3 vs 21.1 +/- 9.3 J) or CABG (14.6 +/- 7.1 vs 24.2 +/- 12.6 J). These values are less than were previously reported with a similar nonthoracotomy lead configuration. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in all measurements derived from corresponding shock waveforms, although impedance tended to be greater in patients with CABG. However, subjects with CABG had greater left ventricular ejection fractions and did not have history of potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias. Despite these differences, the conclusion that biphasic shocks are more effective would have been made in a study of either group alone. It is concluded that patients with CABG who have not had preceding potentially lethal ventricular arrhythmias may be a potential source of surrogate subjects for defibrillation research such as epicardial mapping, which requires that the chest be open.

Transthoracic defibrillation: effect of dual-pathway sequential pulse shocks and single-pathway biphasic pulse shocks in a canine model

To determine whether dual-pathway sequential shocks and single-pathway biphasic shocks improved the efficacy of transthoracic defibrillation, we delivered single or sequential truncated waveform shocks of variable duration, voltage, and direction (polarity) to three groups of closed-chest dogs. Dual-pathway sequential shocks were assessed in group 1 (eight animals), biphasic shocks with a single pathway were compared in 11 dogs (group 2), and the effect of varying the duration of the biphasic shocks was assessed in group 3 (four animals). There was no improvement in success rates of the intervention shocks compared with a standard single "control" shock at any energy level. In this experimental model unidirectional or biphasic sequential shocks given over single or dual pathways were not superior to standard single-pulse transthoracic defibrillation.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with high defibrillation thresholds. A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Successful defibrillation by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) depends on its ability to deliver shocks that exceed the defibrillation threshold. This study was designed to identify clinical characteristics that may predict the finding of an elevated defibrillation threshold and to describe the outcome of patients with high defibrillation thresholds.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The records of 1,946 patients from 12 centers were screened to identify 90 patients (4.6%) with a defibrillation threshold greater than or equal to 25 J. Excluding three patients who received ICDs that delivered greater than 30 J, there were 81 men and six women with a mean age of 59.5 +/- 10.1 years, a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.32 +/- 0.14, and a 76% prevalence of coronary artery disease. Sixty-one patients (70%) were receiving antiarrhythmic drugs, and 45 (52%) were receiving amiodarone. Seventy-one patients (82%) received an ICD. Death occurred in 27 patients--19 of the 71 (27%) with an ICD (eight arrhythmic), and eight of the 16 (50%) without an ICD (four arrhythmic). Actuarial survival for all patients at 5 years was 67%. Actuarial survival rates at 2 years for patients with and without an ICD were 81% and 36%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Actuarial survival at 5 years for the ICD patients was 73%; no patient without an ICD has lived longer than 32 months. Actuarial survival free of arrhythmic death in the ICD patients at 5 years was 84%. Although the only variable to predict survival was ICD implantation (p = 0.003), it is entirely possible that in this retrospective analysis, clinical selection decisions to implant or to not implant an ICD differentiated patients destined to have better or worse outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiarrhythmic drug use may be causally related to the finding of an elevated defibrillation threshold. When patients with high defibrillation thresholds receive an ICD, arrhythmic death remains an important risk (42% of deaths in these patients were arrhythmia related, with 16% actuarial incidence at 5 years). Vigorous testing to optimize patch location can potentially benefit patients by enhancing the margin of safety for effective defibrillation.

Prospective comparison of biphasic and monophasic shocks for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using endocardial leads

Bidirectional shocks using 2 current pathways have been used in endocardial lead systems for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, but the optimal shock waveform for endocardial defibrillation is unknown. The clinical efficacy and electrical characteristics of bidirectional monophasic and biphasic shocks for endocardial cardioversion-defibrillation of fast monomorphic or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), or ventricular fibrillation (VF) were evaluated. Thirty-three patients (mean age 60 +/- 12 years, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction 34 +/- 13%) were studied. Defibrillation catheter electrodes were located in the right ventricular apex and superior vena cava/right atrial junction. A triple-electrode configuration including the 2 catheter electrodes and a left thoracic patch was used to deliver bidirectional shocks from the right ventricular cathode to an atrial anode (pathway 1) and the thoracic patch (pathway 2). The shock waveforms examined were sequential and simultaneous monophasic, and simultaneous biphasic. The efficacy of 580 V (20 J) shocks for fast monomorphic VT were comparable for the 3 waveforms (73% for sequential monophasic, 73% for simultaneous monophasic, and 100% for simultaneous biphasic). However, for polymorphic VT and VF, 580 V sequential monophasic shocks had a significantly lower efficacy (25%) than did simultaneous monophasic (75%; p = 0.01) or biphasic (89%; p less than 0.001) shocks. Single-shock defibrillation thresholds with simultaneous biphasic shocks were significantly lower (9 +/- 5 J) than were those with simultaneous monophasic shocks (15 +/- 4 J; p less than 0.02).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Biphasic versus sequential pulse defibrillation: a direct comparison in pigs

It has recently been demonstrated that both biphasic and sequential pulse defibrillation shocks are superior to monophasic defibrillation shocks in animals and humans. There is little information directly comparing these two waveforms when pulse characteristics, subject, and total electrode surface area are kept constant. Pigs were randomized in a cross-over design for triplicate determinations of defibrillation threshold using biphasic and sequential pulse shocks and both large and small epicardial electrodes. Anesthetized pigs weighing 18 to 28 kg had sets of defibrillating electrodes (TX-7) with total surface areas of 13 cm2 (group 1, n = 16) and 26 cm2 (group 2, n = 16), respectively, attached to the heart. Leading edge delivered voltage, current, and energy were significantly lower with sequential pulse shocks than with biphasic shocks for both electrode sets (delivered energy means +/- standard error of the mean: 13.3 +/- 1.6 versus 22.4 +/- 3.0 joules, and 9.9 +/- 1.5 versus 14.2 +/- 1.6 joules, respectively). In addition, six of the pigs could not be defibrillated with 900 stored V using biphasic shocks, although all pigs were defibrillated with less than 800 stored V using sequential pulse defibrillation. We conclude that sequential pulse defibrillation using three defibrillating electrodes provides an important current delivery system not matched by biphasic shocks using two electrodes when subject, waveform characteristics, and total electrode surface area are kept constant.

Determination of patch electrode position for the internal cardioverter-defibrillator by cine computed tomography and its relation to the defibrillation threshold

Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in 22 consecutive patients after aborted sudden cardiac death was followed by prospective determination of the correct anatomic position of epicardial patch electrodes by chest X-ray study and cine computed tomography; the data were compared with the defibrillation threshold obtained intraoperatively. Patch electrode position was qualitatively graded. Computed tomography improved the assessment as compared with X-ray study in 13 patients (59%), visualizing electrodes in relation to the underlying myocardial and vascular structures. Although the computed tomographic technique provided more precise visualization, its grading of patch position correlated as poorly as that of the X-ray study with the measured acute defibrillation threshold. Three-dimensional reconstruction by computed tomography made it possible to determine quantitatively left ventricular mass (free wall and septum) and the mass encompassed by the patch electrodes. The 34.6 +/- 13.7% (range 12.6 to 61.1%) of the left ventricular mass encompassed by both patch electrodes showed a linear relation to the defibrillation threshold (r = 0.64, p = 0.01). Differentiation of free wall and septal mass in these measurements revealed that the proportion of septal mass encompassed by patch electrodes correlated closely with the defibrillation threshold (r = -0.6, p = 0.019), whereas that of the free wall mass, although significantly larger (35.4 +/- 15.8 vs. 20.6 +/- 15.4 g, p = 0.007), did not. Thus, the position of epicardial patch electrodes could be reliably determined by computed tomography.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators: current status and future directions

Sudden cardiac death remains the most common mode of mortality in the United States, accounting for up to 450,000 deaths per year. Survivors of cardiac arrest and patients who have recurrent ventricular tachycardia have a high mortality rate with or without antiarrhythmic therapy. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) was introduced in 1980 by Mirowski as a potential treatment for these patients. There are presently over 24,000 implants worldwide and the device has proved to be an effective means of preventing sudden death. The components of an ICD include a generator, defibrillation patches or leads, and pacing/sensing leads. The devices can be implanted with acceptable mortality and morbidity either by median sternotomy, left anterior thoracotomy, subxiphoid, or left subcostal approaches. The long-term results have been excellent with an actuarial incidence of sudden cardiac death of 3% at 5 years. Improvements in battery and capacitor technology, lead design, and tachycardia recognition, combined with the addition of hemodynamic sensors and a better understanding of the science of defibrillation, should lead to further improvements over the next several years in the ICD.

Response of relatively refractory canine myocardium to monophasic and biphasic shocks

BACKGROUND

Certain biphasic waveforms defibrillate at lower energies than monophasic waveforms, although the mechanism is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The relative ability of monophasic and biphasic shocks to stimulate partially refractory myocardium was compared because defibrillation is thought to involve stimulating relatively refractory myocardial tissue. Shocks of 25-125 V were given during regularly paced rhythm in 11 open-chest dogs. Computerized recordings of shock potentials, and of activations before and after the shocks, were made at 117 epicardial sites. To quantify the shock field strength, the shock potential gradients were calculated at the electrode sites. Monophasic action potential (MAP) electrode recordings, obtained in five dogs, confirmed direct myocardial excitation by the shock, that is, activations beginning during the shock. Tissue was directly excited up to 4 cm from the shocking electrode, and the area directly excited increased as the shock was made stronger or given less prematurely. In six dogs, strength-interval curves for direct excitation were determined from plots of potential gradient versus refractoriness at each electrode site. The biphasic curves were located to the right of the monophasic curves by 8 +/- 4 msec, indicating a lesser ability to excite refractory myocardium. When the gradient at the directly excited border was at least 3.8 +/- 1 V/cm, conduction failed to propagate away from the directly excited zone after the shock, and MAP recordings made near the border showed a shock-induced graded response. This graded response, which prolonged repolarization, may have been responsible for the failure of conduction from the directly excited zone. Although better for defibrillating, the biphasic waveform was thus less effective than the monophasic one in exciting relatively refractory myocardium.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicated that waveform selection for defibrillation should not be guided solely by the ability of the waveform to stimulate tissue, as these two properties can be discordant.

Antitachycardia devices: realities and promises

Nonpharmacologic therapy for ventricular arrhythmias has gained growing attention with the development of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. In addition, the reports of adverse effects of drug therapy from several studies, including the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST), have supported the need for these devices. The development of new implantable cardioverter-defibrillators that have the capability of antitachycardia pacing, bradycardia pacing, cardioversion and defibrillation has enhanced their clinical utility. The currently available implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have been shown to significantly improve survival after sudden cardiac arrest in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Newer devices with expanded capabilities may reduce mortality even further. In this report the features of currently available antitachycardia devices and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are reviewed and the features and current implant data on newer antitachycardia devices are discussed.

Electrode system influence on biphasic waveform defibrillation efficacy in humans

BACKGROUND

Several clinical studies have demonstrated a general superiority of biphasic waveform defibrillation compared with monophasic waveform defibrillation using epicardial lead systems. To test the breadth of utility of biphasic waveforms in humans, a prospective, randomized evaluation of defibrillation efficacy of monophasic and single capacitor biphasic waveform pulses was performed for two distinct nonthoracotomy lead systems as well as for an epicardial electrode system in 51 cardiac arrest survivors undergoing automatic defibrillator implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The configurations tested consisted of a right ventricular-left ventricular (RV-LV) epicardial patch-patch system, an RV catheter-chest patch (CP) nonthoracotomy system, and a coronary sinus (CS) catheter-RV catheter nonthoracotomy system. For each configuration, the defibrillation current and voltage waveforms were recorded via a digital oscilloscope to measure defibrillation threshold voltage, current, resistance, and stored energy. Biphasic waveform defibrillation proved more efficient than monophasic waveform defibrillation for the epicardial RV-LV system (4.8 +/- 4.1 versus 6.7 +/- 4.9 J, p = 0.047) and the nonthoracotomy RV-CP system (23.4 +/- 11.1 versus 34.3 +/- 10.4 J, p = 0.0042). Biphasic waveform defibrillation thresholds were not significantly lower than monophasic waveform defibrillation thresholds for the CS-RV nonthoracotomy system (15.6 +/- 7.2 versus 20.0 +/- 11.5 J, p = 0.11). Biphasic waveform defibrillation proved more efficacious than monophasic waveform defibrillation in 13 of 20 patients (65%) with RV-LV epicardial patches, 10 of 15 patients (67%) with an RV-CP nonthoracotomy system, and nine of 16 patients (56%) with an RV-CS nonthoracotomy system.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic pulsing was useful with nonthoracotomy lead systems as well as with epicardial lead systems. However, the degree of biphasic waveform defibrillation superiority appeared to be electrode system dependent. Furthermore, for a few individuals, biphasic waveform defibrillation proved less efficient than monophasic waveform defibrillation, regardless of the lead system used.