A comparison of the output characteristics of several implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Induction by direct current pulse versus 50-Hz pacing on ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation

BACKGROUND

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) induced by different modes of induction may have different characteristics and defibrillation thresholds. This study compares the cycle lengths and defibrillation of VF induced by direct current (DC) pulses vs 50 Hz.

METHOD

We compared induction by DC pulses and 50-Hz pacing in this single-centre observational study of 259 consecutive patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators in 2007-2008. Patients with inadequate defibrillation safety margin (DSM), defined as unsuccessful defibrillation at 25 J, were identified.

RESULTS

Of the 259 patients, 132 underwent induction with DC pulses and 127 with 50-Hz pacing. DC pulses induced VF of shorter cycle lengths (207 ± 16 vs 231 ± 24 ms, p < 0.001) compared to 50-Hz pacing. There were 17 patients (6.6%) with inadequate DSM-13/132 (9.8%) with DC pulse vs 4/127 (3.1%) with 50-Hz pacing (p < 0.001). The induced VF cycle lengths were shorter in patients with inadequate DSM (186 ± 25 vs 221 ± 21 ms, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, only the induced VF cycle length (p = 0.002) was independently associated with inadequate DSM.

CONCLUSION

VF of shorter cycle lengths is independently associated with inadequate DSM. DC pulses are associated with greater proportion of patients with inadequate DSM as it induces VF of shorter cycle lengths compared to 50-Hz pacing.

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.

Parameters characterizing implantable defibrillator output: a proposal

AIMS

Recently, a discussion was carried out in Heart Rhythm on the specifications that could characterize implantable defibrillators. It is the intention of this paper to participate in this discussion on defibrillation characteristics and to give recommendations on how this problem could be solved. Theoretical considerations and results There are different defibrillation theories, all finding that the defibrillation's efficacy depends on the time constant RC which is output capacitance C times load resistance R. Efficacy decreases with increasing RC. This means that (i) the knowledge of C is of paramount importance, (ii) the energy is 'devalued' with increasing RC and that those parameter settings such as tilt or pulse duration should be adjusted to the time constant, and (iii) the energy values given without further specification are not meaningful. As there is always a voltage drop across an internal resistance within the ICD, the measured voltage across the output differs from the capacitor voltage and is reduced which determines the efficiency of the device. From the data given by Thammanomai et al., one can determine the parameters maximum voltage, capacitance, internal resistance, and tilt. These parameters are adequate and necessary to describe an ICD device and to derive the effective energy for device comparison. Discussion The 'high output devices' with their high nominal energy are reduced in their effective energies to a degree that they are comparable to the best 'standard output devices'. They do not offer that superiority which is promised by the nominal energy. Moreover, if the tilt is fixed and larger than optimal, the energy requirements are still higher or the effective energy will further drop. The term 'delivered energy' is not used by us because the delivered energy increases with increasing tilt. However, today's tilts are too large as judged by theories, which means that high delivered energies can be worse than lower ones. The delivered energy is, therefore, not a meaningful parameter in judging ICDs.

CONCLUSION

ICD devices should be characterized by: (i) voltage, (ii) capacitance, (iii) tilt or pulse duration (if not programmable), and (iv) internal resistance. All other parameters can be derived from them by simple calculations. Introduction of a 'devaluation factor' characterizes the decreasing efficacy with increasing time constant and renders the output characteristics transparent and comparable.

Optimizing defibrillation waveforms for ICDs

While no simple electrical descriptor provides a good measure of defibrillation efficacy, the waveform parameters that most directly influence defibrillation are voltage and duration. Voltage is a critical parameter for defibrillation because its spatial derivative defines the electrical field that interacts with the heart. Similarly, waveform duration is a critical parameter because the shock interacts with the heart for the duration of the waveform. Shock energy is the most often cited metric of shock strength and an ICD's capacity to defibrillate, but it is not a direct measure of shock effectiveness. Despite the physiological complexities of defibrillation, a simple approach in which the heart is modeled as passive resistor-capacitor (RC) network has proved useful for predicting efficient defibrillation waveforms. The model makes two assumptions: (1) The goal of both a monophasic shock and the first phase of a biphasic shock is to maximize the voltage change in the membrane at the end of the shock for a given stored energy. (2) The goal of the second phase of a biphasic shock is to discharge the membrane back to the zero potential, removing the charge deposited by the first phase. This model predicts that the optimal waveform rises in an exponential upward curve, but such an ascending waveform is difficult to generate efficiently. ICDs use electronically efficient capacitive-discharge waveforms, which require truncation for effective defibrillation. Even with optimal truncation, capacitive-discharge waveforms require more voltage and energy to achieve the same membrane voltage than do square waves and ascending waveforms. In ICDs, the value of the shock output capacitance is a key intermediary in establishing the relationship between stored energy-the key determinant of ICD size-and waveform voltage as a function of time, the key determinant of defibrillation efficacy. The RC model predicts that, for capacitive-discharge waveforms, stored energy is minimized when the ICD's system time constant taus equals the cell membrane time constant taum, where taus is the product of the output capacitance and the resistance of the defibrillation pathway. Since the goal of phase two is to reverse the membrane charging effect of phase one, there is no advantage to additional waveform phases. The voltages and capacitances used in commercial ICDs vary widely, resulting in substantial disparities in waveform parameters. The development of present biphasic waveforms in the 1990s resulted in marked improvements in defibrillation efficacy. It is unlikely that substantial improvement in defibrillation efficacy will be achieved without radical changes in waveform design.

Achieving Sufficient Safety Margins with Fixed Duration Waveforms and the Use of Multiple Time Constants

INTRODUCTION

There are several options to achieve a sufficient safety margin in a patient with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT), with varying and typically modest success. Programming fixed (millisecond) durations of both phases of a biphasic waveform in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has demonstrated utility.

METHODS

We established an informal multisite registry of ICD implanting facilities. Each facility agreed to attempt the use of fixed duration waveforms whenever there was an inadequate safety margin with tilt-based waveforms. A 3.5-ms-based fixed duration shock was tried first. If that failed to achieve a 10-J safety margin then a 2-ms-based shock was used. We also tabulated an HEDFT (high estimate DFT) as precise DFTs were not determined.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (15 M, 1 F) were entered into the registry (age 58.2 +/- 17.9 years) with ejection fractions of .30 +/-.11. Superior vena cava coils were used in 7 patients according to physician preference. The tilt-based HEDFTs were 35.4 +/- 3.2 J delivered and 35.8 +/- 3.3 J stored energy. The 3.5-ms based shocks were evaluated on 14 patients and the HEDFT fell to 23.4 +/- 6.3 J delivered (P < 0.0001) and 26.2 +/- 6.9 J stored energy (P < 0.0001). The 2-ms-based fixed duration shocks were then evaluated on 6 patients and the delivered energy HEDFT was 22.2 +/- 5.8 J (P = 0.001 vs. tilt-based shocks) while the stored energy HEDFT was 27.9 +/- 6.4 J (P = 0.01 vs. tilt-based shocks). Using the better of the two fixed duration waveforms, the mean safety margin was improved from -1.2 +/- 1.9 J to 9.5 +/- 5.9 J (P < 0.00001). Multivariate predictors of the safety margin improvement were the absence of the Superior Vena Cava (SVC) coil and absence of Ventricular fibrillation (VF) presentation. Four patients still required lead repositioning after the use of the fixed duration waveforms. No additional leads were implanted.

CONCLUSION

The use of a selection of directly programmed fixed duration biphasic shocks had a striking impact on the HEDFT for these difficult patients. Adequate safety margins were obtained for 12 of 16 patients with no lead manipulation or other approaches.