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

A retrospective evaluation of transthoracic biphasic electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation in dogs

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate safety, efficacy, and clinical usefulness of biphasic transthoracic cardioversion for management of dogs with atrial fibrillation (AF).

BACKGROUND

In dogs AF is usually managed with heart rate control rather than by restoration of sinus rhythm (SR). However, restoration of SR has potential advantages of improving cardiac output and reducing ventricular filling pressures, and biphasic cardioversion provides an improved benefit/risk ratio compared to traditional monophasic cardioversion.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data from 39 dogs with spontaneous AF managed with biphasic transthoracic cardioversion was done. Conversion characteristics, adverse effects, and duration of SR were evaluated. Effects of heart disease and pretreatment with amiodarone on success of cardioversion and on duration of SR were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Restoration of SR was achieved in 36 of 39 dogs (92.3%). Presence of heart disease or atrial enlargement had no effect on cardioversion characteristics or ability to restore SR. Median duration of SR following cardioversion and treatment with amiodarone was 120 days. Dogs with lone AF remained in SR longer than those with heart disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic cardioversion is safe and effective. Although duration of SR varied, a majority of dogs remained in SR long enough to benefit.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major healthcare problem worldwide. The majority of SCD events occur in patients with clinically recognized heart disease and most episodes result from ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy prevents SCD in specific patient populations. Significant progress in the design and technology has been made since the Food and Drug Administration first approved the ICD in 1985. First-generation ICDs were large, were implanted in the abdomen, required a thoracotomy for placing epicardial defibrillation patches, and were nonprogrammable. Contemporary ICDs have been substantially downsized, are implanted via a transvenous approach, and are multiprogrammable. Device implantation has been simplified to be similar to that of a permanent pacemaker. In addition to treating life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, ICDs now treat bradyarrhythmias, atrial arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure. The purpose of this article is to describe the evidence supporting the use of ICD therapy and to explain the current devices used in clinical practice.

Defibrillation threshold testing: is it really necessary at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to (1) determine how often implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system modifications were needed to obtain an adequate safety margin for defibrillation, (2) identify how often and for what indications defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was not performed, and (3) identify factors predicting the need for modification.

BACKGROUND

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) typically is induced at the time of ICD insertion. Although DFT testing often is minimized, a safety margin of 10 J has been utilized as a standard of care. However, current devices offer technology such as biphasic waveforms and high outputs, and the need for testing has been questioned.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of the last 1,139 patients undergoing initial ICD placement, generator replacement, or revision.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients (6.2%) were identified as having an unacceptably high DFT (<10 J safety margin) requiring intervention, and some required >1 modification. Use of a high-output device alone was not enough to obtain an adequate DFT in 48% (34/71) of patients who required modifications (3% of the total population). No arrhythmia inductions were performed in 54 patients (4.7%) because of well-defined clinical conditions. Patients who required system modification had a lower ejection fraction, were younger, were less likely to have coronary artery disease, were more likely to be undergoing upgrade/generator replacement, and were more likely to be taking amiodarone. Long-term mortality was not different between the group of patients who required modification compared with those who did not (17% vs 20%, P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine VF induction and documentation of effective defibrillation still remains a reasonable part of ICD placement because an inadequate safety margin may occur in >6% of patients. The incidence of patients who were inappropriate for testing based on well-defined clinical conditions is small (<5%) in this unselected large series. Although some clinical features may predict the need for system modification, additional studies are needed to better define "acceptable efficacy" of ICDs in preventing sudden death prior to altering these standards in selected patients.

Prospective, randomized comparison of two biphasic waveforms for the efficacy and safety of transthoracic biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in commercially available biphasic waveforms.

BACKGROUND

Although the superiority of biphasic over monophasic waveforms for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) is established, the relative efficacy of available biphasic waveforms is less clear.

METHODS

We compared the effectiveness of a biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveform and a biphasic rectilinear (BR) waveform for external cardioversion of AF. Patients (N = 188) with AF were randomized to receive transthoracic BR shocks (50, 75, 100, 120, 150, 200 J) or BTE shocks (50, 70, 100, 125, 150, 200, 300, 360 J). Shock strength was escalated until success or maximum energy dose was achieved. If maximum shock strength failed, patients received the maximum shock of the opposite waveform. Analysis included 141 patients (71 BR, 70 BTE; mean age 66.5 +/- 13.7. Forty-seven randomized patients were excluded because of flutter on precardioversion ECG upon blinded review (n = 25), presence of intracardiac thrombus (n = 7), or protocol deviation (n = 15). Groups were similar with regard to clinical and echocardiographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The success rate was similar for the two waveforms (93% BR vs 97 BTE, P = .44), although cumulative selected and delivered energy was less in the BTE group. Only AF duration was significantly different between successful and unsuccessful patients. No significant complications occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic waveforms were very effective in transthoracic cardioversion of AF, and complication rates were low. No significant difference in efficacy was observed between BR and BTE waveforms. Impedance was not an important determinant of success for either biphasic waveform.

Comparative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic waveforms for transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter

BACKGROUND

Transthoracic cardioversion fails to restore sinus rhythm in 6% to 33% of patients with atrial fibrillation. This study sought to determine the relative efficacy of biphasic waveforms compared with monophasic waveforms in the treatment of atrial arrhythmias.

METHODS

A total of 912 patients underwent 1022 transthoracic cardioversions between May 2000 and December 2001. A monophasic damped sine waveform was used in the first 304 cases, and a rectilinear biphasic defibrillator was used in the next 718 cases.

RESULTS

Use of a biphasic waveform was associated with 94% success in conversion to sinus rhythm compared with 84% with a monophasic waveform (P < .001). The cumulative energy required to restore sinus rhythm was lower with biphasic shocks in both atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter groups (554 +/- 413 J for monophasic vs 199 +/- 216 J for biphasic shocks in the atrial fibrillation group, P < .001; 251 +/- 302 J vs 108 +/- 184 J, respectively, in the atrial flutter group, P < .001). In a multivariate analysis, use of a biphasic shock was associated with a 3.9-fold increase in success of cardioversion.

CONCLUSION

When used to cardiovert atrial arrhythmias, the rectilinear biphasic waveform was associated with higher success rates and lower cumulative energies than the monophasic damped sine waveform.

Clinical efficacy of a wearable defibrillator in acutely terminating episodes of ventricular fibrillation using biphasic shocks

The Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) automatically detects and treats ventricular tachyarrhythmias without the need for assistance from a bystander, while at the same time allowing the patient to ambulate freely. It represents an alternative to emergency medical services for outpatient populations with a temporary risk of sudden cardiac death. While the original devices used a monophasic truncated exponential waveform for cardioversion/defibrillation shocks, a new, biphasic shock was developed for the next device generation. In 12 patients undergoing electrophysiological testing for ventricular tachyarrhythmias, termination of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) was attempted via the WCD. In 22 episodes, induced VF was promptly terminated by the first 70 J (n=12) or 100 J (n=10) biphasic shocks. Time between arrhythmia initiation and shock delivery was 22 +/- 6 seconds (70 J) and 21 +/- 6 seconds (100 J) (P=NS). The measured transthoracic impedance was 71 +/- 5 Ohms (64-79 Ohms) for the 70 J shock and 64 +/- 8 Ohms (47-72 Ohms) for the 100 J shock. The present study demonstrates that a single low energy biphasic shock delivered by the WCD, reliably terminates electrically induced VF (100% of episodes). The results of this study suggest that there is an acceptable safety margin to the maximum output of the device (150 J). Despite our promising data, we recommend that programming all shocks for maximum energy output should be done when using the WCD in ambulatory patients.

Electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

External direct current cardioversion remains the most common and effective method for restoration of normal sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF. The development of biphasic defibrillators allows for higher success rates of conversion using standard energy levels. For persistent AF, an initial energy of 200 J is recommended for biphasic defibrillators, and 300 to 360 J are recommended for monophasic defibrillators, with the electrodes placed in the anterior posterior position. For refractory cases, alternatives are available such as dual defibrillators or internal cardioversion. Antiarrhythmic drugs may enhance the results of cardioversion by helping overcome shock failure or by preventing immediate recurrence of AF. Thromboembolism is the most important complication associated with cardioversion, but it can be prevented by providing 3 weeks of anticoagulation before the procedure or by excluding the presence of thrombi by transesophageal echocardiography, followed by an additional 4 weeks of anticoagulation.

Bench to bedside: resuscitation from prolonged ventricular fibrillation

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) remains the most common cardiac arrest heart rhythm. Defibrillation is the primary treatment and is very effective if delivered early within a few minutes of onset of VF. However, successful treatment of VF becomes increasingly more difficult when the duration of VF exceeds 4 minutes. Classically, successful cardiac arrest resuscitation has been thought of as simply achieving restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). However, this traditional approach fails to consider the high early post-cardiac arrest mortality and morbidity and ignores the reperfusion injuries, which are manifest in the heart and brain. More recently, resuscitation from cardiac arrest has been divided into two phases; phase I, achieving ROSC, and phase II, treatment of reperfusion injury. The focus in both phases of resuscitation remains the heart and brain, as prolonged VF remains primarily a two-organ disease. These two organs are most sensitive to oxygen and substrate deprivation and account for the vast majority of early post-resuscitation mortality and morbidity. This review focuses first on the initial resuscitation (achieving ROSC) and then on the reperfusion issues affecting the heart and brain.

Effects of biphasic vs monophasic defibrillation on the scaling exponent in a swine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

Mathematical analyses of ventricular fibrillation (VF) have resulted in the derivation of a measure termed the scaling exponent (ScE) that characterizes the duration of VF and probability of defibrillation success. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of biphasic defibrillation waveform (BDW) and monophasic defibrillation waveform (MDW) rescue shocks on ScE in a swine model of prolonged VF.

METHODS

Utstein guidelines for the laboratory study of cardiopulmonary resuscitation were followed. Twenty mixed-breed domestic swine (mass range 20.5-26.8 kg) were instrumented and randomized to receive either MDW or BDW rescue shocks. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and untreated for a nonintervention interval of 8 minutes. Rescue shocks were delivered at 8, 10, and 12 minutes of elapsed VF time. The energy sequence for the three MDW shocks was 70, 100, and 150 J (approximately 3, 4, and 6 J/kg). All BDW shocks were delivered at 50 J (approximately 2.5 J/kg). Only VF was shocked. Chest compressions and drugs were not provided. Rhythm analysis and ScE calculation were performed offline. Continuous and discontinuous linear regression models were fit to plots of ScE vs time. Defibrillation success and progression of ScE slope were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, paired t-tests, and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar for both groups. Successful termination of VF occurred on the first rescue shock in 1 of 10 (10%) in the MDW group and 3 of 10 (30%) in the BDW group; this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.58). No other defibrillation successes were observed. No animals achieved return of spontaneous circulation. The ScE values during the protocol progressed from 1.330 (95% CI = 1.287 to 1.373) to 1.724 (95% CI = 1.603 to 1.845) for MDW and 1.338 (95% CI = 1.261 to 1.415) to 1.639 (95% CI = 1.530 to 1.745) for BDW. Both groups showed a trend toward increasing ScE values with successive rescue shocks. Repeated-measures ANOVA using both continuous and discontinuous models demonstrated no difference in overall ScE slope progression between study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mode of defibrillation waveform (BDW vs MDW) does not appear to impact ScE trends. Additional studies must be performed to better evaluate the clinical implications of this finding.

New approach to biphasic waveforms for internal defibrillation: fully discharging capacitors

INTRODUCTION

The use of two independent, fully discharging capacitors for each phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform may lead to the design of a simpler, smaller, internal defibrillator. The goal of this study was to determine the optimal combination of capacitor sizes for such a waveform.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Eight full-discharge (95/95% tilt), biphasic waveforms produced by several combinations of phase-1 capacitors (30, 60, and 90 microF) and phase-2 capacitors (1/3, 2/3, and 1.0 times the phase-1 capacitor) were tested and compared to a single-capacitor waveform (120 microF, 65/65% tilt) in a pig ventricular fibrillation model (n = 12, 23+/-2 kg). In the full-discharge waveforms, phase-2 peak voltage was equal to phase-1 peak voltage. Shocks were delivered between a right ventricular lead and a left pectoral can electrode. E50s and V50s were determined using a ten-step Bayesian process. Full-discharge waveforms with phase-2 capacitors of < or =40 microF had the same E50 (6.7+/-1.7 J to 7.3+/-3.9 J) as the single-capacitor truncated waveform (7.3+/-3.7 J), whereas waveforms with phase-2 capacitors of > or =60 microF had an extremely high E50 (14.5+/-10.8 J or greater, P < 0.05). Moreover, of the former set of energy-efficient waveforms, those with phase-1 capacitors of > or =60 microF additionally exhibited V50s that were equivalent to the V50 of the single-capacitor waveform (344+/-65 V to 407+/-50 V vs 339+/-83 V).

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation efficacy can be maintained in a full-discharge, two-capacitor waveform with the proper choice of capacitors.

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.

Drug therapy of sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Is there still a role?

This article provides a review of the risks faced by patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in the absence of a reversible or transient cause so that the goals of therapy can be clearly defined. The therapeutic approaches that have been proposed to achieve these goals are outlined and evidence comparing these various approaches to therapy is then summarized in order to propose an algorithm for the optimal use of antiarrhythmic drug therapies as primary therapy for selected VT/VF patients. Options for the ancillary uses of antiarrhythmic drug therapies in ICD patients are considered.

Transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: comparison of rectilinear biphasic versus damped sine wave monophasic shocks

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies have shown that biphasic shocks are more effective than monophasic shocks for ventricular defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of a rectilinear biphasic waveform with a standard damped sine wave monophasic waveform for the transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, patients undergoing transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation were randomized to receive either damped sine wave monophasic or rectilinear biphasic shocks. Patients randomized to the monophasic protocol (n=77) received sequential shocks of 100, 200, 300, and 360 J. Patients randomized to the biphasic protocol (n=88) received sequential shocks of 70, 120, 150, and 170 J. First-shock efficacy with the 70-J biphasic waveform (60 of 88 patients, 68%) was significantly greater than that with the 100-J monophasic waveform (16 of 77 patients, 21%, P<0.0001), and it was achieved with 50% less delivered current (11+/-1 versus 22+/-4 A, P<0.0001). Similarly, the cumulative efficacy with the biphasic waveform (83 of 88 patients, 94%) was significantly greater than that with the monophasic waveform (61 of 77 patients, 79%; P=0.005). The following 3 variables were independently associated with successful cardioversion: use of a biphasic waveform (relative risk, 4.2; 95% confidence intervals, 1.3 to 13.9; P=0.02), transthoracic impedance (relative risk, 0.64 per 10-Omega increase in impedance; 95% confidence intervals, 0.46 to 0.90; P=0.005), and duration of atrial fibrillation (relative risk, 0.97 per 30 days of atrial fibrillation; 95% confidence intervals, 0.96 to 0.99; P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

For transthoracic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, rectilinear biphasic shocks have greater efficacy (and require less energy) than damped sine wave monophasic shocks.

Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator are now standard for initial defibrillator implantations. However, the optimal transvenous lead system and coil location for such active can configurations are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit and optimal position of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil on defibrillation thresholds with an active left pectoral pulse generator and right ventricular coil.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, randomized study was performed on 27 patients. Each subject was evaluated with three lead configurations, with the order of testing randomized. Biphasic shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and an active can alone (unipolar), or an active can in common with the proximal coil positioned either at the right atrial/SVC junction (low SVC) or in the left subclavian vein (high SVC). Stored energies at defibrillation threshold were higher for the single-coil, unipolar configuration (11.2 +/- 6.6 J) than for the high (8.9 +/- 4.2 J) or low (8.5 +/- 4.2 J) SVC configurations (P < 0.01). Moreover, 96% of subjects had low (< or = 15 J) thresholds with the SVC coil in either position compared with 81% for the single-coil configuration. Shock impedance (P < 0.001) was increased with the unipolar configuration, whereas peak current was reduced (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduces defibrillation energy requirements. The position of this coil has no significant effect on defibrillation thresholds.

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.

Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. ZOLL Investigators

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation.

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock.

RESULTS

First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 +/- 1 vs. 33 +/- 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance < 70 ohms (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance > or = 70 ohms (99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.

Evaluation of biphasic transthoracic defibrillation in an animal model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a biphasic defibrillation waveform (BDW) would produce a superior rate of converting prolonged ventricular fibrillation (VF) into a perfusing rhythm and delay the occurrence of asystole and/or pulseless electrical activity (PEA) during the resuscitation attempt, when compared with a monophasic defibrillation waveform (MDW).

METHODS

The authors performed a prospective, randomized, blinded experiment using an established swine model of prolonged VF. Thirty-four mixed-breed domestic swine (mean mass 22.9 kg) were sedated (ketamine/xylazine), anesthetized (isoflurane), and intubated. Aortic and femoral venous catheters were placed. ECG was monitored continuously. The animals were shocked into VF (3-s, 100-mA, 60-Hz shock), and were untreated for 8 minutes. Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) began with 1 minute of standardized (Thumper) chest compressions and ventilation. The animals were randomized to treatment with either BDW or MDW. Standard ACLS protocols were followed. The energy sequence was 2.5 J/kg first, 3.5 J/kg second, and 4.5 J/kg for all subsequent shocks. Outcome variables were time to event of asystole/PEA, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and one-hour survival. Data were analyzed with two-tailed Fisher's exact test and Kaplan-Meier survival plots (alpha = 0.05).

RESULTS

ROSC occurred more frequently in the BDW group (7/17) compared with the MDW group (1/17); p = 0.04. Survival analysis showed that the BDW significantly delayed the occurrence of asystole/PEA during the resuscitation attempt when compared with the MDW; log-ranked p = 0.02. One-hour survival rates (5/17 BDW and 1/17 MDW, p = 0.17) did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

BDW resulted in a superior rate of ROSC and delay in the occurrence of asystole/ PEA during the resuscitation attempt when compared with MDW.

The effects of biphasic and conventional monophasic defibrillation on postresuscitation myocardial function

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of biphasic defibrillation waveforms and conventional monophasic defibrillation waveforms on the success of initial defibrillation, postresuscitation myocardial function and duration of survival after prolonged ventricular fibrillation (VF).

BACKGROUND

We have recently demonstrated that the severity of postresuscitation myocardial dysfunction was closely related to the magnitude of the electrical energy of the delivered defibrillation shock. In the present study, the effects of fixed 150-J low-energy biphasic waveform shocks were compared with conventional monophasic waveform shocks after prolonged VF.

METHODS

Twenty anesthetized, mechanically ventilated domestic pigs were investigated. VF was induced with an AC current delivered to the right ventricular endocardium. After either 4 or 7 min of untreated ventricular fibrillation (VF), the animals were randomized for attempted defibrillation with up to three 150-J biphasic waveform shocks or conventional sequence of 200-, 300- or 360-J monophasic waveform shocks. If VF was not reversed, a 1-min interval of precordial compression preceded a second sequence of up to three shocks. The protocol was repeated until spontaneous circulation was restored or for a total of 15 min.

RESULTS

Monophasic waveform defibrillation after 4 or 7 min of untreated VF resuscitated eight of 10 pigs. All 10 pigs treated with biphasic waveform defibrillation were successfully resuscitated. Transesophageal echo-Doppler, arterial pressure and heart rate measurements demonstrated significantly less impairment of cardiovascular function after biphasic defibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower-energy biphasic waveform shocks were as effective as conventional higher energy monophasic waveform shocks for restoration of spontaneous circulation after 4 and 7 min of untreated VF. Significantly better postresuscitation myocardial function was observed after biphasic waveform defibrillation.

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.

Effect of a single element subcutaneous array electrode added to a transvenous electrode configuration on the defibrillation field and the defibrillation threshold

Even with the use of biphasic shocks, up to 5% of patients need an additional subcutaneous lead to obtain a defibrillation safety margin of at least 10 J. The number of patients requiring additional subcutaneous leads may even increase, because recent generation devices have a < 34 J maximum output in order to decrease their size. In 20 consecutive patients, a single element subcutaneous array lead was implanted in addition to a transvenous lead system consisting of a right ventricular (RV) and a vena cava superior lead using a single infraclavicular incision. The RV lead acted as the cathode; the subcutaneous lead and the lead in the subclavian vein acted as the anode. The biphasic defibrillation threshold was determined using a binary search protocol. Patients were randomized as to whether to start them with the transvenous lead configuration or the combination of the transvenous lead and the subcutaneous lead. In addition, a simplified assessment of the defibrillation field was performed by determining the interelectrode area for the transvenous lead only and the transvenous lead in combination with the subcutaneous lead from a biplane chest X ray. The intraoperative defibrillation threshold was reconfirmed after 1 week, after 3 months, and after 12 months. The mean defibrillation threshold with the additional subcutaneous lead was significantly (P = 0.0001) lower (5.7 +/- 2.9 J) than for the transvenous lead system (9.5 +/- 4.6 J). With the subcutaneous lead, the impedance of the high voltage circuit decreased from 48.9 +/- 7.4 omega to 39.2 +/- 5.0 omega. In the frontal plane, the interelectrode area increased by 11.3% +/- 5.5% (P < 0.0001) and in the lateral plane by 29.5% +/- 12.4% (P < 0.0001). The defibrillation threshold did not increase during follow-up. Complications with the subcutaneous electrode were not observed during a follow-up of 15.8 +/- 2 months. The single finger array lead is useful in order to lower the defibrillation threshold and can be used in order to lower the defibrillation threshold.

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.

Effect of shock waveform on relationship between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold

INTRODUCTION

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV can be determined with a single episode of ventricular fibrillation and is more reproducible than the single-point DFT. The critical-point hypothesis of defibrillation predicts that the relation between the ULV and the DFT is independent of shock waveform. The principal goal of this study was to test this prediction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 45 patients at implants of pectoral cardioverter defibrillators. In the monophasic-biphasic group (n = 15), DFT and ULV were determined for monophasic and biphasic pulses from a 120-microF capacitor. In the 60- to 110-microF group (n = 30), DFT and ULV were compared for a clinically used 110-microF waveform and a novel 60-microF waveform with 70% phase 1 tilt and 7-msec phase 2 duration. In the monophasic-biphasic group, all measures of ULV and DFT were greater for monophasic than biphasic waveforms (P < 0.0001). In the 60- to 110-microF group, the current and voltage at the ULV and DFT were higher for the 60-microF waveform (P < 0.0001), but stored energy was lower (ULV 17%, P < 0.0001; DFT 19%, P = 0.03). There was a close correlation between ULV and DFT for both the monophasic-biphasic group (monophasic r2 = 0.75, P < 0.001; biphasic r2 = 0.82, P < 0.001) and the 60- to 110-microF group (60 microF r2 = 0.81 P < 0.001; 110 microF r2 = 0.75, P < 0.001). The ratio of ULV to DFT was not significantly different for monophasic versus biphasic pulses (1.17 +/- 0.12 vs 1.14 +/- 0.19, P = 0.19) or 60-microF versus 110-microF pulses (1.15 +/- 0.16 vs 1.11 +/- 0.14, P = 0.82). The slopes of the ULV versus DFT regression lines also were not significantly different (monophasic vs biphasic pulses, P = 0.46; 60-microF vs 110-microF pulses, P = 0.99). The sample sizes required to detect the observed differences between experimental conditions (P < 0.05) were 4 for ULV versus 6 for DFT in the monophasic-biphasic group (95% power) and 11 for ULV versus 31 for DFT in the 60- to 110-microF group (75% power).

CONCLUSION

The relation between ULV and DFT is independent of shock waveform. Fewer patients are required to detect a moderate difference in efficacy of defibrillation waveforms by ULV than by DFT. A small-capacitor biphasic waveform with a long second phase defibrillates with lower stored energy than a clinically used waveform.

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.

[Influence of amiodarone on defibrillation threshold and perioperative complications in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with transvenous electrodes and biphasic shocks]

In order to evaluate the safety of implantation of a third generation automatic cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in patients with amiodarone therapy, we retrospectively analyzed implantation results and perioperative complications in 17 consecutive patients with continued amiodarone therapy and 38 patients without antiarrhythmics at first ICD implantation.ICD implantation could be performed successfully in all 55 patients using a transvenous electrode system. In one of 17 patients with amiodarone (6%) versus three of 38 patients without antiarrhythmics (8%), additional implantation of a subcutaneous patch electrode was necessary to achieve a defibrillation threshold </=24 Joules (p=n.s.). Intraoperatively tested defibrillation threshold was 13+/-5 Joules in the amiodarone group versus 12+/-5 Joules in patients without antiarrhythmics (p=n.s.). The incidence of perioperative complications was not different between patients with amiodarone and patients without antiarrhythmics.In summary, patients with amiodarone did not have higher defibrillation thresholds or a higher incidence of perioperative complications than patients without antiarrhythmics. The occasionally postulated discontinuation of amiodarone with subsequent waiting for the elimination of this antiarrhythmic drug is unnecessary. For final clarification of the influence of amiodarone-therapy on the defibrillation threshold in patients with third generation ICDs, a prospective randomized study in a large patiente cohort with standardized study conditions would be required.

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.

Effect of waveform tilt on defibrillation thresholds in humans

INTRODUCTION

Despite the common use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator to treat patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, the mechanism of defibrillation and the optimal waveform for implanted devices are poorly understood. All of the currently available pulse generators deliver exponentially declining pulses that are either automatically or manually truncated to achieve tilts of about 50% to 65%. Although this value was chosen based on experimental animal data, several theoretical models have been developed to describe defibrillation, which raise into question this choice of waveform shape. Accordingly, the present study was designed to test the effect of waveform tilt on defibrillation efficacy in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty-three patients undergoing cardioverter defibrillator implantation were studied. Monophasic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were measured using a single reversal protocol at 35%, 50%, 65%, and 80% tilts by altering the pulse width of the shock. Mean defibrillation impedance was 41 +/- 6 omega. The DFT, measured by either leading-edge voltage or stored energy, was insensitive to altering the waveform tilt from 50% to 80%, only increasing when the tilt was reduced to 35%. A tilt of 65% yielded the lowest DFT voltage in only 8 of 23 patients. Significantly lower DFTs (> or = 40 V) were obtained using other tilts in seven patients. When the relationship between average current and pulse width was fit with a Weiss-Lapicque model, the data yielded a mean chronaxie of 4.6 +/- 3.0 msec and a rheobase of 4.2 +/- 1.7 A, but considerable patient variability was observed.

CONCLUSION

On average, DFTs in humans are insensitive to altering monophasic waveform tilts between 50% and 80%. There is, however, considerable patient variability, raising into question the premise that a single defibrillator waveform tilt is best for all patients.

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.

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

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

[Mechanisms of electrical defibrillation]

Ventricular fibrillation has been described as a "chaotic, random, asynchronous electrical activity of the ventricles due to repetitive reentrant excitation and/or rapid focal discharge". Reentrant and non-reentrant mechanisms are responsible for the initiation of ventricular fibrillation. After fibrillation has been induced, it is thought that multiple, disorganized, wandering wavelets follow constantly changing reentrant pathways. Electrical defibrillation is the only valid therapeutic approach for ventricular fibrillation. A successful defibrillation shock must be of sufficient strength to stop fibrillation but must not be so strong that damage to the myocardium occurs. The clinical use of the implantable cardioverter/defibrillator device has significantly stimulated research in the field of cardiac defibrillation. In order to develop more efficient shock waveforms and electrode configurations for smaller, and also longer lasting devices, we need a better understanding of the basic mechanisms of defibrillation. The development of computerized electrical mapping systems, capable of recording before, during and after a defibrillation shock, optical recording systems and microelectrodes, for action potential recording before and after the shock application and mathematical models have contributed much to the understanding of defibrillation mechanisms.An electrical shock hits the cardiac cells in different phases of their action potential. This results in 1) direct activation, 2) a "graded response", or 3) no effect. "Graded response" produces prolongation of the action potential and prolongs refractoriness without giving rise to a propagated activation front. Refractory period prolongation in an area that is still refractory at the time of the shock is critical for successful defibrillation. Mapping studies have shown that for successful defibrillation with monophasic shocks a minimal potential gradient of 5-7 V/cm is necessary (the exact value depends on the waveform and the orientation of the cells with respect to the electric field).Several hypotheses have been developed in order to explain the mechanisms that underlie successful defibrillation shocks. This paper will discuss the various theories. The "upper limit of vulnerability" hypothesis for defibrillation states that a successful defibrillation shock must stop existing activation fronts by directly exciting or by prolonging refractoriness just in front of the upcoming activation fronts and must not give rise to new activation fronts at the border of the directly excited area. Shocks slightly weaker then necessary to defibrillate stop fibrillation activation fronts, but give rise to new activation fronts that reinitiate fibrillation. These new activation fronts arise at a "critical point," where a critical shock potential gradient interferes with a critical degree of tissue refractoriness. Mappping studies support the "upper limit of vulnerability" hypothesis of defibrillation but not all defibrillation failures, however, can be explained by this hypothesis.Clinical data and experimental results have shown that biphasic shocks may have lower defibrillation thresholds than monophasic shocks. The advantage of defibrillation with a biphasic waveform is not yet clearly understood. We discuss some possible reasons why some biphasic waveforms have lower defibrillation thresholds than monophasic waveforms.

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.

Initial single-center experience with an advanced third-generation investigational defibrillator

The CPI PRxII is a recently approved, multitiered implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that delivers high and low energy biphasic shocks, antitachycardia (ATP) and bradycardia pacing, and stores 2.5 minutes of electrograms from the widely spaced shocking electrodes. The PRxII was implanted in 58 patients at Yale-New Haven Hospital between December 1993 and January 1995. At implant, mean biphasic defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with testing to failure was 10 J (1-20). All 36 patients who were candidates for a new transvenous system underwent successful nonthoracotomy implantation. Based on noninvasive predischarge EPS results, 30 patients had > or = 1 VT zone: 21 patients had ATP, 9 others had first shock < or = 5 J. During follow-up, 13 patients had been treated for 379 events (range, 1-127). Of 340 events in a zone with ATP, 97% responded to ATP, 3% required shock. First programmed shock converted all events in a VF zone. Details, including RR intervals, were available for all events in 15 of 17 patients receiving appropriate or inappropriate therapy or diverted shocks. One hundred eleven of 148 available electrograms confirmed VT by morphology, rate, and/or presence of AV dissociation. In nine patients, electrogram data altered therapy through diagnosis of inappropriate or diverted therapy, guidance of detection enhancements, or diagnosis of previously unrecognized VTs. We conclude the PRxII achieves low DFTs that obviate the need for thoracotomy and effectively treats ventricular arrhythmias with ATP and shock, with programming guided by noninvasive electrophysiology. Multiple stored electrograms from widely spaced shocking electrodes greatly enhance diagnostic capabilities, facilitating effective treatment.

Comparative reproducibility of defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability

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

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).

Testing different biphasic waveforms and capacitances: effect on atrial defibrillation threshold and pain perception

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the effect of different tilts and capacitances for biphasic shocks on atrial defibrillation efficacy and pain threshold.

BACKGROUND

Although biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks, the effect of tilt and capacitance on atrial defibrillation success and pain perception has not been studied in patients.

METHODS

Atrial defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed using a right atrial appendage/coronary sinus lead configuration in 38 patients with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing an invasive electrophysiologic study. Biphasic waveforms with 40%, 50%, 65%, 80%, 30%/50% and 40%/50% were tested randomly in 22 patients (Group 1). In 16 patients (Group 2), a 65% tilt waveform with 50- and 120-microF capacitance was tested. Before sedation, pain sensation was graded by 15 patients in Group 1 after delivery of a 0.5-J shock and by 10 patients in Group 2 after two 1.5-J shocks with 50- and 120-microF capacitance were delivered.

RESULTS

The DFT energy for the 50% tilt waveform was significantly lower than the 65%, 80% and 30%/50% tilt waveforms. The 40%/50% tilt waveform provided slightly lower energy requirements than the 50% tilt waveform. Nine patients (60%) described the 0.5-J shock as very painful, and four (26.6%) complained of slight pain. The 50-microF capacitor lowered energy requirements compared with the 120-microF capacitor. Six patients (60%) perceived the 1.5-J 50-microF capacitor shock as more painful, whereas three (30%) perceived both shocks as equally painful.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic waveforms with 50% tilt in both phases and a smaller tilt in the positive phase than that in the negative phase (40%/50%) provided a decrease in energy requirements at atrial DFT. In addition, stored energy was reduced by biphasic shocks with 50-microF capacitance compared with 120-microF capacitance. Despite the reduction in energy requirements, shocks < 1 J continued to be perceived as painful in the majority of patients.

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.

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.