Comparison of defibrillation probability of success curves for an endocardial lead configuration with and without an inactive epicardial patch

A Grouped Up-and-Down Method Used for Efficacy Comparison Between Two Different Defibrillation Waveforms

Electrical defibrillation, which consists of delivering a therapeutic dose of the electrical current to the fibrillating heart with the aid of a defibrillator, is still the only effective way to treat life-threatening ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, the efficacy of electrical therapy for terminating VF is highly dependent on the waveform applied. When new defibrillation waveforms or techniques are developed, their efficacy needs to be accurately evaluated and compared to those in use. A common method for the comparison of defibrillation efficacy is to estimate and compare the individual defibrillation threshold (DFT) by constructing dose response curves or using an up-and-down method. Since DFT is calculated by repetitive and sequential shocks, there will be variability for each measurement and for each individual. This creates a considerable uncertainty for paired comparison. In this paper, a novel grouped up-and-down method is developed for the comparison of defibrillation efficacy between two different defibrillation waveforms or techniques. The efficacy of two commonly used biphasic defibrillation waveforms was compared in a porcine model of cardiac arrest using the developed method. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method is more sensitive for efficacy comparison and requires less defibrillation attempts compared with traditional DFT methods.

Stimulatory current at the edge of an inactive conductor in an electric field: role of nonlinear interfacial current-voltage relationship

Cardiac electric field stimulation is critical for the mechanism of defibrillation. The presence of certain inactive epicardial conductors in the field during defibrillation can decrease the defibrillation threshold. We hypothesized this decrease is due to stimulatory effects of current across the interface between the inactive conductor and the heart during field stimulation. To examine this current and its possible stimulatory effects, we imaged transmittance of indium-tin-oxide (ITO) conductors, tested for indium with X-ray diffraction, created a computer model containing realistic ITO interfacial properties, and optically mapped excitation of rabbit heart during electric field stimulation in the presence of an ITO conductor. Reduction of indium decreased transmittance at the edge facing the anodal shock electrode when trans-interfacial voltage exceeded standard reduction potential. The interfacial current-voltage relationship was nonlinear, producing larger conductances at higher currents. This nonlinearity concentrated the interfacial current near edges in images and in a computer model. The edge current was stimulatory, producing early postshock excitation of rabbit ventricles. Thus, darkening of ITO indicates interfacial current by indium reduction. Interfacial nonlinearity concentrates current near the edge where it can excite the heart. Stimulatory current at edges may account for the reported decrease in defibrillation threshold by inactive conductors.

Passive electrode effect reduces defibrillation threshold in bi-filament middle cardiac vein defibrillation

AIMS

To investigate whether a passive electrode effect decreases defibrillation threshold (DFT) in multi-filament middle cardiac vein (MCV) defibrillation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twelve pigs underwent active housing (AH) insertion, with defibrillation coils placed transvenously in right ventricular apex and superior vena cava. The MCV was cannulated, and 1.12F, 50 mm coil electrodes (Ela Medical SA, France) were deployed in its right and left branches. Lead placement was possible in 11 of 12 animals. DFT (J, mean +/- SD) was determined by three-reversal binary search and compared between the MCV monofilament (single filament deployed) and the AH (25.9 +/- 10.9) and the MCV mono + passive filaments (both filaments deployed, one connected) and the AH (19.9 +/- 11.4); 24% DFT reduction P = 0.008.

CONCLUSION

A bystander electrode adjacent to a monofilament electrode in the MCV reduces DFT by 24% when compared with monofilament MCV alone. Microfilament electrodes decrease DFT as auxiliary anode but not as sole anode.

Examination of a middle cardiac vein defibrillation coil as stand-alone anode, auxiliary anode, and bystander electrode in a transvenous defibrillation circuit

In porcine studies anodes in the middle cardiac vein compare favorably with those in the RV. It has not been demonstrated whether the RV and middle cardiac vein or the middle cardiac vein alone anodes are superior when shocking to a conventional SVC and active housing cathode nor whether a bystander middle cardiac vein electrode exerts a passive electrode affect. Twelve pigs were anesthetized and had an active housing implanted in the left pectoral region and defibrillation coils placed at the RV apex and in the SVC. A custom-made defibrillation coil (Ela Medical) was advanced into the middle cardiac vein through a 9 Fr transvenous catheter. The DFT for three anodes (RV; RV and middle cardiac vein; middle cardiac vein) to the SVC and active housing was then assessed by a three reversal binary search, the order of testing was randomized. In seven animals DFT was assessed in the same way for the configuration of RV to SVC and active housing twice more, with and without a bystander middle cardiac vein coil electrode in place. The results were middle cardiac vein 7.5 +/- 1.7 J, RV and middle cardiac vein 7.3 +/- 1.7 J reduced DFT significantly compared to RV 13.8 +/- 4.2 J (both P < 0.000). There was no significant difference between the middle cardiac vein and the middle cardiac vein and RV (P = 0.67, 95% CI for difference -0.64-0.96). The DFT of RV to SVC and the active housing was the same with (13.2 +/- 4.0) and without (13.7 +/- 4.2) the middle cardiac vein bystander coil in place (P = 0.177, 95% CI for difference -0.33-1.33 J). Shocking to a SVC and active housing cathode, middle cardiac vein, and RV and middle cardiac vein anodes are equally effective in lowering DFT compared to the RV. The middle cardiac vein coil electrode does not exert a passive electrode affect on the RV to the SVC and active housing defibrillation.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of a passive endocardial electrode on defibrillation efficacy of a nonthoracotomy lead system

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the impact of an inactive endocardial lead on the 50% effective dose (ED50%) for successful ventricular defibrillation.

BACKGROUND

The presence of abandoned epicardial mesh patch electrodes detrimentally affects the defibrillation efficacy of an endocardial lead system. It is not known whether abandoned endocardial electrodes produce a similar effect.

METHODS

An endocardial lead system (ENDOTAK, model 0062, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.) was implanted in eight dogs (mean +/- SD weight 23.7 +/- 1.0 kg). The ED50% for each of seven lead configurations was determined by a three-reversal point protocol in a balanced-randomized order with and without a second electrically passive endocardial lead system in the right ventricle (power 0.97 to detect a 50-V difference). Biphasic shocks with 80% tilt were delivered 10 s after the induction of ventricular fibrillation. In one configuration the active electrode made contact with the passive electrode in the right ventricular (RV) apex. In another configuration the active electrode was placed in a more proximal position to avoid contact. Additionally, the ED50% was determined for the endocardial lead system with a passive pacing lead positioned in the RV apex.

RESULTS

ED50% values for peak voltage, peak current and delivered energy were not significantly different with or without a passive RV electrode, and this was true whether or not the active electrode touched the passive electrode. However, ED50% values were significantly higher when the active electrode was slightly proximal than when it was positioned at the apex.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical contact between active and passive endocardial electrodes does not significantly alter defibrillation efficacy in this dog model. An increase in ED50% energy was caused by a slightly proximal position. Therefore, a good electrode position within the right ventricle is a more important determinant of defibrillation efficacy than is avoidance of the electrode touching a passive electrode.

Influence of epicardial patches on defibrillation threshold with nonthoracotomy lead configurations

BACKGROUND

In previous studies, epicardial patch electrodes decreased transthoracic defibrillation efficacy. We studied the effects of two inactive epicardial 14-cm2 titanium mesh patches on defibrillation energy requirements with nonthoracotomy internal lead configurations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A 6/6-millisecond biphasic shock wave-form was delivered via several electrode configurations 10 seconds after ventricular fibrillation was initiated with a 60-Hz generator. In two series, a total of 16 dogs (weight, 23.3 +/- 2.4 kg) underwent an up-down defibrillation protocol. In the first series, the defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined for each electrode configuration in the presence of two inactive epicardial patches. In the second series, DFTs were determined in the presence of an inactive right ventricular (RV) or left ventricular (LV) patch alone. For several nonthoracotomy lead configurations tested in the first 8 dogs, the mean +/- SD DFT energy increased 49% to 97% with two inactive patches on the heart compared with no patches on the heart as follows: RV to superior vena caval (SVC) electrode, from 8.9 +/- 2.6 to 18.0 +/- 14.3 J; RV to SVC plus subcutaneous array electrode, from 7.0 +/- 2.4 to 10.7 +/- 5.3 J; RV to subcutaneous pectoral plate electrode, from 6.2 +/- 1.3 to 11.4 +/- 4.0 J (P < or = .05). The lowest DFT was achieved by defibrillating between the epicardial patches (3.8 +/- 3.3 J). The second series showed that DFT voltage requirements increased significantly for all three nonthoracotomy lead configurations with the inactive LV patch alone (P < or = .05) but not with the inactive RV patch alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Inactive epicardial patches can significantly increase the defibrillation energy requirements for nonthoracotomy lead configurations. This negative impact may be due to an insulating effect of the patches and to a disturbance of the potential gradient field under the patches. If the same holds true in patients, these results have clinical implications. Functioning epicardial patch leads should be incorporated in the defibrillation lead system if already present. If the LV patch is nonfunctioning, such as because of a lead fracture, the marked increase in DFT due to an inactive LV patch calls for thorough DFT testing during surgery and, in selected patients, may necessitate patch removal to produce an effective transvenous-based system.