Efficacy of low-energy T wave shocks for induction of ventricular fibrillation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Elimination of Purkinje Fibers by Electroporation Reduces Ventricular Fibrillation Vulnerability

Background The Purkinje network appears to play a pivotal role in the triggering as well as maintenance of ventricular fibrillation. Irreversible electroporation ( IRE ) using direct current has shown promise as a nonthermal ablation modality in the heart, but its ability to target and ablate the Purkinje tissue is undefined. Our aim was to investigate the potential for selective ablation of Purkinje/fascicular fibers using IRE . Methods and Results In an ex vivo Langendorff model of canine heart (n=8), direct current was delivered in a unipolar manner at various dosages from 750 to 2500 V, in 10 pulses with a 90-μs duration at a frequency of 1 Hz. The window of ventricular fibrillation vulnerability was assessed before and after delivery of electroporation energy using a shock on T-wave method. IRE consistently eradicated all Purkinje potentials at voltages between 750 and 2500 V (minimum field strength of 250-833 V/cm). The ventricular electrogram amplitude was only minimally reduced by ablation: 0.6±2.3 mV ( P=0.03). In 4 hearts after IRE delivery, ventricular fibrillation could not be reinduced. At baseline, the lower limit of vulnerability to ventricular fibrillation was 1.8±0.4 J, and the upper limit of vulnerability was 19.5±3.0 J. The window of vulnerability was 17.8±2.9 J. Delivery of electroporation energy significantly reduced the window of vulnerability to 5.7±2.9 J ( P=0.0003), with a postablation lower limit of vulnerability=7.3±2.63 J, and the upper limit of vulnerability=18.8±5.2 J. Conclusions Our study highlights that Purkinje tissue can be ablated with IRE without any evidence of underlying myocardial damage.

The Effect of Direct Current Stimulation versus T-Wave Shock on Defibrillation Threshold Testing

INTRODUCTION

There are several methods to induce ventricular fibrillation (VF) during defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing. Delivering a shock at a critical time during the T wave (T-shock) is the conventional approach, while delivering a constant direct current voltage (DC stim) from the implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an alternative method. Only a few reports compare VF induction methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of DC stim versus T-shock.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 414 consecutive patients undergoing DFT testing. We compared the two groups (DC stim and T-shock) with respect to clinical characteristics, electrocardiogram (ECG) changes, and complications.

RESULTS

Ventricular arrhythmia, including ventricular tachycardia (VT) and VF, was induced by DC stim in 93 patients or T-shock in 321 patients. No more than three attempts were performed during one procedure. There was no significant difference in the baseline ECG, induced tachycardia cycle length (TCL), or complications between the two groups. However, the induced TCL was significantly shorter than the clinical TCL regardless of induction method (P = 0.001). Five patients suffered major complications (i.e., electromechanical dissociation or incessant VT). A history of atrial fibrillation was significantly greater in patients with major complications than the others (80% vs 24%, P = 0.004), and was an independent predictor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in induced TCL or complications between the DC stim and T-shock. The induced TCL is significantly shorter than clinical TCL regardless of induction method.

Effectiveness of VF induction with DC fibber versus conventional induction methods in patients on chronic amiodarone therapy

BACKGROUND

Amiodarone therapy, especially chronic, can result in difficult ventricular fibrillation (VF) inductions during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) testing. The efficacy of various VF induction methods on patients treated with amiodarone has not been well described. This prospective analysis evaluated the impact of direct current (DC) fibber, burst fibber, and synchronized T-wave shock VF induction methods.

METHODS

Data were collected from one study and two enrolling centers totaling 14 ICD patients (92.9 % male, age 64.3 years (range 23.6-81.2)). A minimum of two successful VF inductions from each patient were required to be included in the study analysis. Each VF induction method was attempted in each patient. Non-sustained VF resulting in an aborted shock was considered an induction failure. All 14 patients were on chronic amiodarone therapy.

RESULTS

From a total of 42 attempted inductions, 25 (59.5 %) were successful at inducing VF. The success rates of effective induction of VF during the first attempt using DC, burst, and Shock-on-T are 100, 50, and 28.6 %, respectively. DC fibber had significantly higher VF induction rates than Shock-on-T (p = 0.004) or burst fibber (p = 0.02). There was no difference between Shock-on-T and burst fibber (p = 0.45).

CONCLUSION

The success rate of VF induction using DC fibber method is significantly higher than either Shock-on-T or burst fibber induction methods for patients on chronic amiodarone therapy. This may facilitate defibrillation threshold testing in such patients.

[Is the determination of the defibrillation threshold in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator still required?]

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) is time consuming and associated with risks. In the present study, we elucidated whether the initial implantation of an ICD with high energy output makes intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing (DFTT) unnecessary even though antiarrhythmic (AA) therapy is needed in the future.

METHODS

A total of 111 patients (94 men, 17 women) receiving an ICD with subsequent AA therapy (mexiletine, amiodarone, sotalol, flecainide) were analyzed retrospectively. DFT was performed during ICD implantation and after AA drug therapy. In a second step, DFT results from the study cohort were analyzed for implantation of virtual ICDs with either low (≤ 30 J, LOD), intermediate (34 J, IOD), or high energy output (36 J, HOD).

RESULTS

In the study cohort, all patients reached the safety margin (SM) of 10 J between DFT and maximal shock energy of the ICD. After loading of AA agents, 6 patients (12%) with a LOD, 3 patients (11%) with an IOD, and 3 (13%) patients with a HOD failed the 10 J SM. Using virtual ICDs, 6 (5.5%) patients with a LOD, 1 patient (1%) with an IOD, and no patients with a HOD would have failed the 10 J SM. After loading of AA agents, 18 patients (16%) with a virtual LOD, 12 patients (10.8%) with an IOD, and still 9 patients (8%) with a HOD would have failed the 10 J SM.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that the 10 J SM would have been achieved intraoperatively in all patients with virtual HOD ICDs. Thus, determination of the DFT during implantation does not seem to be obligatory. However, in patients receiving AA agents, DFT testing is still required.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of a wearable cardioverter defibrillator detection algorithm

BACKGROUND

Wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCDs) provide protection from sudden cardiac death. The efficacy of a WCD detection algorithm has not been reported outside of clinical trial.

METHODS

The efficacy of the algorithm was reviewed through a retrospective analysis of appropriate shocks, inappropriate shocks, and arrhythmia detections during a 1-year period.

RESULTS

WCD patients had an appropriate shock rate of 1.58 per 100 patient-months and an inappropriate shock rate of 0.99 per 100 patient-months. Most of the arrhythmia detections in a 3-month period were short in length, with only 2.7% of the detections lasting over 25 seconds, the time at which a shock becomes possible.

CONCLUSIONS

By incorporating a patient responsiveness test, as well as features that eliminate or reduce signal interference common to external electrocardiogram electrodes, the WCD detection algorithm has a low risk of inappropriate shocks.

Indications for predismissal testing with arrhythmia-induction in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Arrhythmia induction during implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is a standard procedure. However, controversy exists regarding the need for routine arrhythmia induction before discharge from hospital (pre-hospital discharge (PHD) test). In order to reduce the number of tests we identified risk factors that predict relevant ICD malfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

965 patients receiving a first device implantation (n=724) or device/system replacement (n=241) between 1998 and 2004 were analysed. During implantation 176 (18%) complications (intraoperative undersensing of induced arrhythmias, unsuccessful arrhythmia-therapy or low DFT safety margin) occurred. Frequent (>4 times) intraoperative lead repositioning due to low sensing values was present in 44 patients (5%). 9% of the patients with first ICD implantation, 21% with device replacement and 27% with system replacement developed complications during PHD testing with arrhythmia induction. Intraoperative complications, although corrected during implantation, were independent risk factors for malfunction during PHD testing (p<0.05). Additional predictors for malfunction were intraoperative lead repositioning (>4 times) and a history of both VF and VT (p<0.05). Patients without intraoperative complications rarely developed malfunction during PHD testing (3.7% first device, 6.25% system replacement). Only in patients undergoing device replacement was a higher risk for failure (13%) evident. No risk factors could be identified for these subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Routine arrhythmia induction during PHD is recommended in ICD patients with intraoperative complications, although corrected during implantation, as well as frequent intraoperatives lead repositioning. Patients undergoing device/system replacement uncomplicated implantation are not generally at low risk for device failure.

Shock on T Versus Direct Current Voltage for Induction of Ventricular Fibrillation:. A Randomized Prospective Comparison

VF is induced during ICD implantation to determine efficacy of therapy. Establishing the best clinical method of induction of VF would potentially be beneficial in reducing the number of induction attempts and reducing the frequency of inadvertent induction of VT. Commonly used methods to induce VF include shock in the T wave vulnerable period (T shock) and high frequency stimulation. This study compared the efficacy of T shock with a new induction method using a 9-V DC pulse. The study was a randomized, prospective, case crossover trial in patients receiving ICDs. VF was induced by T shock and DC in a randomized sequence during an ICD implant. VF was induced at least four times in each patient (two T shocks and two DC inductions) and with each induction; attempts were continued with modifications until successful. A paired evaluation between the T shock/DC induction was performed in 37 patients (28 men, age 64 +/- 12 years) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.40 +/- 0.20. Arrhythmia indications were VT (n = 23), VF (n = 10), and VT/VF (n = 4). Drug therapy included amiodarone (n = 10), metoprolol (n = 6), digoxin (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1). The average T shock voltage was 207.0 +/- 16.1 V. The S1 cycle drive length was consistently 400 ms, and the mean S2 coupling interval was 317.8 +/- 19.6 ms. The length of time DC applied averaged 3.8 +/- 1.4 seconds. A total of 148 episodes of VF were included in the analysis. T shock induced VF with a cycle length of 213.5 +/- 35.1 ms, and DC induced VF with a cycle length of 214.6 +/- 34.5 ms (P = 0.86). Although VF was eventually induced for each randomization, the number of attempts required were dependent on the method of induction. The successful DC first attempt VF induction rate was 96%, with three patients requiring two attempts during one of the DC inductions. T shock had a 68% first attempt success rate with 21 patients requiring multiple T shocks to induce VF. All nine female patients had at least one unsuccessful first attempt T shock, which contributed to an overall unsuccessful first attempt induction rate significantly higher in women then men (36.1% vs 12.5%, P = 0.001). A constant DC voltage induction of VF may be more effective than T shock for induction of VF in a clinical setting because it reduces the number of attempts required to induce VF. By either method, VF appears to be more difficult to induce in women. DC induction has the advantage of simple programming of only duration of stimulation. These findings have implications particularly for ICD implantation with conscious sedation.