Transvenous internal cardioversion for atrial fibrillation: a randomized study on defibrillation threshold and tolerability of asymmetrical compared with symmetrical shocks

Tetanizing prepulse: A novel strategy to mitigate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock-related pain

BACKGROUND

Skeletal muscle activation has been implicated as the source of pain associated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks. We hypothesized that the skeletal muscle response to defibrillatory shocks could be attenuated with a tetanizing prepulse immediately before biphasic shock delivery.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to test the ability of tetanizing prepulses to reduce the skeletal muscle activation associated with defibrillation.

METHODS

Seven adult pigs were studied. A left ventricular coil and subcutaneous dummy can in the right thorax were used to deliver either pure biphasic waveforms or test waveforms consisting of a tetanizing pulse of high-frequency alternating current (HFAC) ramped to an amplitude of 5-100 V over 0.25-1 second, immediately followed by a biphasic shock of approximately 9 J (ramped HFAC and biphasic [rHFAC+B]). We used limb acceleration and rate of force development as surrogate measures of pain. Test and control waveforms were delivered in sinus rhythm and induced ventricular fibrillation to test defibrillation efficacy.

RESULTS

Defibrillation threshold energy was indistinguishable between rHFAC+B and pure biphasic shocks. Peak acceleration and rate of force development were reduced by 72% ± 7% and 71% ± 22%, respectively, with a 25-V, 1-second rHFAC+B waveform compared with pure biphasic shocks. Notably, rHFAC+B with a 9-J biphasic shock produced significantly less skeletal muscle activation than a 0.1-J pure biphasic shock.

CONCLUSION

A putative source of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock-related pain can be mitigated using a tetanizing prepulse followed by biphasic shock. Human studies will be required to assess true pain reduction with this approach.

How, why, and when may atrial defibrillation find a specific role in implantable devices? A clinical viewpoint

This viewpoint article discusses the potential for incorporation of atrial defibrillation capabilities in modern multi-chamber devices. In the late 1990s, the possibility of using shock-only therapy to treat selected patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) was explored in the context of the stand-alone atrial defibrillator. The failure of this strategy can be attributed to the technical limitations of the stand-alone device, low tolerance of atrial shocks, difficulties in patient selection, a lack of predictive knowledge about the evolution of AF, and, last but not least, commercial considerations. An open question is how atrial defibrillation capability may now assume a specific new role in devices implanted for sudden death prevention or cardiac resynchronization. For patients who already have indications for implantable devices, device-based atrial defibrillation appears attractive as a "backup" option for managing AF when preventive pharmacological/electrical measures fail. This and several other personalized hybrid therapeutic approaches await exploration, though assessment of their efficacy is methodologically challenging. Achievement of acceptance by patients is an essential premise for any updated atrial defibrillation strategy. Strategies that are being investigated to improve patient tolerance include waveform shaping, pharmacologic modulation of pain, and patient-activated defibrillation (patients might also perceive the problem of discomfort somewhat differently in the context of a backup therapy). The economic impact of implementing atrial defibrillation features in available devices is progressively decreasing, and financial feasibility need not be a major issue. Future studies should examine clinically relevant outcomes and not be limited (as occurred with stand-alone defibrillators) to technical or other soft endpoints.

Internal defibrillation with minimal skeletal muscle activation: A new paradigm toward painless defibrillation

BACKGROUND

Shock-induced pain produces substantial morbidity in recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This pain likely derives from activation of skeletal muscle and associated nerves in the chest and abdomen. In an effort to develop a painless defibrillation system, we designed an electrode arrangement that incorporates a conductive sock placed around the heart to confine the electric shock field to cardiac tissue.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to test whether cardiac defibrillation could be achieved without skeletal muscle activation using a novel electrode system.

METHODS

Eight adult mongrel dogs were studied. Force of skeletal muscle contraction was measured by strain gauges attached to the forelimbs during delivery of internal shocks ranging in energy from 0.1 to 31 J. Biphasic shocks were delivered (1) between a right ventricular coil and a subcutaneous dummy can (standard configuration), and (2) between a left ventricular coil and an epicardial electrode sock. Internal and external defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were determined for each electrode configuration.

RESULTS

Shock-induced muscle contraction force was significantly lower using the sock electrode than with standard ICD electrodes at every shock energy level tested (P < .0001). Internal DFT was similar between electrode configurations (sock electrode: 8.6 +/- 4.2 J; standard: 11.0 +/- 6.3 J, P = .4), but muscle contraction force at DFT was greatly reduced with the new electrode system (1.8 +/- 2.0 kg vs 10.6 +/- 2.1 kg, P < .0001). The sock electrode rendered external defibrillation impossible, however, even at 360 J.

CONCLUSION

Skeletal muscle activation induced by ICD shocks can be greatly reduced using an electrode system that confines the electric shock field to the heart. Refinement of this strategy may allow for delivery of painless shocks by ICDs. Further development is needed to overcome implant complexity and the higher external DFT with this type of electrode system.

Mechanisms of pain associated with internal defibrillation shocks: Results of a randomized study of shock waveform

BACKGROUND

Shock pain has limited the acceptance of the implantable atrial cardioverter and is a complication of ventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy. Rounding off of the peak of a shock waveform reduces pain. Whether the pain reduction results from reduction in the peak voltage or from the rounding has not been established. In other words, does reducing the extreme dV/dt (voltage derivative) of the conventional truncated exponential capacitive discharge waveform reduce pain?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the relative contributions of peak voltage and waveform shape to pain.

METHODS

We compared rounded and conventional waveforms with equal peak voltages. Eighty-five shocks of 50 to 500 V were delivered to 10 patients requiring atrial cardioversion for persistent atrial fibrillation. The patient touched an analog pain scale (0-15 cm) and orally reported a pain score on a scale from 0 to 5. An observer scored thoracic contractions on a scale from 0 to 5.

RESULTS

No differences between the rounded and conventional waveform on any scale were noted for either univariate or multivariate analyses. However, all three response scales were strongly predicted by voltage with r(2) = 0.77 (oral), r(2) = 0.86 (analog), and r(2) = 0.85 (contraction) after correcting for patient variability and including a log voltage term.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient pain perception was determined primarily by waveform peak voltage and not by the rounding, per se.

Impact of informed consent requirements on cardiac arrest research in the United States: exception from consent or from research?

INTRODUCTION

Research in patients with life-threatening illness such as cardiac arrest is challenging since they can not consent. The Food and Drug Administration addressed research under emergency conditions by publishing new criteria for exception from informed consent in 1996. We systematically reviewed randomized trials over a 10-year period to assess the impact of these regulations.

METHODS

Case-control study of published trials for cardiac arrest (cases) and atrial fibrillation (controls.) Studies were identified by using structured searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1992 to 2002. Included were studies using random allocation in humans with cardiac arrest or atrial fibrillation prior to enrollment. Excluded were duplicate publications. Number of American trials, foreign trials and proportion of trials of American origin were compared by using regression analysis. Changes in cardiac arrest versus atrial fibrillation trials were calculated as risk differences.

RESULTS

Of 4982 identified cardiac arrest studies, 57 (1.1%) were randomized trials. The number of American cardiac arrest trials decreased by 15% (95% CI: 8, 22%) annually (P = 0.05). The proportion of cardiac arrest trials of American origin decreased by 16% (95% CI: 10, 22%) annually (P = 0.006). Of 5596 identified atrial fibrillation studies, 197 trials (3.5%) were randomized trials. The risk difference between cardiac arrest versus atrial fibrillation trials being of American origin decreased significantly (annual difference -5.8% (95% CI: -10, -0.1%), P = 0.03).

INTERPRETATION

Fewer American cardiac arrest trials were published during the last decade, when federal consent requirements changed. Regulatory requirements for clinical trials may inhibit improvements in care and threaten public health.

Defibrillation efficacy and pain perception of two biphasic waveforms for internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Efficacy and Pain Perception of Two Biphasic Waveforms.

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the influence of the peak voltage of waveforms used for internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation on defibrillation efficacy and pain perception. A low peak voltage biphasic waveform generated by a 500-microF capacitor with 40% tilt was compared to a standard biphasic waveform generated by a 60-microF capacitor with 80% tilt.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 19 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (79% male, age 55 +/- 11 years, 21% with heart disease), the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) was determined during deep sedation with midazolam for both waveforms in a randomized fashion using a step-up protocol. Internal cardioversion with a single lead (shock vector: coronary sinus to right atrium) was successful in 18 (95%) of 19 patients. ADFT energy and peak voltage were significantly lower for the low-voltage waveform (2.1 +/- 2.4 J vs 3.5 +/- 3.9 J, P < 0.01; 100 +/- 53 V vs 290 +/- 149 V, P < 0.01). Sedation then was reversed with flumazenil after ADFT testing. Two shocks at the ADFT (or a 3-J shock if ADFT >3 J) were administered to the patient using each waveform in random order. Pain perception was assessed using both a visual scale and a numerical score. ADFTs were above the pain threshold in 17 (94%) of 18 patients, even though the ADFT with the 500-microF waveform was <100 V in 63% of the patients. Pain perception was comparable for both waveforms (numerical score: 6.5 +/- 2.4 vs 6.3 +/- 2.6; visual scale: 5.4 +/- 2.6 vs 5.2 +/- 3.1; P = NS, 500-microF vs 60-microF). The second shock was perceived as more painful in 88% of the patients, independent of the waveform used.

CONCLUSION

Despite a 66% lower peak voltage and a 40% lower energy, the 40% tilt, 500-microF capacitor biphasic waveform did not change the pain perceived by the patient during delivery of internal cardioversion shocks. Pain perception for internal cardioversion probably is not influenced by peak voltage alone and increases with the number of applied shocks.

Transvenous internal cardioversion for atrial fibrillation: a randomized comparison between catheters with different coil length

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2 different right atrial electrode coil lengths on energy and voltage requirements for transvenous atrial cardioversion.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients (mean age 61 +/- 11 years) with chronic persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) (mean duration 11 +/- 10 months) underwent transvenous cardioversion. A 6F catheter with a 5.5-cm coil was positioned in the coronary sinus. Another catheter with either a 5.5-cm or an 8-cm coil was positioned along the lateral wall of the right atrium, according to a randomized allocation. R wave-synchronized biphasic shocks were delivered according to a step-up protocol. After cardioversion of baseline AF, AF was reinduced, the right atrial catheter was substituted, and cardioversion was repeated with the alternative right atrial coil.

RESULTS

Successful cardioversion was obtained in all of the patients. Leading edge voltage of effective shocks was significantly lower when catheters with an 8-cm coil in right atrium were used compared with the alternative 5-cm coil catheters (301 +/- 80 volts vs 340 +/- 78 volts, P <.001), and delivered energy (6.75 +/- 4.25 joules vs 7.86 +/- 4.29 joules, P =.043) and shock impedance (60 +/- 9 ohm vs 66 +/- 10 ohm, P <.001) were lower. Moreover, shock-induced discomfort, evaluated by assessment of pain score, was reduced (3.69 +/- 1.09 vs 4.12 +/- 0.99, P =.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a longer right atrial coil results in lower shock impedance, lower energy and voltage requirements, and lower discomfort during transvenous atrial cardioversion. The results of the current study are of value either for transvenous internal cardioversion of chronic persistent AF or for implantable atrial defibrillators.

Current clinical perspectives on implantable devices for atrial defibrillation

The role of devices that deliver shock therapy for atrial fibrillation is still debated. Following technical improvements in catheter-based atrial defibrillation, implantable devices have become available either in the form of stand-alone atrial defibrillators or in the form of dual defibrillators. Although preliminary results do not support their use as a single, unique treatment for atrial fibrillation patients, in combination with drugs, pacing or other treatments such as ablation, atrial defibrillators should help appropriately selected groups of patients.