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

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Ventricular arrhythmias remain a major cause of cardiovascular mortality. Therapy for serious ventricular arrhythmias has evolved over the past decade, from treatment primarily with antiarrhythmic drugs to implanted devices. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the best therapy for patients who have experienced an episode of ventricular fibrillation not accompanied by an acute myocardial infarction or other transient or reversible cause. It is also superior therapy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) causing syncope or hemodynamic compromise. Controlled clinical trials have confirmed the utility of these devices. As primary prevention, the ICD is superior to conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients who have survived a myocardial infarction and who have spontaneous, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, a low ejection fraction, inducible VT at electrophysiologic study, and whose VT is not suppressed by procainamide. The effect of the ICD on survival of other patient populations remains to be proven. The device is costly, but its price is generally accepted to be reasonable. The ICD has been a major advance in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Improved defibrillation efficacy with an ascending ramp waveform in humans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare an ascending ramp waveform (RAMP) with a standard, clinically available biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) for defibrillation in humans.

BACKGROUND

In animal studies, RAMP had a lower defibrillation threshold (DFT) than BTE.

METHODS

We studied 63 patients at implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement using a dual-coil lead and left pectoral active can. The subjects were divided into two groups, one with a 12-ms ascending first phase and one with a 7-ms ascending first phase. Phase 2 of RAMP for both groups was a truncated exponential decay with 65% tilt and reversed polarity. The BTE had a 50% tilt in each phase. DFT and upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) were measured for both waveforms using a binary search protocol.

RESULTS

The patient population was 77% male, with a mean age of 63 +/- 10 years and ejection fraction of 33 +/- 13%. Delivered energy at DFT was lower with the 7-ms RAMP vs BTE (5.4 +/- 2.6 J vs 6.5 +/- 3.4 J; P < .01) but unchanged with the 12-ms RAMP (7.4 +/- 4.5 J vs 7.1 +/- 4.9 J). Maximal voltage at DFT was significantly lower with either RAMP compared to BTE (P < .01). There was a strong correlation between ULV and DFT for both RAMP and BTE (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 7-ms ascending ramp waveform significantly reduced delivered energy (18%) and voltage (24%) at DFT, whereas the 12-ms RAMP reduced only DFT voltage. This is the first report of a waveform that is superior to a BTE for defibrillation in humans. ULV correlates with DFT for RAMP, supporting the use of ULV testing for implantation of devices.

ICD leads: design and chronic dysfunctions

The treatment of ventricular tachyarrhythmias has changed over the last 10 years. Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), once used only as a last resort therapy, have now become the treatment of choice. This change occurred before the first results of randomized studies on ICD therapy in patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias were published by the end of 1997. Technological advances of ICD therapy, in particular the development of transvenous leads, were to a large extent responsible for this change. Modern leads are characterized by their multilumen design that incorporates straight wires and coiled conductors into a single electrode body. Conductors and insulation are sheathed with additional insulation layers. The most frequently used insulating materials are silicone, polyurethane, and fluoropolymers. Lead failures are an important complication of ICD therapy. Fractured conductors, compression, creeping, or insulation defects from abrasion can cause such lead dysfunctions. Chronically implanted leads will inevitably have an increased risk of failure due to defects despite all technological advances. In the light of improving survival figures in patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias and increasing numbers of ICD implantations, lead failures are becoming a clinical problem of ever increasing importance. Therefore, the question of which lead types necessitate extraction when a certain failure occurs and which leads can be left in place. Despite continuous improvements in lead extraction systems and growing experience in their use, the extraction of any pacemaker or ICD lead is associated with some risk of complications.

Success and failure of biphasic shocks: results of bidomain simulations

The mechanisms behind the superiority of optimal biphasic defibrillation shocks over monophasic are not fully understood. This simulation study examines how the shock polarity and second-phase magnitude of biphasic shocks influence the virtual electrode polarization (VEP) pattern, and thus the outcome of the shock in a bidomain model representation of ventricular myocardium. A single spiral wave is initiated in a two-dimensional sheet of myocardium that measures 2 x 2 cm(2). The model incorporates non-uniform fiber curvature, membrane kinetics suitable for high strength shocks, and electroporation. Line electrodes deliver a spatially uniform extracellular field. The shocks are biphasic, each phase lasting 10 ms. Two different polarities of biphasic shocks are examined as the first-phase configuration is held constant and the second-phase magnitude is varied between 1 and 10 V/cm. The results show that for each polarity, varying the second-phase magnitude reverses the VEP induced by the first phase in an asymmetric fashion. Further, the size of the post-shock excitable gap is dependent upon the second-phase magnitude and is a factor in determining the success or failure of the shock. The maximum size of a post-shock excitable gap that results in defibrillation success depends on the polarity of the shock, indicating that the refractoriness of the tissue surrounding the gap also contributes to the outcome of the shock.

Comparison of the efficacy of a subcutaneous array electrode with a subcutaneous patch electrode, a prospective randomized study

The patch electrode and the array electrode are the two types of subcutaneous leads available as an adjunct to a transvenous lead system in patients with high defibrillation thresholds. A prospective randomized study was conducted in 30 consecutive patients comparing the efficacy and the long-term performance of a patch electrode with an array electrode. After determination of the defibrillation threshold for the transvenous lead alone, a subcutaneous patch or an array electrode was implanted in random order. Adding a patch electrode decreased the defibrillation threshold in seven out of 15 patients (47%) from 13.2+/-6.6 to 10.5+/-5.1 J (P<0.05). In 13 out of 15 patients (87%), the implantation of an array electrode caused a significant lowering of the defibrillation threshold from 15.4+/-6.6 to 8.2+/-5.0 J (P<0.0001). The array electrode was significantly more effective in lowering the defibrillation threshold than the patch electrode (P<0.01). Complications during follow-up associated with the subcutaneous patch electrode were observed in four patients whereas no complications were associated with the array electrode (P<0.01). The additional implantation of an array electrode is more effective and associated with fewer complications compared to a patch electrode.

Effect of second-phase duration on the strength-duration relation for human transvenous defibrillation

BACKGROUND

The mechanism by which biphasic waveforms improve defibrillation efficacy is unclear. In addition, the optimal shape of the biphasic waveforms remains controversial. Animal experiments suggest that prolonging the duration of the second phase longer than the first worsens defibrillation thresholds (DFT). The purpose of this study was to determine the strength-duration relation for the second phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective, randomized study of biphasic DFT in 36 patients; a uniform dual-coil transvenous lead system was used. In each patient, 3 DFTs were determined with the pulse duration for the second phase of the defibrillation waveform varying between 1 and 18 ms. The duration of the first phase was fixed at 6 ms and the capacitance was 150 microF. There was a significant increase in the leading edge voltage at DFT only when the second-phase pulse duration was decreased to 1 ms. There was no increase in DFT voltage even when the second-phase pulse duration was increased from 2 to 18 ms. Similar relations were observed for stored energy, leading edge current, or phase 2 energy. The normalized average current delivered during phase 2 decreased monotonically with increasing phase 2 duration.

CONCLUSIONS

In humans, the biphasic DFT voltage or energy is increased only when the second phase of the waveform is <2 ms. The DFT voltage is insensitive to increasing the second phase of the defibrillator waveform to as long as 18 ms, or 3 times the duration of the first phase of the waveform.

Success and failure of the defibrillation shock: insights from a simulation study

INTRODUCTION

This simulation study presents a further inquiry into the mechanisms by which a strong electric shock fails to halt life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The research uses a model of the defibrillation process that represents a sheet of myocardium as a bidomain. The tissue consists of nonuniformly curved fibers in which spiral wave reentry is initiated. Monophasic defibrillation shocks are delivered via two line electrodes that occupy opposite tissue boundaries. In some simulation experiments, the polarity of the shock is reversed. Electrical activity in the sheet is compared for failed and successful shocks under controlled conditions. The maps of transmembrane potential and activation times calculated during and after the shock demonstrate that weak shocks fail to terminate the reentrant activity via two major mechanisms. As compared with strong shocks, weak shocks result in (1) smaller extension of refractoriness in the areas depolarized by the shock, and (2) slower or incomplete activation of the excitable gap created by deexcitation of the negatively polarized areas. In its turn, mechanism 2 is associated with one or more of the following events: (a) lack of some break excitations, (b) latency in the occurrence of the break excitations, and (c) slower propagation through deexcited areas. Reversal of shock polarity results in a change of the extent of the regions of deexcitation, and thus, in a change in defibrillation threshold.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicate the paramount importance of shock-induced deexcitation in both defibrillation and postshock arrhythmogenesis.

Inappropriate shock delivery by implantable defibrillators with dual chamber pacing during nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in patients with heart block

Transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have improved the management of patients with ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF). Many patients with sustained VT/VF have bradyarrhythmias and nonsustained VT. Shock delivery due to nonsustained VT would be an undesirable feature. Abortive shock capability (noncommitted shocks) is a feature available in devices to prevent delivery of shocks for nonsustained VT. Recently, the availability of dual chamber pacing capability has improved the efficacy of ICDs by obviating the need of separate pacemaker implantation in patients with VT/VF and concomitant bradyarrhythmias. However, interaction between bradyarrhythmias and VT/VF has not been described and has important clinical implications. We report a case in which a patient with complete atrioventricular (AV) block and ventricular arrhythmias received an inappropriate shock following spontaneous termination of nonsustained VT, showing an important shortcoming of devices with these features.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

Electrophysiologist-implanted transvenous cardioverter defibrillators using local versus general anesthesia

With the advent of smaller biphasic transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the experience gained over the years, it is now feasible for electrophysiologists to implant them safely in the abdominal or pectoral area without surgical assistance. Throughout the years, general anesthesia has been used as the standard technique of anesthesia for these procedures. However, use of local anesthesia combined with deep sedation only for defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing might further facilitate and simplify these procedures. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of using local anesthesia and compare it with the standard technique of general anesthesia, during implantation of transvenous ICDs performed by an electrophysiologist in the electrophysiology laboratory. For over 4 years in the electrophysiology laboratory, we have implanted transvenous ICDs in 90 consecutive patients (84 men and 6 women, aged 58 +/- 15 years). Early on, general anesthesia was used (n = 40, group I), but in recent series (n = 50, group II) local anesthesia was combined with deep sedation for DFT testing. Patients had coronary (n = 58) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 25) or no organic disease (n = 3), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 35%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 72) or fibrillation (n = 16), or syncope (n = 2). One-lead ICD systems were used in 74 patients, two-lead systems in 10 patients, and an AVICD in 6 patients. ICDs were implanted in abdominal (n = 17, all in group I) or more recently in pectoral (n = 73) pockets. The DFT averaged 9.7 +/- 3.6 J and 10.2 +/- 3.6 J in the two groups, respectively (P = NS) and there were no differences in pace-sense thresholds. The total procedural duration was shorter (2.1 +/- 0.5 hours) in group II (all pectoral implants) compared with 23 pectoral implants of group I (2.9 +/- 0.5 hours) (P < 0.0001). Biphasic devices were used in all patients and active shell devices in 67 patients; no patient needed a subcutaneous patch. There were six complications (7%), four in group I and two in group II: one pulmonary edema and one respiratory insufficiency that delayed extubation for 3 hours in a patient with prior lung resection, both probably related to general anesthesia, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on day 3, two pocket hematomas, and one pneumothorax. There was one postoperative arrhythmic death at 48 hours in group I. No infections occurred. Patients were discharged at a mean time of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. Thus, it is feasible to use local anesthesia for current ICD implants to expedite the procedure and avoid general anesthesia related cost and possible complications.

Improved efficacy of anodal biphasic defibrillation shocks following a failed defibrillation attempt

Although it is generally assumed that defibrillation becomes more difficult when the duration of VF is prolonged, after a failed defibrillation attempt, there is little information on the defibrillation efficacy of multiple shocks delivered at the same energy. The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the efficacy of a second shock delivered at the same or reversed polarity after a failed first shock. Defibrillation was attempted after 10 seconds of VF in 12 pigs (30-56 kg) using biphasic waveforms and a nonthoracotomy lead system. Shock energy was held constant for the first and second shocks at 50%-90% of the DFT. The second shock was delivered 10 seconds after a failed first shock. First and second shock polarity (first phase) was randomized to (+, +), (+, -), (-, -), (-, +). The incidence of successful defibrillation (for all polarities) was 12.3% for first and 49.1% for second shocks (P < 0.0001). Anodal first shocks had a 17.2% incidence of success as opposed to a 7.4% incidence of success with cathodal first shocks (P = 0.001). Anodal second shocks had a 55.5% incidence of success compared to a 42.7% incidence of success with cathodal second shocks (P = 0.008). There was no significant benefit from polarity reversal after a failed first shock (P = 0.29). In conclusion, less energy is required for successful defibrillation by a second shock after a failed first. The optimal configuration for first and second shocks is with the RV as anode. Polarity reversal of a second shock after a failed first does not affect the probability of second shock success.

Preliminary single center clinical experience of the use of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator

We report a single center's preliminary clinical experience of the Sentinel (Angeion, Minneapolis, MN) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), which employs novel technologies that offer the potential for significant reduction in ICD size. Thirty-three patients have received Sentinel ICDs with a mean follow-up of 450 (range 150-1023) days. Device shock therapy has been used to defibrillate/cardiovert 43 spontaneous episodes of malignant ventricular arrhythmia and 510 episodes of hemodynamically well tolerated ventricular arrhythmia have been pace-terminated (pace-termination failed in 6 episodes with subsequent delivery of appropriate shock therapy). There has been no arrhythmic death in this patient population. There have been 9 inappropriate shocks in 6 patients (in 2 patients for atrial fibrillation which had satisfied the algorithm detection criteria for high zone ventricular arrhythmia, in 3 for sinus tachycardia [rate greater than 180 beats per min] and in 1 due to device capacitor malfunction). Device replacement has been required for component malfunction in 3 patients. There have been no other major complications. Follow-up time to date is short and longterm device efficacy and performance remain unproven. However, our early clinical experience suggests that the innovations used to manufacture the Sentinel ICD have facilitated reduction in ICD size without compromising therapeutic efficacy.

A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation: analysis of costs and outcomes

Traditionally cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed by surgeons under general anesthesia. However, with advances in lead and pulse generator technology, the surgical implantation technique has been simplified and routine pectoral pulse generator placement without general anesthesia is now possible. To assess the economic benefit of pectoral implantation, we analyzed 43 consecutive initial transvenous defibrillator implantations. The patients were grouped according to whether the implant was abdominal by a surgeon in the operating room (n = 23) or pectoral by an electrophysiologist in a laboratory (n = 20). The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the operating room than in the laboratory group (8.1 +/- 3.4 vs 5.8 +/- 2.4 days, p = 0.01), which was due primarily to the postoperative stay which averaged 1.9 days longer. Total costs were $40,274 +/- 6,861 for the operating room cohort and $32,546 +/- 3,634 for the lab group (p < 0.001). This reduction was due to a 32% lowering of professional costs and an 18% lowering of facility costs. We conclude that pectoral defibrillator implantation is cost effective and results in significant reductions of hospital stay.

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.

Lidocaine's effect on defibrillation threshold are dependent on the defibrillation electrode system: epicardial versus endocardial

INTRODUCTION

Epicardial and endocardial defibrillation electrode systems affect myocardial electrophysiology and sympathetic function differently. Thus, we postulate that antiarrhythmic drugs will interact with these electrode systems differently.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation energy requirements (DER) at 20% (ED20), 50% (ED50), and 80% (ED80) success were measured at baseline and during lidocaine (10 mg/kg per hour) or D5W treatment for epicardial and endocardial electrodes. Pigs were randomized to treatment (lidocaine or D5W) and electrode system, which resulted in four experimental groups: (1) epicardial electrode + D5W; (2) epicardial electrode + lidocaine; (3) endocardial electrode + D5W; and (4) endocardial electrode + lidocaine. ED50 DER (mean +/- SEM) values at baseline for groups 1-4 were 10.6+/-1, 8.5+/-1, 12.6+/-1, and 12.3+/-1 J, respectively. DER values for groups 1 and 3 during D5W were similar to baseline. Conversely, lidocaine increased ED50 DER values from 8.5+/-1 to 13.5+/-2 J (P < 0.05) in group 2 animals (epicardial electrodes). When lidocaine was administered to group 4 animals (endocardial electrodes), however, ED50 DER values remained similar to baseline values (12.3+/-1 to 14.3+/-2 J, P = NS). Lidocaine increased ED50 DER values by 59% with the epicardial electrode system, which was significantly greater than the 16% increase with the endocardial electrode system (P < 0.05). Electrophysiologic response and electrode impedance were similar between electrode systems.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine increases DER values to a greater extent when using epicardial versus endocardial electrode system. Thus, drug-device interactions are dependent on the electrode system. These data suggest that the electrophysiologic milieu created by endocardial defibrillation mitigates the effects that lidocaine has on DER values.

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.

The effects of ventricular fibrillation duration and a preceding unsuccessful shock on the probability of defibrillation success using biphasic waveforms in pigs

INTRODUCTION

While the defibrillation threshold has been reported to increase with ventricular fibrillation (VF) duration for monophasic waveforms, the effect of VF duration for biphasic waveforms is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ED 50 requirements (the 50% probability of defibrillation success) for an endocardial lead system, which included a subcutaneous array, were determined by logistic regression using a recursive up-down algorithm for a biphasic waveform (6/6 msec). The study was performed in two parts, each with eight pigs. In part 1, ED 50 was compared for shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF and for shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF following a failed first shock at 10 seconds. Energy at ED 50 decreased from 6.5 +/- 0.9 J for shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF to 4.9 +/- 0.8 J (P < 0.01) for shocks delivered after 20 seconds. To determine if improved second shock efficacy was a result of preconditioning by the failed first shock or a function of VF duration, part 2 of the study compared defibrillation efficacy between shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF with shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF with and without a failed first shock at 10 seconds. Mean energy at ED 50 decreased from 10.1 +/- 2.4 J for shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF to 7.9 +/- 2.4 J (P < 0.01) and 7.5 +/- 3.2 J (P < 0.01) for shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF with and without a failed first shock, respectively. The mean energy at ED 50 for shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF with and without a failed first shock was not significantly different (P = 0.53). A strong linear correlation for energy at ED 50 was found between shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF and shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF following a failed first shock (r = 0.95, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

(1) As opposed to monophasic shocks, ED 50 is significantly lower for biphasic shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF compared with shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF in pigs. (2) An unsuccessful biphasic shock in pigs does not affect the defibrillation efficacy for a subsequent shock. (3) ED 50 for a biphasic shock delivered after 20 seconds of VF is linearly related to ED 50 for a shock delivered after 10 seconds of VF.

Strength-duration relationship for human transvenous defibrillation

BACKGROUND

One of the basic characteristics of electrical defibrillation is the strength-duration relationship, or the effect of pulse width on defibrillation efficacy. This relationship is important for understanding the mechanism of defibrillation and for the design of optimal waveforms. However, a detailed evaluation of the strength-duration relationship for human transvenous defibrillation has not been performed previously.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective study of 29 patients undergoing initial defibrillator implantation with a uniform dual coil, transvenous lead. In each patient defibrillation thresholds were measured for either short (2, 3, 4, 6 ms) or long (6, 12, 18 ms) pulse durations, with the order of testing randomized. The shock waveform was a truncated monophasic pulse from a capacitor of 150 microF. The leading edge voltage at defibrillation threshold was 566+/-100 V for 2-ms pulses. Voltages declined exponentially with increasing pulse width reaching an asymptote by 6 ms (451+/-68 V, P<.05). Defibrillation threshold voltage was insensitive to longer pulse widths. Stored energy at defibrillation threshold showed a similar relationship with pulse width. In contrast, mean current decreased monotonically over the full range of pulse durations evaluated, and there was no evidence of a rheobase.

CONCLUSIONS

The shape of the strength-duration curve and the lack of rheobase current indicate a fundamental difference between cardiac stimulation and defibrillation. The relationship between pulse duration and defibrillation threshold voltage or stored energy is well modeled by a parallel capacitor resistor circuit with a time constant of 5.3 ms.

[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.

Membrane refractoriness and excitation induced in cardiac fibers by monophasic and biphasic shocks

INTRODUCTION

This modeling study examines the effect of low-intensity monophasic and biphasic waveforms on the response of a refractory cardiac fiber to the defibrillation shock.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Two cardiac fiber representations are considered in this study: a continuous fiber and a discrete fiber that incorporates gap junctions. Each fiber is undergoing a propagating action potential. Shocks of various strengths and coupling intervals are delivered extracellularly at fiber ends during the relative refractory period. In a continuous fiber, monophasic shock strengths of three times the diastolic threshold either elicit no response or, for coupling intervals above 380 msec, reinitiate propagation. In contrast, biphasic shocks of same strength are capable of terminating the existing wavefronts by either invoking a nonpropagating response (coupling intervals 370 to 382 msec) that prolongs the refractory period or inducing wavefront collision (coupling intervals above 400 msec). The fiber response is similar for other shock strengths and when cellular discontinuity is accounted for. Thus, for a refractory fiber, biphasic shocks have only a small "vulnerable" window of coupling intervals over which propagation is reinitiated.

CONCLUSION

At short coupling intervals, a significant extension of refractoriness is generated at regions where the biphasic shock induced hyperpolarization followed by depolarization. At large coupling intervals, the enhanced efficacy of biphasic shocks is associated with their ability to induce wavefront collision, thus decreasing the probability of reinitiating fibrillation. Overall, the defibrillation shock affects the tissue through the induced large-scale hyperpolarization and depolarization, and not through the small-scale transmembrane potential oscillations at cell ends.

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.

Low-energy endocardial defibrillation using dual, triple, and quadruple electrode systems

The feasibility of achieving both universal application of nonthoracotomy leads and low (< or = 15 J) defibrillation energy requirements by optimizing lead system configuration for use with low-output (<30 J) biphasic shock pulse generators was examined. Sixteen patients (mean age 62 +/- 8 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 38 +/- 15%) were included in the study. All patients had either experienced syncope with induced ventricular tachycardia (n = 4) or had documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 7) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 5). Defibrillation threshold testing was performed in 2 stages on different days in these patients. In the first stage, 2 defibrillation catheter electrodes were positioned in the right ventricle and superior vena cava with an axillary cutaneous patch. Fifteen-joule, 10- and 5-J biphasic shocks were delivered across 3 different electrode configurations-right ventricle to superior vena cava, right ventricle to axillary patch, right ventricle to a combination of superior vena cava and axillary patch. In the second stage, an 80-ml can electrode was added subcutaneously in a pectoral location to the previous leads. Configurations compared were the right ventricle to pectoral can, and right ventricle to an "array"-combining superior vena cava, can, and axillary patch leads. The defibrillation threshold was determined using a step-down method. In stage 1, mean defibrillation threshold for the right ventricle to axillary patch (12.7 +/- 5.9 J) and right ventricle to superior vena cava plus axillary patch (9.8 +/- 5.2 J) configurations was lower than the right ventricle to superior vena cava configuration (14.2 +/- 6.4 J, p <0.05). In stage 2, the defibrillation was higher for the right ventricle to pectoral can (9.2 +/- 5.1 J) configuration compared with the right ventricle to the array (5.6 +/- 3.6 J, p < or =0.05). The right ventricle to array had the lowest defibrillation threshold, whereas the right ventricle to pectoral can was the best dual electrode system. Low-energy endocardial defibrillation (< or =10 J) was feasible in 72% of tested patients with > 1 electrode configuration at 10 J, whereas only 53% of successful patients could be reverted at >1 electrode configuration at 5 J (p <0.05). Reduction in maximum pulse generator output to < or =25 J using these electrode configurations with bidirectional shocks is feasible and maintains an adequate safety margin.

Comparison of single-biphasic versus sequential-biphasic shocks on defibrillation threshold in pigs

Current generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators use monophasic, biphasic, or sequential pulse shocks, most of which truncate after a given time, dumping the remaining charge on the capacitor through an internal resistor. We hypothesized that having an additional current pathway, and delivering the majority of the remaining charge on a single capacitor to the two pathways using additional shock phases, would improve defibrillation efficacy. This hypothesis was tested by comparing DFTs using a simulated single capacitor, single-biphasic shock (two 5-ms pulses separated by 0.2 ms), delivered to coupled pairs of electrodes, to those using a sequential-biphasic shock (four 5-ms pulses separated by 0.2 ms) delivered to separate opposing electrodes, delivered from the same electrodes for both waveforms. In eight open-chest anesthetized pigs, four mesh electrodes (Medtronic TX-7, 6.5 cm2), were sutured on the epicardium of the anterior and posterior surfaces of each ventricle. Shocks were delivered from a 200-microF capacitor bank. Triplicate DFTs were obtained using each waveform in a randomized crossover design. Initial leading edge voltage (mean +/- SEM: 420 +/- 33 V vs 497 +/- 34 V; P < 0.05), initial peak current (4.8 +/- 0.4 A vs 13 +/- 1.1 A; P < 0.001), and delivered energy (16.9 +/- 2.6 J vs 30.4 +/- 5.3 J; P < 0.05) at the DFT were all significantly lower using sequential-biphasic shocks than those using single-biphasic shocks, respectively. We conclude that for direct heart defibrillation, it is worthwhile to combine sequential capability to biphasic shocks and deliver the remaining charge on the capacitor to the two different pathways.

Simulated internal defibrillation in humans using an anatomically realistic three-dimensional finite element model of the thorax

INTRODUCTION

Determination of the optimal electrode configuration during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation remains largely an empirical process. This study investigated the feasibility of using a finite element model of the thorax to predict clinical defibrillation metrics for internal defibrillation in humans. Computed defibrillation metrics from simulations of three common electrode configurations with a monophasic waveform were compared to pooled metrics for similar electrode and waveform configurations reported in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A three-dimensional finite element model was constructed from CT cross-sections of a human thorax. Myocardial current density distributions for three electrode configurations (epicardial patches, right ventricular [RV] coil/superior vena cava [SVC] coil, RV coil/SVC coil/subcutaneous patch) and a truncated monophasic pulse with a 65% tilt were simulated. Assuming an inexcitability threshold of 25 mA/cm2 (10 V/cm) and a 75% critical mass criterion for successful defibrillation, defibrillation metrics (interelectrode impedance, defibrillation threshold current, voltage, and energy) were calculated for each electrode simulation. Values of these metrics were within 1 SD of sample-size weighted means for the corresponding metrics determined for similar electrode configurations and waveforms reported in human clinical studies. Simulated myocardial current density distributions suggest that variations in current distribution and uniformity partially explain differences in defibrillation energy requirements between electrode configurations.

CONCLUSION

Anatomically realistic three-dimensional finite element modeling can closely simulate internal defibrillation in humans. This may prove useful for characterizing patient-specific factors that influence clinically relevant properties of current density distributions and defibrillation energy requirements of various ICD electrode configurations.

Internal atrial defibrillation in humans. Improved efficacy of biphasic waveforms and the importance of phase duration

BACKGROUND

The optimal waveform for internal atrial defibrillation (IAD) in humans is unknown. This study tested the effect of waveform duration and phase duration on the efficacy of biphasic waveforms for IAD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electrodes were positioned in the right atrial appendage and coronary sinus in 13 patients. In part 1, the atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) for 5 monophasic waveforms (2, 4, 6, 10, and 20 ms) and 5 symmetrical biphasic waveforms (1/1, 2/2, 3/3, 5/5, and 10/10 ms) were compared in 6 patients. In part 2, the ADFTs for two asymmetrical biphasic waveforms (7.5/2.5 and 2.5/7.5 ms) were compared with those for a symmetrical biphasic waveform (5/5 ms) and a monophasic waveform (10 ms) in 7 patients. In part 1, biphasics with total durations of 4 to 20 ms had significantly lower ADFTs than monophasic waveforms of the same total duration. For a total duration of 2 ms, there was no significant difference in ADFTs between the biphasic and the monophasic waveforms. There was no difference between symmetrical biphasic waveforms of 4 to 20 ms. In part 2, the 7.5/2.5 ms asymmetrical biphasic had significantly lower ADFTs than the three other waveforms tested. Both the 7.5/2.5 ms asymmetrical and the 5/5 ms symmetrical biphasic waveform had significantly lower ADFTs than the 2.5/7.5 ms asymmetrical biphasic and the 10 ms monophasic waveforms.

CONCLUSIONS

For IAD in humans, biphasic waveforms were more efficacious than monophasic waveforms. This improved efficacy is related to the total duration of the biphasic waveform and each individual phase duration of the biphasic waveform.

Delivery of noncommitted shocks for nonsustained ventricular arrhythmias by a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator with abortive shock capability

INTRODUCTION

To describe the delivery of noncommitted implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks despite self-termination of ventricular arrhythmias. Abortive shock capability should eliminate the delivery of shocks for self-terminating ventricular arrhythmias. The delivery of noncommitted shocks despite abortive shock capability is, therefore, unexpected and previously unreported.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Among 118 patients who received the Transvene nonthoracotomy lead system and the Jewel ICD (model 7219D), three patients (1.7%) experienced supurious, noncommitted shocks for self-terminating arrhythmias. Only one detection zone (i.e., ventricular fibrillation) had been programmed in the defibrillator in each patient. In all three patients, the ventricular arrhythmias self-terminated during the charging period. One patient received seven shocks during periods of asystole, and the other two patients received one shock each. Two different mechanisms for shock delivery in this setting were identified: one occurring in the absence of electrical activity at the end of the bradycardia escape interval (i.e., associated with bradyarrhythmias), and the other when two sensed electrical events (i.e., escape beats) occurred during the so-called "synchronization" window of the defibrillator.

CONCLUSIONS

In rare patients with the Jewel defibrillator, shocks may be delivered for self-terminating arrhythmias despite abortive shock capability. Patients who are dependent upon pacing from their implanted defibrillator are at particular risk for shock in the aftermath of self-terminating ventricular arrhythmias. Defibrillator programming strategies aimed at eliminating or diminishing the incidence of this problem are discussed.

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.

A prospective, randomized evaluation of a nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead system. Endotak/PRX Investigator Group

Nonthoractomy lead systems for ICDs have been developed that obviate the need for a thoracotomy and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with implantation. However, an adequate DFT cannot be achieved in some patients using transvenous electrodes alone. Thus, a new subcutaneous "array" electrode was designed and tested in a prospective, randomized trial that compared the DFT obtained using monophasic shock waveforms with a single transvenous lead alone that has two defibrillating electrodes, the transvenous lead linked to a subcutaneous/submuscular patch electrode, and the transvenous lead linked to the investigational array electrode. There were 267 patients randomized to one of the three nonthoracotomy ICD lead systems. All had DFTs that met the implantation criterion of < or = 25 J. The resultant study population was 82% male and 18% female, mean age of 63 +/- 11 years. The indication for ICD implantation was monomorphic VT in 70%, VF in 19%, monomorphic VT/VF in 6%, and polymorphic VT in 4% of the patients, respectively. The mean LVEF was 0.33 +/- 0.13. The mean DFT obtained with the transvenous lead alone was 17.5 +/- 4.9 J as compared to 16.9 +/- 5.5 J with the lead linked to a patch electrode (P = NS), and 14.9 +/- 5.6 with the lead linked to the array electrode (array versus lead alone, P = 0.0001; array versus lead/patch, P = 0.007). The results of this investigation suggest that the subcutaneous array may be superior to the standard patch as a subcutaneous electrode to lower the DFT and increase the margin of safety for successful nonthoracotomy defibrillation.

The influence of sodium channel blockade on the defibrillation energy requirements of biphasic versus monophasic shocks

The sodium channel-blocking actions of some Class I antiarrhythmic agents can increase the defibrillation energy requirements (DER) of monophasic shock waveforms. The influence of sodium channel blockade on biphasic shocks is less certain. The purpose of this study was to compare, in a randomized, placebo controlled study, the influence of lidocaine on the DER of biphasic and monophasic shock waveforms in a canine model of transvenous internal defibrillation. The DER was determined by the iterative increment-decrement protocol. Monophasic and biphasic shock DERs were tested at baseline and during lidocaine infusion (group A) or saline control (group B). Group A biphasic shock DERs increased significantly from a baseline of 12.1 +/- 3.6 J to 19.1 +/- 9.3 J when compared to group B (P = 0.005). In group A, the mean DER during lidocaine was significantly higher with monophasic shocks than biphasic shocks (29.6 +/- 11.8 J vs 19.1 +/- 9.3 J, respectively; P < 0.003), but the magnitude of change in biphasic versus monophasic shock DERs was not significantly different (F = 1.78; p = 0.193). There was a linear relationship between the baseline DER and the DER during lidocaine (r2 = 0.63, P < 0.0001). Sodium channel blockade with lidocaine increases the DER of both monophasic and biphasic shocks. However, the DER of biphasic shocks during lidocaine are significantly lower than monophasic shock DERs, a finding that can be explained by the linear relationship between the baseline DER and the DER during lidocaine. These results may have favorable implications for the use of Class I antiarrhythmics with biphasic shock defibrillators.

The 'modern' implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: comparing it to those of the late 1980s

To determine whether implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is influenced by new technological advances, we studied the follow-up of 480 patients who underwent ICD implantation between January 1984 and March 1996. In these patients surgical risk, complications, and mean survival was evaluated in relation to the time of ICD implant: 124 patients (26%) underwent ICD implantation during 1984-1989 (group 1) and 356 patients (74%) during 1990-1996 (group 2). Epicardial lead systems were implanted in 209 patients (44%), whereas transvenous lead systems were implanted in 271 patients (56%). Perioperatively, 13 patients (3%) died, significantly more frequently after epicardial (12 of 209 patients, 5%) than after transvenous (1 of 271 patients, <1%) ICD implantation (p < 0.05). During a mean follow-up of 28 +/- 26 months (range < 1 to 129 months), 97 patients (20%) died. Of these, 9 patients (2%) died from sudden arrhythmic death; 7 patients (1%) died suddenly, probably as a result of nonarrhythmic causes; 60 (13%) died from other cardiac causes (congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction); and 21 (4%) died from noncardiac causes. The 3-, 5-, and 6-year survival for arrhythmic mortality was 90% and 89% in patients who underwent ICD implantation during 1984-1989 as compared with a 3-, 5-, and 6-year survival rate of 97% in patients with ICD implant since 1990 (p <0.05). In addition, the 3-, 5-, and 6-year total mortality was significantly better in group 2 (81%, 67%, 67%) than in group 1 (70%, 61%, 54%) (p <0.05). A total of 362 (75%) received ICD discharges (mean incidence 21 +/- 43 shocks per patient), with a similar incidence among both patient groups (group 1: 78%; group 2: 74%; p = nonsignificant). The mean interval between ICD implant and the first ICD therapy was similar between both groups with a mean interval of 11 +/- 13 months (group 1: 11 +/- 13 months, group 2: 9 +/- 6 months; p = nonsignificant). Our data demonstrate that patients who underwent ICD implantation since 1990 clearly benefit from technical advances (non-thoracotomy ICDs, biphasic shocks, antitachycardia pacing).

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.

Transvenous defibrillation lead systems

The use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator has grown dramatically over the past 10 years. One of the major advances in defibrillation technology is the development of transvenous lead systems. Compared with traditional epicardial lead systems, transvenous defibrillation leads reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs. Transvenous lead systems provide reliable sensing of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, although redetection of ventricular fibrillation can be prolonged, especially with integrated lead systems. Both ramp and burst adaptive pacing are equally effective for the termination of ventricular tachycardia and are successful in up to 90% of spontaneous events. Defibrillation thresholds are higher with transvenous leads than with epicardial patches. These thresholds are reduced with the use of multiple transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, or with reversing shock polarity. However, the development of biphasic waveforms has made the largest impact on the efficacy of these lead systems, allowing dual coil transvenous systems to be effective in about 90% of patients. Defibrillation efficacy is further enhanced and implantation simplified by the incorporation of an active pulse generator located in the left pectoral region. Active pectoral pulse generators with biphasic waveforms will be the primary lead system for new implants.

Epicardial sock mapping following monophasic and biphasic shocks of equal voltage with an endocardial lead system

INTRODUCTION

The reason for the increased defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks over monophasic shock is not definitely known.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In six anesthetized pigs, we mapped the epicardium after transvenous defibrillation shocks to compare the activation patterns following successful biphasic shocks with unsuccessful monophasic shocks of the same voltage. The heart was exposed and a 510-electrode sock with approximately 4-mm interelectrode spacing was pulled over the entire ventricular epicardium and sutured to the pericardium. Defibrillation catheters were placed in the right ventricular apex and in the superior vena cava. Paired monophasic 12 msec and biphasic 6/6 msec defibrillation shocks were given using an up-down protocol to keep shock strength between the defibrillation thresholds for the two waveforms so that the biphasic shock was successful while the monophasic shock was not. Activation fronts immediately following 60 paired shocks were recorded and analyzed by animated maps of the first derivative of the electrograms. The ventricles were divided into apical (I), middle (II), and basal (III) thirds, and early sites, i.e., the sites from which activation fronts first appeared on the epicardium following the shock, were grouped according to their location. Postshock intervals, i.e., the time from the shock until earliest epicardial activation occurred, were also determined. No ectopic activation fronts followed the shock in 20 biphasic episodes. In the other 40 paired episodes, the number of early sites was smaller after biphasic shocks than after monophasic shocks [monophasic: 198 (total), 3.3 +/- 0.9 (mean +/- SD) per shock episode; biphasic: 67, 1.1 +/- 1.0, P < 0.05]. For biphasic but not monophasic shocks, early sites were less likely to arise from the middle (II) and basal (III) thirds than from the apical third (I) [monophasic: I: 84 (42%), II: 68 (34%), III: 46 (23%); biphasic: I: 49 (73%), II: 10 (15%), III: 8 (12%), P < 0.05]. Postshock intervals were significantly shorter for monophasic shocks (54 +/- 14 msec) than for biphasic shocks (75 +/- 23 msec, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The decreased number of activation fronts and the longer delay following the shock for the earliest epicardial appearance of those activation fronts that do occur may be responsible for the increased defibrillation efficacy for biphasic shocks.

Compatibility of a nonthoracotomy lead system with a biphasic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Cadence-Endotak 60-Series IDE investigators

This prospective multicenter study was conducted under the Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of the Cadence implantable defibrillator (Ventritex, Inc.) and 60-series Endotak C leads (Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.). Implantation was attempted in 148 patients with hemodynamically compromising ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (VF), or with pace-terminable ventricular tachycardia. The system was successfully implanted in 97% of patients, with 96% of implants in a transvenous-lead-alone configuration. At implantation, the defibrillation threshold was 455 +/- 94 V (14 +/- 6 J) for lead-alone patients and 532 +/- 40 V (19 +/- 3 J) for those requiring a subcutaneous patch. VF conversion efficacy was reconfirmed in patients who underwent a 3-month chronic induction study. The system successfully detected all 763 induced arrhythmias and terminated 99.5% of them; after system modification, successful conversion was demonstrated in the 2 patients who initially had induced episodes requiring external defibrillation (1 lead revision; 1 reprogramming). All spontaneous episodes were terminated with an implantable-cardioverter defibrillator. Postshock VF redetection times were significantly shorter than initial detection times (4.5 +/- 1.8 seconds detection, 2.1 +/- 0.7 seconds redetection; p<0.0001). During an 8-month mean follow-up (range 1 to 31 months), 2 unwitnessed deaths were classified as sudden cardiac deaths, and 11 patients experienced a total of 12 complications, none of which was associated with the Cadence-Endotak combination.

Relative efficacy of different tilts with biphasic defibrillation in humans

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical efficacy and safety of atrial defibrillation using biphasic shocks and current nonthoracotomy endocardial lead configurations

We undertook a prospective randomized clinical trial evaluating efficacy and safety of internal atrial defibrillation in patients with drug-refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Consecutive patients with paroxysmal or chronic AF were randomly tested with 3 internal atrial defibrillation lead configurations and biphasic shocks. Patients with implanted cardiac pacemakers were tested with the right atrium (RA) and left pulmonary artery or coronary sinus (CS) configuration. Shocks were initially delivered without anesthesia to assess patient tolerance. The need for backup ventricular defibrillation and pacing support was evaluated. Eighteen patients with (n = 15) or without (n = 3) structural heart disease, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36 +/- 14%, and mean left atrial diameter 4.5 +/- 0.6 cm were studied. The mean defibrillation threshold in the best randomized lead configuration was 9.9 +/- 7.7 J. Mean defibrillation threshold for the right ventricle (RV) and superior vena cava configuration was 13.3 +/- 5 J, which was significantly lower than the RA and axilla configuration (20.1 +/- 7.4 J, p < 0.04) but not the RV to RA configuration (16.5 +/- 11 J, p > 0.2). The mean defibrillation threshold using the RA-left pulmonary artery/CS configuration was 8.9 +/- 9 J (p > 0.2 vs RV-superior vena cava). There was a bimodal distribution of defibrillation thresholds. Low atrial defibrillation thresholds correlated with absence of heart disease, higher ejection fraction, and smaller left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. Shocks were hemodynamically well tolerated, but 2 of 18 patients (11%) had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia after shock delivery. Six of 18 patients (33%) had postshock bradyarrhythmias. Fourteen of 16 patients perceived shocks > or = 3 J as intolerable.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) [corrected]

Influence of malpositioned transvenous leads on defibrillation efficacy with and without a subcutaneous array electrode

Some patients cannot receive a transvenous lead system because of high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). We hypothesized that a right ventricular (RV) catheter electrode not extending as far as possible into the RV apex could cause high DFTs. Recently, a subcutaneous array (SQA) electrode has been shown to lower DFTs substantially. We compared the influence of a malpositioned RV catheter electrode on defibrillation efficacy for endocardial lead systems with and without a SQA. In eight anesthetized pigs, defibrillation catheters were placed in the RV apex and near the junction of the superior vena cava (SVC) and right atrium. SQA, formed by three elements, each 20 cm in length, was placed in the left thorax. DFTs were determined for a biphasic waveform using an up/down protocol with the RV catheter at the apex and with it repositioned 1-cm and 2-cm proximal to the apex. The mean DFT energies for the configurations with a SQA were less than those without a SQA for every catheter position. The placement of the RV catheter away from the apex caused an increase in defibrillation energy for the configurations without a SQA (apex: 17.1 +/- 3.8 J [mean +/- SD]; 1 cm: 20.1 +/- 4.6 J; 2 cm: 27.6 +/- 9.5 J; P < 0.05), but not for the configurations with a SQA (apex: 12.2 +/- 2.2 J; 1 cm: 12.3 +/- 2.9 J; 2 cm: 12.1 +/- 0.9 J: P = NS). These results suggest that a malpositioned RV catheter electrode, at the time of implantation or by late dislodgment, significantly elevates DFTs for a total endocardial system but not for a system that includes a SQA.

Effects of initial polarity on defibrillation threshold with biphasic pulses

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that the polarity of epicardial patches significantly affects the defibrillation efficacy of monophasic shocks. However, whether this improvement can be extended to different pulsing methods and lead systems, such as biphasic shocks using endocardial defibrillating electrodes, is unknown.

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients undergoing testing and permanent implant using an Endotak lead system with a biphasic device were included in the study. In each patient the defibrillation threshold was determined delivering biphasic pulses with the distal coil as the cathode and the proximal coil as the anode during the positive phase and with the polarity reversed. The initial electrode polarity tested was chosen randomly. The defibrillation threshold was defined as the lowest pulse amplitude that effectively terminated ventricular fibrillation induced with 60-Hz alternating current. For each biphasic pulse peak voltage, pulse duration, resistance, and stored energy were recorded.

RESULTS

Of the 20 patients, 12 (60%) had lower defibrillation threshold when the proximal coil was negative, whereas only 2 patients had a lower defibrillation threshold when the distal coil was negative. In four patients a subcutaneous patch would have been required if only the biphasic pulse with the distal coil as negative had been tested. The mean stored defibrillation threshold energy was lower with the configuration using the proximal coil as cathode (16.3 +/- 8.8 J vs 21.5 +/- 11 J; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Change in the initial polarity of biphasic shocks may influence defibrillation efficacy and should, therefore, be assessed in each patient to achieve a more satisfactory safety margin and minimize the use of more invasive lead configurations.

Implantable defibrillators for high-risk patients with heart failure who are awaiting cardiac transplantation

The objective of this study was to assess the operative risk and efficacy of implantable defibrillators for preventing sudden death in patients with heart failure awaiting transplantation. The average waiting time for elective cardiac transplantation is 6 months to 1 year. Sudden cardiac death is the major source of mortality in outpatients in stable condition awaiting cardiac transplantation. The efficacy of implantable defibrillator therapy in this population is not established. We analyzed the operative risk, time to appropriate shock, and sudden death in 15 patients determined to be at high risk of sudden death who were accepted onto the outpatient cardiac transplant waiting list. Nonfatal postoperative complications occurred in two (13%) subjects with epicardial defibrillating lead systems and in none with transvenous lead systems. Defibrillation energies were 16 +/- 2 J versus 24 +/- 2 J with epicardial and transvenous lead systems, respectively. Sudden death free survival until transplantation was 93%. Most of the patients (60%) had an appropriate shock during a mean follow-up of 11 +/- 12 months. The mean time to an appropriate shock was 3 +/- 3 months. Hospital readmission was required in three (20%) subjects to await transplantation on an urgent basis. However, two of these subjects had received appropriate shocks before readmission. In selected patients at high risk for sudden death while on the outpatient cardiac transplant waiting list, the operative risk is low and adequate defibrillation energies can be obtained to allow implantable defibrillator placement. Most subjects will have an appropriate shock as outpatients before transplantation, and sudden death free survival is excellent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

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

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

Comparison of biphasic and monophasic pulses: does the advantage of biphasic shocks depend on the waveshape?

With present implantable defibrillators, the ability to vary the defibrillation technique has been shown to increase the number of patients suitable for transvenous system. As newer waveforms become available, the need for a flexible device may change. In addition, although it has been shown that the option of biphasic waveform may increase the defibrillation efficacy, this may depend upon the shape of the biphasic waveform used. Thirty patients undergoing transvenous defibrillator implant were included in the study. In 20 patients (group I), defibrillation efficacy of simultaneous monophasic, sequential monophasic, and biphasic waveform with 50% tilt was determined randomly. Similarly, in ten patients (group II) testing of simultaneous monophasic shocks and biphasic waveforms with 65% and 80% tilt was performed in random order. The electrode system used consisted of two transvenous leads and a subcutaneous patch in all 30 patients. In group I, 50% tilt biphasic waveform consistently provided similar or better defibrillation efficacy compared to monophasic waveforms (biphasic 7.5 +/- 5.1 joules vs simultaneous 17 +/- 7.8 joules, P < 0.01; and vs sequential 17 +/- 8.4 joules, P < 0.01). In group II, 65% tilt biphasic pulse required less energy for defibrillation as compared with simultaneous monophasic shocks (9.6 +/- 4.5 joules vs 15.6 +/- 5.1 joules, P = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in terms of defibrillation threshold between 80% tilt biphasic shocks and simultaneous monophasic pulses (11.8 +/- 6 joules vs 15.6 +/- 5.1 joules, P = NS). Biphasic shocks with smaller tilt delivered using a triple lead system more uniformly improved defibrillation threshold over standard monophasic waveforms.

Limitations and late complications of third-generation automatic cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

This study examines the limitations and complex management problems associated with the use of tiered-therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study group comprises the first 154 patients undergoing implantation of tiered-therapy ICDs at our institution. Pulse generators from three different manufacturers were used. In 39 patients, a complete nonthoracotomy lead system was used. The perioperative mortality was 1.3%. Of these 154 patients, 37% experienced late postoperative problems. Twenty-one patients required system revision within 36.5 months (mean, 8.57 +/- 11.3) of surgery. Reasons for revision were spurious shocks due to electrode fractures (3) or electrode adapter malfunction (2), inadequate signal from endocardial rate-sensing electrodes (3), superior vena cava or right ventricular coil migration (5), failure to correct tachyarrhythmias due to a postimplant rise in defibrillation threshold (5), or pulse generator failure (3). One of these patients required system removal for infection after revision of an endocardial lead. A further 32 patients received inappropriate shocks for atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response or sinus tachycardia. Two of these patients also received shocks for ventricular tachycardia initiated by antitachycardia pacing triggered by atrial fibrillation. Ventricular pacing for bradycardia was associated with inappropriate shocks due to excessive autogain in 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the major diagnostic and therapeutic advantages of tiered-therapy ICDs, a significant proportion of patients continue to experience hardware-related complications or receive inappropriate shocks.

A new transvenous internal cardioverter-defibrillator: implantation technique, complications, and short-term follow-up

Twenty-four patients with ventricular fibrillation or sustained ventricular tachycardia underwent implantation of a new transvenous defibrillator. All patients had a device implanted without thoracotomy. High placement of a shock lead in the anonymous vein and inversion of the shock-wave polarity allowed avoidance of placement of subcutaneous patches. Implantation time decreased from 138 minutes for the first 12 patients to 82 minutes for the last 12 patients, with 4 and 11 subpectoral pockets, respectively. Three patients required a minor reintervention. No bleeding or infection occurred. One episode of pulmonary edema and one pulmonary embolism were seen in the postoperative course. No postoperative deaths were observed. During a mean follow-up period of 4.12 months, 58% of the 24 patients had symptomatic arrhythmic episodes, with shocks in 50% of the 24. Inappropriate shocks were delivered in three cases (atrial fibrillation and T-wave sensing). One episode was not terminated even with four internal shocks. One patient had ventricular fibrillation because of a sensing problem. By reprogramming of sensitivity, back-up pacing, and adjustment of drug therapy these arrhythmic complications could be prevented. Pectoral implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator is easy and can be performed by cardiologists experienced in pacemaker implantation. Careful postoperative observation, reprogramming after the first spontaneous event, and prehospital discharge induction of ventricular fibrillation will prevent arrhythmic complications.

Nonthoracotomy- versus thoracotomy-implantable defibrillators. Intention-to-treat comparison of clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Nonthoracotomy-implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) systems may represent a significant advance in the treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, but their merits relative to those of the well-established thoracotomy systems remain largely unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes after attempted ICD implantation via a nonthoracotomy versus thoracotomy approach in similar groups of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between September 1990 and December 1992, 212 consecutive patients underwent attempted ICD system implantation without concomitant cardiac surgery at a single institution. Approach selection was not randomized but rather was based primarily on hardware availability. Primary comparisons of short- and long-term outcome were performed according to the "intention-to-treat" principle. Implantation was attempted via a nonthoracotomy approach in 120 patients (57%) and via a thoracotomy approach in 92 patients (43%). Prior cardiac surgery was more prevalent in the nonthoracotomy patients; otherwise, groups did not differ significantly in terms of prognostically relevant clinical characteristics. Nonthoracotomy implantation was successful in 101 patients (84%). After crossover to thoracotomy implantation (14 patients), the eventual success rate for ICD system implantation was 96% in the nonthoracotomy group. Thoracotomy implantation was successful in 89 patients (97%). Operative mortality was 3.3% in the nonthoracotomy and 4.3% in the thoracotomy groups (P = .73). Nonthoracotomy group patients were less likely to experience postoperative congestive heart failure (6% versus 16%; P = .02) or supraventricular arrhythmia (6% versus 18%; P = .004) and had significantly shorter postoperative intensive care and total hospitalization. Total hospital costs were significantly lower in the nonthoracotomy group ($32,205 versus $37,265; P = .001). After a follow-up of 16 +/- 9 months, there were 17 deaths in the nonthoracotomy group (none sudden) and 12 deaths in the thoracotomy group (1 sudden). One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities were .87 (95% CI, .78 to .91) and .80 (95% CI, .68 to .88) in the nonthoracotomy group and .90 (95% CI, .82 to .95) and .87 (95% CI, .77 to .93) in the thoracotomy group (P = .56; log-rank test).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonthoracotomy ICD implantation is associated with reduced surgical morbidity, postoperative hospital care requirement, and hospital costs and has similar efficacy in preventing sudden death relative to the thoracotomy approach. From these nonrandomized data, it appears that a nonthoracotomy approach should be considered preferable in most patients requiring ICD therapy.

Lessons learned from data logging in a multicenter clinical trial using a late-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. The Guardian ATP 4210 Multicenter Investigators Group

OBJECTIVES

This study examined patterns of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use as documented by data logging.

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators are accepted therapy for malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias; however, relatively little is known about their patterns of use. Incorporation of data-storage capacities into these devices provides insight into long-term defibrillator function.

METHODS

Stored data-logging information was retrieved from 401 implanted cardioverter-defibrillators in 393 patients over an average of 303 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 91,443 detections were recorded in 299 patients. One hundred-six patients (26%) had detections due to supraventricular tachycardias, electrical noise or other causes, resulting in inappropriate therapy delivery to 92 patients (23%). Two hundred eighty-one patients recorded 66,276 episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Of these, 74.4% episodes terminated spontaneously without any delivered therapy, 22.1% terminated after antitachycardia pacing, and 1.7% terminated after shock therapy. Antitachycardia pacing was activated without formal testing in 47% of all patients receiving this therapy and was successful in 96% of all episodes receiving this therapy. Acceleration of tachycardia to shock therapy occurred in 1.3% of all episodes and in 30.5% of patients receiving antitachycardia pacing. Thirty-four patients (8.7%) died during follow-up. Mortality was associated with patient age, heart failure functional class at implantation and frequency of shocks received during follow-up (all p < or = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most ventricular tachyarrhythmia detections by this noncommitted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator resolve spontaneously, whereas the majority receiving therapy can be treated with antitachycardia pacing. Mortality after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is associated with age, heart failure class and frequency of shocks received during follow-up. Data-logging capabilities provide valuable insights into the patterns of defibrillator use.