Atrial defibrillation with a transvenous lead: a randomized comparison of active can shocking pathways

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

Is An Atrial Defibrillator Still An Option In Treating Patients With Atrial Fibrillation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common disorder associated with significant morbidities and presents several challenges for the control of symptoms and prevention of long-term implications. Atrial defibrillators (ADs), used for rhythm control in patients with symptoms refractory to medical therapy, can detect recurrences of the arrhythmia, allow prompt patient-directed treatment, and have the potential to reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life. The efficacy of this form of therapy is highest in patients with paroxysmal AF, and with the use of a coronary sinus shocking lead. While R-wave synchronized shocks are a prerequisite for a safe use, the procedure is well tolerated and usually not associated with long-term psychological side effects. Limitations of ADs include acute and chronic complications related to cardiac rhythm device implantation, the requirement in some cases for more than one shock to terminate AF, the discomfort from shocks, as well as the need for sedation to alleviate pain from the shocks. With the ever-expanding role of catheter-based therapies for AF, it seems that the role of ADs in this regard is rather limited.

Coronary sinus electrode does not reduce atrial defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with a conventional dual-coil, active pectoral implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead system. Shocking vectors that incorporate an additional electrode in the CS have been used, but it is unclear if they improve atrial DFTs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this prospective, randomized study was to determine if a coronary sinus (CS) electrode reduces atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs).

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 36 patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. A defibrillation lead with superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular (RV) shocking coils was implanted in the RV. An active can emulator (Can) was placed in a pre-pectoral pocket. A lead with a 4 cm long shocking coil was placed in the CS. Atrial DFTs were determined in the following 3 shocking configurations in each patient, with the order of testing randomized: RV --> SVC + Can (Ventricular Triad), distal CS --> SVC + Can (Distal Atrial Triad), and proximal CS --> SVC + Can (Proximal Atrial Triad).

RESULTS

The Proximal and Distal Atrial Triad configurations were both associated with significant reductions in peak current (p < 0.01), but this effect was offset by significant increases in shock impedance (p < 0.01), resulting in no net change in the peak voltage or DFT energy in comparison to the Ventricular Triad configuration (Ventricular Triad: 4.9 +/- 6.6 J, Proximal Atrial Triad: 3.3 +/- 4.1J, Distal Atrial Triad: 4.4 +/- 6.7 J, p > 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Shocking vectors that incorporate a CS coil do not significantly improve atrial defibrillation efficacy. Since the Ventricular Triad shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.

Implantable Dual-Chamber Defibrillator for the Selective Treatment of Spontaneous Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmias: Arrhythmia Incidence and Device Performance

INTRODUCTION

Atrial tachyarrhythmias are a common co-morbidity in patients with an ICD indication. Recently introduced ICD's are equipped to independently detect and treat atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the incidence and termination of spontaneous atrial and ventricular tachyarrythmias in patients with a history of atrial tachyarrhythmias.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety patients, 70% male with an ICD indication and history of atrial tachyarrhythmia (LVEF 45 +/- 6%, [AT/AF indication 55 +/- 10, AT/VT 45 +/- 16], 46% CAD) were enrolled and 89 were implanted with a VENTAK PRIZM AVT (Guidant). Spontaneous atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias were printed and evaluated during an average follow-up period of 272 +/- 72 days utilizing the stored intracardial electrogram function of the device. Nineteen patients (21%) presented had only atrial tachyarrhythmias, 32 patients (36%) had both atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias and 18 patients (20%) had only ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Patients with only atrial tachyarrhythmias had a total of 3274 atrial episodes; 2002 terminated spontaneously, 1264 were treated with ATP and 8 with shock therapy. ATP was successful in 735 (58%) of 1264 episodes. Patients with both atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias had 7277 documented atrial tachyarrhythmias, 5231 terminated spontaneously, 1153 of 2009 were terminated by ATP (57.4%) and 37 by shock therapy (20 patient controlled). Atrial tachyarrhythmias identified as atrial flutter (AT) by the atrial rhythm classification (ARC) algorithm had a higher ATP conversion success rate than episodes identified as atrial fibrillation (AF); 66.7% for AT and 26.4% for AF. Patients with only ventricular tachyarrhythmias had 690 documented episodes, 401 terminated spontaneously, 248 (85.8%) were terminated by ATP and 41 by shock.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-seven percent of patients with an ICD indication had spontaneous atrial and/or ventricular tachyharrhythmias within the first 6 months after ICD implantation. ATP therapy terminated 58% of all atrial tachyarrhytmias and 66.7% of the atrial flutters. The dual chamber ICD detected, classified and terminated all ventricular tacharrhythmias appropriately.

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.

Optimization of Atrial Defibrillation with a Dual-Coil, Active Pectoral Lead System

INTRODUCTION

Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, but the optimal shocking configuration is unknown. The objective of this prospective study was to compare atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with three shocking configurations that are available with standard ICD leads.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective, randomized, paired comparison of shocking configurations on atrial DFTs in 58 patients. 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). In the first 33 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad (RV --> SVC + Can) and unipolar (RV --> Can) shocking pathways. In the next 25 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad and the proximal triad (SVC --> RV + Can) configurations. Delivered energy at DFT was significantly lower with the ventricular triad compared to the unipolar configuration (4.7 +/- 3.7 J vs 10.1 +/- 9.5 J, P < 0.001). Peak voltage and shock impedance also were significantly reduced (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in DFT energy when the ventricular triad and proximal triad shocking configurations were compared (3.6 +/- 3.0 J vs 3.4 +/- 2.9 J for ventricular and proximal triad, respectively, P = NS). Although shock impedance was reduced by 13% with the proximal triad (P < 0.001), this effect was offset by an increased current requirement (10%).

CONCLUSION

The ventricular triad is equivalent or superior to other possible shocking pathways for atrial defibrillation afforded by a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system. Because the ventricular triad is also the most efficacious shocking pathway for ventricular defibrillation, this pathway should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular defibrillators.

Future prospects for implantable devices for atrial defibrillation

The success of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) led to the concept of a device that would terminate atrial fibrillation (AF) using an implantable device. Implantable devices for AF are undergoing rapid evolution. Currently used devices combine pacing and cardioversion therapies to prevent and to treat AE Recent studies have shown that these devices are safe and can decrease the incidence of AF and improve quality of life significantly. Implantable devices for atrial defibrillation are likely to have an increasing role in the near future, particularly when they are used in combination with ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy in which AF is both common and its termination is clinically beneficial.

A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

ICD implantation is standard therapy for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The advantage of dual and single coil defibrillator leads in the successful conversion of arrhythmias is unclear. This study compared the effectiveness of dual versus single coil defibrillation leads. The study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study comparing a dual with a single coil defibrillation system as part of an ICD using an active pectoral electrode. Seventy-six patients (64 men, 12 women; age 61 +/- 11 years) were implanted with a dual (group 1, n = 38) or single coil lead system (group 2,n = 38). The patients represented a typical ICD cohort: 60% presented with ischemic cardiomyopathy as their primary cardiac disease, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.406 +/- 0.158. The primary tachyarrhythmia was monomorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia in 52.6% patients and ventricular fibrillation in 38.4%. There was no significant difference in terms of P and R wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and lead impedance at implantation and follow-up in the two groups. There was similarly no difference in terms of defibrillation thresholds (DFT) at implantation. Patients in group 1 had an average DFT of 10.2 +/- 5.2 J compared to 10.3 +/- 4.1 J in Group 2, P = NS. This study demonstrates no significant advantage of a dual coil lead system over a single coil system in terms of lead values and defibrillation thresholds. This may have important bearing on the choice of lead systems when implanting ICDs.

Evaluation of a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator for the treatment of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias

Eighty-nine patients with a documented history of atrial tachyarrhythmias or fibrillation (AF) received a cardioverter defibrillator designed to selectively differentiate and treat atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Twenty-two patients received a coronary sinus lead and, therefore, could use a separate shock vector for selective treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias/AF. The device is designed to treat tachyarrhythmias with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and/or shock therapy using an atrial and/or a ventricular shock vector. Patients underwent induction and shock termination of atrial or dual tachyarrhythmias (AF/VF) to verify proper device function and to measure the arrhythmia detection time with enhancements and preventive algorithms programmed On and Off, respectively. Detection time for 329 VF inductions was 2.41 +/- 0.64 seconds with enhancements On and 2.29 +/- 0.47 with enhancements Off (NS). At implant or predischarge, 283 AF and/or AF/VF (121 atrial and 162 atrial/ventricular fibrillation) were induced. Shock conversion efficacy was 89.8% with AF conversion energies ranging from 0.9 to 27 J. Thirteen of the 23 patients had atrial shock conversions using the separate shock vector with an average conversion energy of 1.9 +/- 1.4 J. (range 0.5-5 J). During follow-up the efficacy of ATP on atrial tachyarrhythmias was 59% and the efficacy of delivered shocks on AF was 85%. This new dual chamber cardioverter defibrillator appropriately detected and classified atrial arrhythmias, and shock therapy for AF was highly effective. The detection algorithm differentiated atrial tachyarrhythmia/AF and did not delay VF detection. The separate shock vector converted induced AF with energies ranging from 0.6 to 5 J.

Effect of coronary sinus electrode on the optimal atrial defibrillation pathway for an atrioventricular defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have demonstrated significant failure in converting atrial fibrillation (AF) using a conventional ventricular pathway. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of incorporating a coronary sinus (CS) lead into the atrial defibrillation pathway in atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) reduction in patients with persistent AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of shock configuration on ADFT in 18 patients undergoing elective internal cardioversion for persistent AF (mean AF duration: 8 +/- 9 months). The lead system included a dual-coil defibrillation lead (Endotak DSP, Guidant) with a distal right ventricular (RV) electrode and a proximal superior vena cava (SVC) electrode, a CS lead (Perimeter, Guidant), and a left pectoral cutaneous electrode (Can). In each patient, dual step-up ADFTs were determined for each of three vectors: (1) RV --> SVC+Can; (2) CS --> SVC+Can; and (3) RV --> CS+SVC+Can (group 1, n = 8) or RV+CS --> SVC+Can (group 2, n = 10), using R wave-synchronized biphasic shocks. Successful defibrillation was achieved in all patients without any ventricular proarrhythmia. ADFT of CS --> SVC+Can (11.8 +/- 5.6 J) was significantly lower than ADFT of RV --> SVC+Can (16.5 +/- 7.8 J, P = 0.021). ADFT of CS --> SVC+Can was similar to RV --> CS+SVC+Can (group 1: 12.0 +/- 6.5 J vs 17.4 +/- 4.8 J, P = 0.16), but it was significantly higher than RV+CS --> SVC+Can (group 2: 9.0 +/- 3.9 J vs 11.6 +/- 5.0 J, P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

Patients with persistent AF of substantial duration can be reliably cardioverted using a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead set; however, the incorporation of a CS lead to the conventional ICD lead configuration significantly lowered ADFT. The optimal shock vector that incorporates a CS lead for atrial defibrillation requires future studies.

Predictors of atrial defibrillation threshold in internal cardioversion

This study examined the clinical, echocardiographic, and electrophysiological factors influencing the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) in patients with chronic, persistent AF undergoing transvenous, low energy, atrial cardioversion. Twenty-two patients (age 57 +/- 15 years) with a mean AF duration of 7.8 +/- 7.1 months (range 2-32 months) underwent internal cardioversion with catheters placed in the right atrium and coronary sinus. Biphasic shocks (3/3 ms) were delivered in a step-up protocol. ADFT was defined as the lowest energy shock that converted AF to sinus rhythm. All patients were successfully cardioverted at a mean ADFT of 5.62 +/- 2.82 J (range 2.6-12.9 J). Fifteen variables, including clinical characteristics (age, body mass index, AF duration, etiology), echocardiographic measurements (atrial diameter and volumes, indexes of ventricular performance), hemodynamic measurements, and mean atrial cycle during AF were analyzed as possible predictors of ADFT. In univariate regression analysis, AF duration, mean RR interval, and cardiac index correlated with ADFT. In multivariate regression analysis, AF duration remained as the only significant predictor of ADFT (B coefficient 0.311, P < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.194-0.427). AF duration was the most powerful predictor of ADFT. It should be considered when planning internal CV of AF to limit the number of shocks delivered. Furthermore, long intervals between AF onset and CV should be avoided.

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.