Determinants of successful nonthoracotomy cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: experience in 101 patients using two different lead systems

Rabbit models of cardiac mechano-electric and mechano-mechanical coupling

Cardiac auto-regulation involves integrated regulatory loops linking electrics and mechanics in the heart. Whereas mechanical activity is usually seen as 'the endpoint' of cardiac auto-regulation, it is important to appreciate that the heart would not function without feed-back from the mechanical environment to cardiac electrical (mechano-electric coupling, MEC) and mechanical (mechano-mechanical coupling, MMC) activity. MEC and MMC contribute to beat-by-beat adaption of cardiac output to physiological demand, and they are involved in various pathological settings, potentially aggravating cardiac dysfunction. Experimental and computational studies using rabbit as a model species have been integral to the development of our current understanding of MEC and MMC. In this paper we review this work, focusing on physiological and pathological implications for cardiac function.

The role of mechanoelectric feedback in vulnerability to electric shock

Experimental and clinical studies have shown that ventricular dilatation is associated with increased arrhythmogenesis and elevated defibrillation threshold; however, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. The goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that (1) stretch-activated channel (SAC) recruitment and (2) geometrical deformations in organ shape and fiber architecture lead to increased arrhythmogenesis by electric shocks following acute ventricular dilatation. To elucidate the contribution of these two factors, the study employed, for the first time, a combined electro-mechanical simulation approach. Acute dilatation was simulated in a model of rabbit ventricular mechanics by raising the LV end-diastolic pressure from 0.6 (control) to 4.2 kPa (dilated). The output of the mechanics model was used in the electrophysiological model. Vulnerability to shocks was examined in the control, the dilated ventricles, and in the dilated ventricles that also incorporated currents through SAC as a function of local strain, by constructing vulnerability grids. Results showed that dilatation-induced deformation alone decreased upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) slightly and did not result in increased vulnerability. With SAC recruitment in the dilated ventricles, the number of shock-induced arrhythmia episodes increased by 37% (from 41 to 56) and the lower limit of vulnerability (LLV) decreased from 9 to 7 V/cm, while ULV did not change. The heterogeneous activation of SAC caused by the heterogeneous fiber strain in the ventricular walls was the main reason for increased vulnerability to electric shocks since it caused dispersion of electrophysiological properties in the tissue, resulting in postshock unidirectional block and establishment of reentry.

The dilemma of ICD implant testing

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been induced at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation. Despite its risks, the value was self-evident for early ICDs: failure of defibrillation was common, recipients had a high risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF, and the only therapy for rapid VT or VF was a shock. Today, failure of defibrillation is rare, the risk of VT/VF is lower in some recipients, antitachycardia pacing is applied for fast VT, and vulnerability testing permits assessment of defibrillation efficacy without inducing VF in most patients. This review reappraises ICD implant testing. At implant, defibrillation success is influenced by both predictable and unpredictable factors, including those related to the patient, ICD system, drugs, and complications. For left pectoral implants of high-output ICDs, the probability of passing a 10 J safety margin is approximately 95%, the probability that a maximum output shock will defibrillate is approximately 99%, and the incidence of system revision based on testing is < or = 5%. Bayes' Theorem predicts that implant testing identifies < or = 50% of patients at high risk for unsuccessful defibrillation. Most patients who fail implant criteria have false negative tests and may undergo unnecessary revision of their ICD systems. The first-shock success rate for spontaneous VT/VF ranges from 83% to 93%, lower than that for induced VF. Thus, shocks for spontaneous VT/VF fail for reasons that are not evaluated at implant. Whether system revision based on implant testing improves this success rate is unknown. The risks of implant testing include those related to VF and those related to shocks alone. The former may be due to circulatory arrest alone or the combination of circulatory arrest and shocks. Vulnerability testing reduces risks related to VF, but not those related to shocks. Mortality from implant testing probably is 0.1-0.2%. Overall, VF should be induced to assess sensing in approximately 5% of ICD recipients. Defibrillation or vulnerability testing is indicated in 20-40% of recipients who can be identified as having a higher-than-usual probability of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin based on patient-specific factors. However, implant testing is too risky in approximately 5% of recipients and may not be worth the risks in 10-30%. In 25-50% of ICD recipients, testing cannot be identified as either critical or contraindicated.

Elevated defibrillation thresholds in patients undergoing biventricular defibrillator implantation: Incidence and predictors

BACKGROUND

The biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an important therapy for select patients with severe heart failure. Given reported risk factors for elevated defibrillation thresholds (DFTs), patients undergoing biventricular ICD placement would be suspected of having a higher incidence of elevated DFT.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical predictors and mortality risk of elevated DFTs in patients receiving a biventricular ICD.

METHODS

Characteristics of patients undergoing biventricular ICD placement with an elevated DFT were compared to those without an elevated DFT.

RESULTS

An elevated DFT was found in 14 (12%) of 121 patients. Mean QRS duration was 210 +/- 50 ms in the elevated DFT group and 171 +/- 36 ms in the normal DFT group (P = .01). Patients with a QRS duration >or=200 ms were more likely to have an elevated DFT than those with a duration <200 ms (odds ratio 13.4, 95% confidence interval 3.1-66.7, P <.01). No other clinical characteristics were associated with an elevated DFT. More than 90% of patients with an elevated DFT achieved an adequate safety margin through system modification or manipulation of their drug regimen. An elevated DFT did not have an impact on 2-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Patients with a biventricular ICD had a 12% incidence of elevated DFT in our sequential patient cohort. QRS duration prior to biventricular ICD placement is the most powerful predictor of patients at risk for an elevated DFT. An elevated DFT does not have an impact on mortality, perhaps because of successful implementation of system modifications to ensure an adequate defibrillation safety margin.

Clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with standard implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads.

BACKGROUND

Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems. If clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation efficacy with these lead systems were identified, they could be used to predict which patients may require more complex lead systems for atrial defibrillation, such as a coronary sinus electrode.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 135 consecutive patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. The lead system evaluated was a transvenous defibrillation lead with coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular apex (RV), and a left pectoral pulse generator emulator (CAN). The shocking pathway was RV-->SVC+CAN. Atrial DFT was measured using a step-up protocol. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated as predictors of atrial DFT and multiple linear regression was performed.

RESULTS

Mean atrial DFT was 4.6 +/- 3.8 J. Atrial DFT was < or =3 J in 70 patients (52%) and < or = 10 J in 97% of patients. The highest atrial DFT was 20 J (one patient). Left atrial size (r = 0.21, P = .01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (r = 0.19, P = .02) were independent predictors of atrial DFT. However, these two predictors accounted for only 6% of the variability in atrial DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical parameters are of limited use in predicting atrial DFT with a dual-coil, active pectoral ICD lead system. Because the RV--> SVC + CAN shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.

Implantation and follow-up of ICD leads implanted in the right ventricular outflow tract

Unipolar ICD electrodes are routinely implanted at the right ventricular apex (RVA). However, inappropriate pacing/sensing parameters and/or high DFT may limit the appropriateness of the lead's implantation at the RVA. This study examined the effects on DFT of ICD leads implanted in the RVOT, attached to the high interventricular septum as an alternate location. DFT, defibrillation impedance, and sensing and pacing characteristics were measured at the time of implantation in 28 consecutive patients. Group A consisted of 12 patients in whom the ICD implantation criteria in the RVA were not satisfied, and whose lead was placed in the RVOT. Group B consisted of 16 patients with ICD electrodes implanted at the RVA. Mean DFT in group A was 11 +/- 4 J (4.5-20 J) versus 12 +/- 6 J (4-20 J) in the group B (P = 0.58). Defibrillation impedance was 81 +/- 9 omega (69-92 omega) in group A versus 77 +/- 15 omega) (46-93 omega) in group B (P = 0.43). R wave amplitude, slew rate, pacing threshold, and pacing impedance were comparable in both groups. In the perioperative period, the electrode needed to be repositioned in two patients from group A. There was no further dislodgment of RVOT defibrillation leads or other lead related complications during a follow-up of 23 +/- 9 months. The placement of ICD leads in the RVOT is an alternative to the RVA position. However, active-fixation ICD leads should be considered to limit the risk of electrode dislodgment.

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.

Inappropriate shocks diagnosed by stored electrograms of implantable cardioverter defibrillators--two case reports

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an important therapeutic option for patients with high risk of life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. However, their use is also associated with several complications including inappropriate shock. Although the most frequent cause of inappropriate shock is supraventricular tachyarrhythmias, lead fracture can also be associated with inappropriate shock. Diagnosis of lead fracture can be made by chest x-ray radiography, fluoroscopic examination, interrogation of the device, and intracardiac electrograms. In this report, the authors present two cases of inappropriate shock due to lead fractures in the costoclavicular region that could only be diagnosed by the help of stored intracardiac electrograms. Methods for diagnosis of lead fractures and modalities to avoid recurrences are also discussed.

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

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

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

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

Defibrillation efficacy with endocardial electrodes is influenced by reductions in cardiac preload

Little is known about the effects of cardiac preload and cardiac geometry on defibrillation efficacy with endocardial electrodes. We studied nine pigs implanted with an endocardial lead system in the normal and reduced preload state. In the reduced preload state, a balloon catheter was inflated in the inferior vena cava (IVC) for 20 seconds prior to the induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Complete occlusion of the IVC and reductions in preload were confirmed by observing deformation of the contrast-filled balloon, a reduction in cardiac size by fluoroscopy, and reductions in ventricular pressures. Biphasic shocks were delivered after 10 seconds of VF using a recursive up-down protocol. VF was induced 20 times for each preload state, and the 50% effective doses (ED50) for energy, current, and voltage were estimated by averaging all shocks for that state. At reduced preloads, energy decreased from 12.1 +/- 3.0 J (+/- SD) to 10.5 +/- 2.9 J (p < 0.01), voltage decreased from 415 +/- 51 V to 390 +/- 51 V (p < 0.05), and current decreased from 8.6 +/- 1.5 A to 7.6 +/- 1.5 A (p < 0.01), while impedance rose from 49.2 +/- 3.8 omega to 52.8 +/- 4.4 omega (p < 0.001). We conclude that reducing cardiac preload and cardiac size significantly lowers ED50 defibrillation energy, current, and voltage. This outcome may be caused directly by the decrease in blood volume as evidenced by increased impedance and/or may be due to changes in heart geometry and stretch.

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.

A patch in the pectoral position lowers defibrillation threshold

Implantable pacemaker cardioverter defibrillators are now available with biphasic waveforms, which have been shown to markedly improve defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). However, in a number of patients the DFT remains high. Also, DFT may increase after implantation, especially if antiarrhythmic drugs are added. We report on the use of a subcutaneous patch in the pectoral position in 15 patients receiving a transvenous defibrillator as a method of easily reducing the DFT. A 660-mm2 patch electrode was placed beneath the generator in a pocket created on the pectoral fascia. The energy required for defibrillation was lowered by 56% on average, and the system impedance was lowered by a mean of 25%. This maneuver allowed all patients to undergo a successful implant with adequate safety margin.

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.

Transvenous defibrillation leads: is there an ideal position of the defibrillation anode?

A potential benefit of two-lead transvenous defibrillation systems is the ability to independently position the defibrillation electrodes, changing the vector field and possibly decreasing the DFT. Using the new two-lead transvenous TVL lead system, we studied whether DFT is influenced by SVC lead position and whether there is an optimal position. TVL leads and Cadence pulse generators were implanted in 24 patients. No intraoperative or perioperative complications were observed. In each patient, the DFTs were determined for three SVC electrode positions, which were tested in random order: the brachiocephalic vein, the mid-RA, and the RA-SVC junction. The mean DFTs in the three positions were not statistically different, nor was any single lead position consistently associated with lower DFTs. However, an optimal electrode position was identified in 83% of patients, and the DFT from the best lead position for each patient was significantly lower than for any one of the electrode positions (P < 0.01). The mean safety margin for the best SVC lead position was approximately 27 J. These results demonstrate the advantage of a two-lead system, as well as the importance of testing multiple SVC lead positions when the patient's condition permits. Both of these factors can decrease the DFT and maximize the defibrillation safety margin. This will become increasingly important as pulse generator capacitors become smaller (as part of the effort to decrease generator size) and the energy output of the generators consequently decreases.

Long-term follow-up of cardioverter-defibrillator implanted under conscious sedation in prepectoral subfascial position

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with intravenous electrode systems and downsized generators can be implanted by use of operative techniques similar to those employed for the insertion of permanent pacemakers. However, the safety, efficacy, and long-term follow-up of simplified implantation procedures remain to be evaluated. This report is a prospective long-term evaluation of nonselected patients receiving ICDs in the prepectoral subfascial position under conscious sedation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Clinical characteristics of the 231 consecutive patients included a mean age of 63 years, a male-to-female ratio of 6.4, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.34, a mild-to-moderate heart failure in 91%, coronary artery disease in 84%, and a history of aborted sudden cardiac death or refractory ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Insertion of transvenous leads and prepectoral subfascial ICD implantation were performed in electrophysiology laboratories under local anesthesia and conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and propofol. Successful implantation in all patients (operation time, 80 +/- 32 minutes, mean +/- SD) irrespective of body size and skin thickness was free of major complications, including need for emergency intubation. After surgery, 1 pocket hematoma, 1 seroma, and 1 pneumothorax required treatment. There was no operative or first-month mortality. During long-term follow-up averaging 453 +/- 296 days, six leads required repositioning, but pocket erosions or infections did not occur. First-year total survival was 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation under conscious sedation of ICDs in the prepectoral subfascial position is a safe and effective procedure with low operative and postoperative morbidity and favorable long-term outcome.

Clinical predictors of defibrillation energy requirements

In implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy with endocardial lead systems, certain clinical variables are associated with defibrillation energy requirements. Because of the weak correlation coefficients, these variables cannot predict defibrillation thresholds in individual patients.

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.

Determinants of nonthoracotomy biphasic defibrillation

The clinical variables affecting DFT for ICD systems are not completely determined, especially with regard to biphasic shocking devices. To distinguish which factors correlate with DFT, we examined data from patients who were enrolled in the Ventak P2/Endotak protocol. A total of 284 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients had a DFT > 25 J and did not receive the device; 154 did not undergo stepdown to failure DFT testing. The remaining 128 patients had formal DFT testing and were suitable for analysis. Variables available for analysis included age, body surface area (BSA), LVEF, gender, lead configuration, primary arrhythmia, primary cardiac disease, and use of cardioactive medication. Data were evaluated using regression analysis, fitting DFT (range, 1-25 J, mean 11 +/- 5 J) as a function of each variable. As a univariate predictor. BSA was found to be significant in predicting DFT, but accounted for only 9% of the total variation on the DFT (P < 0.01, r = 0.3). This study suggests that DFT using a biphasic shocking waveform is modestly in fluenced by the BSA of the patient. Other specific factors, including LVEF, do not predict DFT.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transoesophageal echocardiographic evaluation of ventricular function during transvenous defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative testing and defibrillation threshold determination may jeopardise patients, scheduled for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). The purpose of this study was the assessment of the influence of consecutive defibrillation attempts on left ventricular systolic and diastolic function by means of transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE).

METHODS

Eighteen patients with malignant ventricular arrhythmias that were resistant to antiarrhythmic drugs were monitored with TEE before, during and after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. Left ventricular fractional area contraction as a measure of ejection fraction was assessed before and after each defibrillation attempt. Transmitral and right upper pulmonary venous flow parameters were evaluated before and after the whole implantation procedure.

RESULTS

Adequate data were available in 14 patients during 4 consecutive attempts. No major alterations were observed in heart rate or fractional area contraction, measured at 30 s and 3 min after defibrillation. Overall, the ratio of early-to-late transmitral filling decreased significantly after the implantation procedure (from 0.91 +/- 0.12 to 0.82 +/- 0.14; P < 0.05). Systolic pulmonary venous flow velocity decreased from 0.49 +/- 0.11 to 0.41 +/- 0.10 m/s (P = 0.04); this decrease was observed in both groups. A significant increase of the atrial contraction wave (from 0.25 +/- 0.06 to 0.34 +/- 0.07 m/s; P < 0.03) was seen. Subdividing patients related to their precperative ejection fraction, a significant decrease of the early-to-late transmitral filling of the LV was revealed in patients with ejection fraction less than 35% (group 1). Also, a significantly lower systolic fraction of the pulmonary venous flow after ICD implantation in conjunction with a significantly longer diastolic flow time was shown in this patient group in comparison with patients with a preoperative ejection fraction of more than 35% (group 2).

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation threshold testing of the ICD system changes LV inflow characteristics and impedes diastolic function of the left ventricle and may thus precipitate heart failure by this mechanism. No deleterious effects of threshold testing were observed with respect to fractional area contraction nor any deterioration of LV function was found in a clinically significant amount due to consecutive defibrillation attempts.

Chronic rise in defibrillation threshold with a hybrid lead system

Nonthoracotomy leads have become standard for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) because of low perioperative morbidity, mortality, and expense. Reported increases in defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with these lead systems, however, have raised the possibility of an eventual loss of defibrillation efficacy. The mechanism of this increase is unknown. In contrast, defibrillation efficacy of traditional epicardial lead systems has been demonstrated to remain relatively stable. In the present study, we examined the implantation and chronic DFTs in 45 patients with a hybrid system (a high right atrial coil and an extrapericardial patch) that combines elements from both the thoracotomy and nonthoracotomy approach. The mean threshold increased from 11.7 +/- 3.0 to 15.8 +/- 10.0 J (p < 0.001) and mean impedance increased from 37.0 +/- 7.7 to 48.8 +/- 9.0 ohms (p < 0.0001). There was a marked (> or = 10 J) increase in DFT in 11 patients (24%) including 4 who required reoperation to obtain an adequate safety margin. The increase in DFT was unrelated to any of the analyzed variables. We conclude that the presence of an extrapericardial patch does not prevent the increase in DFT reported with nonthoracotomy lead systems. This increase is unpredictable and occurs in almost 25% of patients.

Factors associated with successful implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead systems

Two hundred forty-three consecutive patients underwent attempted implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead (NTL) systems. The importance of clinical and lead-related factors were analyzed regarding their relation with implantation failure caused by an unacceptably high defibrillation threshold (DFT). Overall, 33 (14%) of 243 patients failed NTL implantation. Patients undergoing attempted implantation of NTL systems with monophasic shock waveforms (monophasic group, n = 145) had an incidence of failed implantation of 22% (n = 32) versus an incidence of 1% (n = 1) among patients undergoing attempted implantation by using biphasic shock waveforms (biphasic group, n = 98; odds ratio, 26.9; p < 0.001). The incidence of success and simplicity of implantation of NTL systems was markedly improved in patients undergoing NTL implantation by using biphasic shock waveforms. Clinical factors could be used to stratify patients in the monophasic group for their risk of implantation failure. In the biphasic group, no clinical factor could be correlated with a low DFT with a fully endovascular system.

Nonthoracotomy implantation of cardioverter defibrillators: preliminary experience with a defibrillation lead placed at the right ventricular outflow tract

Although morbidity and mortality associated with defibrillator implantation using a nonthoracotomy approach have decreased as compared with a thoracotomy approach, defibrillation thresholds have been higher and fewer patients satisfied implant criteria. It may be possible to improve on the success of nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation by the placement of a right ventricular (RV) outflow defibrillation lead. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation data of 30 consecutive patients with clinical VT or VF were reviewed. Three defibrillation leads were routinely used. When either pacing threshold at the RV apex was inadequate (n = 2) or 18-J shocks were not successful in terminating VF in 3 of 4 trials (n = 8), the RV apex lead was positioned to the RV outflow tract attaching to the septum. Defibrillation testing was first performed with the RV apex lead in combination with CS, SVC, and/or subcutaneous leads. Twenty patients satisfied implant criteria with a defibrillation threshold of 13.5 +/- 3.6 J. In 7 of the 10 patients, whose RV lead was repositioned to the RV outflow tract, this lead in combination with SVC, CS, or subcutaneous leads produced successful defibrillation at < or = 18 J or in 3 of 4 trials. This approach improved the overall success of nonthoracotomy implantation of defibrillators from 69% to 90%. After a follow-up of 27 +/- 6 months, there was no dislodgment of the RV outflow tract defibrillation leads.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reports the preliminary observation that placement of defibrillation leads to the RV outflow tract in humans was possible and without dislodgment. RV outflow tract offers an alternative for placement of defibrillation leads, which may improve on the success of nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation.

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.

Safety of nurse-administered deep sedation for defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory

Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory has been shown to be safe. However, general endotracheal anesthesia and/or administration of sedatives is mostly performed by anesthesiologists. In 53 patients undergoing ICD implantation in the EP laboratory, we prospectively assessed whether deep sedation without endotracheal intubation can be administered by nursing personnel under medical supervision. The mean patient age was 67 +/- 7 years, and the mean ejection fraction was 32 +/- 8%. All ICDs were placed in the abdomen requiring lead tunneling. Patients were monitored with pulse oximetry and noninvasive blood pressure recordings. The level of consciousness and vital signs were evaluated at 5-minute intervals. Deep sedation was induced with phenergan and midazolam and maintained with either meperidine or fentanyl. The mean doses given were as follows: phenergan 0.33 +/- 0.15 mg/kg, midazolam 0.05 +/- 0.03 mg/kg, meperidine 0.46 +/- 0.10 mg/kg per hour, and fentanyl 1.94 +/- 0.71 micrograms/kg per hour. None of the patients required intubation during or after the procedure. No death occurred and no patient had any recollection of the procedure. In three patients, O2 desaturation was easily managed by transient reversion of the effects of meperidine or fentanyl with naloxone. No patient experienced prolonged hospitalization after the implant (mean 2.4 +/- 0.5 days).

IN CONCLUSION

(1) adequate sedation for ICD implantation and testing can be administered safely by nursing staff in the EP lab; (2) optimum sedation protocols should include drugs easy to reverse in case of excessive respiratory depression; and (3) this may represent a more cost-effective approach to ICD implantation.

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 predictors of defibrillation energy requirements in patients treated with a nonthoracotomy defibrillator system. The ResQ Investigators

Many factors can influence defibrillation energy requirements (DER) in patients with a nonthoracotomy defibrillator. No large studies, however, have correlated clinical characteristics with the DER. In this study, 124 patients underwent the same DER protocol with the identical biphasic waveform, nonthoracotomy lead system, and lead configuration. These patients were 63 +/- 12 years old (mean +/- SD); 99 were men; the ejection fraction was 0.32 +/- 0.13, and 36 were taking an antiarrhythmic medication. New York Heart Association congestive heart failure class I was present in 28, class II in 70, and class III in 26 patients. Male sex (454 +/- 94 V vs 406 +/- 91 V for female sex) was associated with a significantly higher DER (p = 0.02) and an increased risk of a DER > 550 V (p = 0.047). No other clinical variable was associated with the DER or a DER > 550 V. In conclusion, women tend to have lower DERs than men.

Biphasic defibrillation using a single capacitor with large capacitance: reduction of peak voltages and ICD device size

The volume of current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is not convenient for pectoral implantation. One way to reduce the size of the pulse generator is to find a more effective defibrillation pulse waveform generated from smaller volume capacitors. In a prospective randomized crossover study we compared the step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) of a standard biphasic waveform (STD), delivered by two 250-microF capacitors connected in series with an 80% tilt, to an experimental biphasic waveform delivered by a single 450-microF capacitor with a 60% tilt. The experimental waveform delivered the same energy with a lower peak voltage and a longer duration (LVLD). Intraoperatively, in 25 patients receiving endocardial (n = 12) or endocardial-subcutaneous array (n = 13) defibrillation leads, the DFT was determined for both waveforms. Energy requirements did not differ at DFT for the STD and LVLD waveforms with the low impedance (32 +/- 4 omega) endocardial-subcutaneous array defibrillation lead system (6.4 +/- 4.4 J and 5.9 +/- 4.2 J, respectively) or increased slightly (P = 0.06) with the higher impedance (42 +/- 4 omega) endocardial lead system (10.4 +/- 4.6 J and 12.7 +/- 5.7 J, respectively). However, the voltage needed at DFT was one-third lower with the LVLD waveform than with the STD waveform for both lead systems (256 +/- 85 V vs 154 +/- 51 V and 348 +/- 76 V vs 232 +/- 54 V, respectively). Thus, a single capacitor with a large capacitance can generate a defibrillation pulse with a substantial lower peak voltage requirement without significantly increasing the energy requirements. The volume reduction in using a single capacitor can decrease ICD device size.

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

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

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.

Comparison of early and late complications in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with and without concomitant placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Previous studies have reported a significant morbidity and mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in conjunction with the placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) with an epicardial lead system. In the absence of a control group, how significantly the component of concomitant placement of the ICD system contributes to these untoward outcomes remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the short- and long-term complications in patients undergoing CABG surgery in conjunction with the placement of an ICD with epicardial leads and to compare these complications with those of patients who had only CABG surgery (control group). The study group (group A) consisted of 56 patients who underwent CABG surgery and placement of an ICD pulse generator with epicardial leads. A control group (group B) consisted of 56 patients who underwent CABG surgery only during the same time period. The two groups were matched for age, sex distribution, left ventricular function, surgical approach, number of bypass grafts per patient, bypass pump time, and length of follow-up period. The early mortality for group A was 7.1% versus 1.8% for group B (p > 0.05). The incidence of early morbidity (congestive heart failure, infection, supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias) for groups A and B was similar (26.8% vs 25.0%, p > 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Results of the international study of the implantable pacemaker cardioverter-defibrillator. A comparison of epicardial and endocardial lead systems. The Pacemaker-Cardioverter-Defibrillator Investigators

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present report was to document clinical experience derived from the implantation of 2834 epicardial and endocardial cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in 2807 patients who were followed for almost 1 year and to compare the results obtained with the two systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients in the two groups had similar clinical characteristics. More than half of the patients had a total of almost 50,000 spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias that were terminated with equal success (approximately 98%) by epicardial and endocardial ICDs. Lead dislodgement and pocket infection occurred more often with the endocardial than with the epicardial ICD, whereas perioperative mortality was higher with the epicardial ICD than with the endocardial ICD. Mortality from sudden cardiac death was 1.4% in the epicardial ICD group and 0.6% in the endocardial ICD group at 1 year (P = .069). Overall mortality at 1 year was 12.2% and 6.9% for the epicardial and endocardial groups, respectively (P < .001), reflecting the higher surgical mortality for the epicardial system.

CONCLUSIONS

The endocardial ICD is as effective as the epicardial ICD but incurs lower perioperative mortality.

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.

Clinical predictors of the defibrillation threshold with the unipolar implantable defibrillation system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine the relation between clinical variables and the defibrillation threshold by using a standardized testing protocol and a uniform implantable defibrillator system.

BACKGROUND

Past studied have not revealed useful correlations between clinical variables and the energy required to terminate ventricular fibrillation. Most of these studies did not use a uniform implantable defibrillator system or a standardized protocol to measure the defibrillation threshold and, thus, did not control for the influence of these technical influences. We postulated that defibrillator and defibrillation threshold measurement-based sources of variability overshadowed important clinical predictors.

METHODS

The defibrillation threshold was measured by using a standardized protocol in 101 consecutive patients. We used a transvenous unipolar pectoral defibrillation system that employed a single endocardial right ventricular defibrillation coil as the anode and the shell of an 80-cm3 pulse generator as the cathode to deliver a 65% tilt biphasic pulse.

RESULTS

Several clinical variables were found to be significantly associated with the defibrillation threshold: patient gender, height, weight, body surface area, heart rate at rest, QRS and corrected QT (QTc) intervals, left ventricular mass and several measures of heart and chest size by chest roentgenogram. None of these variables had a correlation coefficient > 0.45 with the defibrillation threshold. On multivariate analysis, left ventricular mass and heart rate at rest were the only independent predictors of the defibrillation threshold and explained only 25% of the observed variability.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the use of a uniform transvenous defibrillation system and a standardized protocol to measure the defibrillation threshold, no clinically relevant correlation was found between clinical variables and the defibrillation threshold. The defibrillation threshold is probably a function of a complex interaction of anatomic, physiologic and cellular variables that are not adequately represented by easily obtainable clinical information. It is probably not possible to predict defibrillation outcome from standard clinical variables.

Subclavian crush syndrome complicating transvenous cardioverter defibrillator systems

Subclavian crush syndrome, described with pacemaker leads implanted via subclavian puncture, may occur when conductor fractures and insulation breaches develop by compression of a lead between the first rib and clavicle. We reviewed our experience in 164 patients who underwent intended implantation of transvenous defibrillator systems to determine the clinical relevance of subclavian crush syndrome in defibrillator patients. Venous access was obtained via subclavian puncture in 114 patients (70%) and via cephalic cut-down in 50 patients (30%). Nonthoracotomy lead systems, with or without subcutaneous patch, were successfully implanted in 131 of 164 patients (79.9%). Thoracotomy was required in 32 patients (19.5%) and subxiphoid patch in 1 patient (0.6%). Over a mean of 12.9 months (range 1-62 months), 3 patients (1.8%) required revision of the rate sensing lead/coil or superior vena cava coil after development of lead compression fractures in the region of the clavicle and first rib. In all 3 patients the leads had been implanted via subclavian puncture (2.6% of patients in whom the subclavian technique was utilized). Two patients presented with spurious shocks. One patient was asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

When venous access is obtained via subclavian puncture, subclavian crush syndrome may develop in patients with transvenous defibrillator systems. Patients may be asymptomatic and lead fractures may go unrecognized. When implanting transvenous defibrillator systems, strong consideration should be given to obtaining venous access primarily via the cephalic cut-down technique.

Clinical experience with nonthoracotomy cardioverter defibrillators

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

Optimizing defibrillation through improved waveforms

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

Predictors of defibrillation energy requirements with nonepicardial lead systems

The determinants of high defibrillation energy requirements (DER) using nonepicardial lead systems (NELS) have not been well characterized. The goal of this study was to examine prospectively the influence of clinical, radiographic, echocardiographic, and procedural variables on DER during NELS placement. Data from 100 consecutive patients undergoing attempted NELS implantation were analyzed. Transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, and monophasic shock devices from two manufacturers were used. Leads were successfully positioned for testing in 95% of patients. An adequate DER (< or = 25 J) was obtained in 73 of 95 (77%) of patients. Univariate analysis identified amiodarone therapy and left ventricular mass as predictors of high DER. With multivariate analysis, amiodarone therapy was the sole significant predictor of high DER (P = 0.002, odds ratio 5.46). The 22 patients with high NELS DER also had high epicardial DER (mean 24 +/- 9 J). The two patch epicardial DER was > 25 joules in 12 of 22 patients. Thus, adequate DER with monophasic shock waveforms can be obtained in most patients undergoing NELS testing. However, amiodarone therapy significantly increases the probability of obtaining high DER.

Comparison of initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation in a transvenous defibrillator system with automatic gain control

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate postshock redetection of ventricular fibrillation by a system that coupled an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with an automatic gain control sense amplifier and a transvenous lead system.

BACKGROUND

Redetection of ventricular fibrillation after an unsuccessful first shock has not been systematically evaluated. Previous studies have suggested that sensing performance of some lead systems may be adversely affected by the delivery of subthreshold shocks.

METHODS

The time required for both initial detection and redetection of ventricular fibrillation was compared in 22 patients. These times were estimated by subtracting the capacitor charge time from the total event time.

RESULTS

A total of 113 successful and 57 unsuccessful initial shocks were delivered during induced ventricular fibrillation. The mean +/- SD initial time to detection of ventricular fibrillation was 5.5 +/- 1.7 s (range 2.4 to 10.8); the time to redetection ranged from 1.5 to 18.5 s (mean 4.5 +/- 2.8, p = NS vs. detection time). Abnormal redetection episodes, defined as a redetection time > 10.2 s (i.e., > 2 SD above the mean redetection time), were observed in 4 (18%) of 22 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Redetection of ventricular fibrillation after a subthreshold first shock may be delayed. Device testing with intentional delivery of subthreshold shocks to verify successful postshock redetection of ventricular fibrillation should be performed routinely in all patients.

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.

Electrocardiographic pseudo-infarct patterns after implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators

Postoperative electrocardiographic (ECG) changes are frequently present after insertion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) and may mimic perioperative myocardial infarction (MI). The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical significance of postoperative ECG changes in relation to clinical, laboratory, and implantation data. In 25 (16%) of 156 patients undergoing ICD implantation, significant ECG changes (> or = 50% reduction in R-wave amplitude in > or = 3 leads or new Q waves in > or = 2 leads) were present 1 to 3 days after the operation and persisted at hospital discharge in 12 (8%). Presence of thoracotomy, the total number of induced ventricular fibrillation episodes, and the number of defibrillation shocks required during defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing correlated with postoperative ECG changes. Other factors associated with a significant R-wave loss in the lateral precordial leads included left-sided pleural effusion, lung infiltrates or atelectasis, and large defibrillator patch electrodes over the left ventricle or the lateral chest wall. Myocardial necrosis documented by elevated cardiac enzymes occurred in 6 (5%) of 151 patients without significant ECG changes and in 3 (12%) with (p value not significant). However, postoperative ECG changes associated with elevated enzymes were indistinguishable from changes unrelated to necrosis. Therefore the sensitivity and specificity of the surface ECG for detection of MI after ICD placement is poor. Multiple factors such as thoracotomy, myocardial injury from DFT testing, electric insulation, or shielding of the heart may contribute to the development of electrocardiographic pseudo-infarct patterns.

Comparison of implantation of nonthoracotomy defibrillators in the operating room versus the electrophysiology laboratory

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) with nonthoracotomy lead systems are widely available, and are implanted either in the electrophysiology laboratory or the operating room. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of nonthoracotomy ICD implantation in an electrophysiology laboratory versus an operating room. During a 7-month period, 62 consecutive ICDs with nonthoracotomy lead systems were implanted in patients in an electrophysiology laboratory. During the next 10 months, 110 consecutive ICDs were implanted in patients in a surgical operating room. All ICD implantations were performed under general anesthesia by electrophysiologists. There were no differences in age (58 +/- 14 vs 62 +/- 12 years, p = 0.06), gender distribution (p = 0.3), frequency of structural heart disease (97% vs 97%, p = 0.9), ejection fraction (0.31 +/- 0.15 vs 0.29 +/- 0.13, p = 0.3), or presentation with cardiac arrest (65% vs 53%, p = 0.2) between patients undergoing ICD implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory and operating room, respectively. The rate of successful implantation and of complications for systems implanted in the electrophysiology laboratory (95% and 13%, respectively) and in the operating room (98% and 14%, respectively) were similar (p = 0.4 and p = 0.8, respectively). Specifically, the rate of infection (0% vs 4%, p = 0.3) and hematoma formation (2% vs 4%, p = 0.8) were not statistically significantly different. Three patients who had undergone ICD implantation in an operating room died within 30 days. ICDs with nonthoracotomy lead systems can be implanted with a similarly high rate of success and acceptable complication rate in the electrophysiology laboratory and in the operating room.