Clinical experience with implantable atrial and combined atrioventricular defibrillators

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.

Device treatment of atrial tachycardia—minor additional effect of repeating pacing sequences

PURPOSE

Ramp and burst pacing as treatment for atrial tachycardia (AT), one known trigger mechanism of atrial fibrillation (AF) are available in permanent pacemakers to reduce the burden of AF. An analysis of the success rate of three consecutive antitachycardia pacing sequences is presented.

METHOD

The AT 500 (Medtronic) pacemaker was implanted in 36 patients (18 female, mean age 77+/-11 years) with pacemaker indication due to tachybrady arrhythmias (n=34), and other indications (n=2). A standardized AT treatment of 8 sequences of ramp followed by six and four sequences burst pacing was programmed on after 1 month of tachycardia detection only. 5 consecutive sinus beats or 3 min with atrial rhythm not classified as AF or AT defined treatment success and was registered at 3 months follow-up.

RESULTS

2979 episodes (mean 85+/-316) in 17 patients (7 female) were treated and analyzed. The overall treatment success increased from 42+/-27% to 44+/-31% and 45+/-31% during the consecutive ATP sequences (ns). The average ATP success of the first ramp pacing sequences was 95+/-10%, the second ramp ATP sequence was successful in 3+/-6%, and the last ramp ATP sequence in 2+/-5%.

CONCLUSION

95% of the 45% treatment success of a standard AT treatment was achieved by the first ramp pacing sequence. Further antitachycardia pacing sequences did not increase the success rate significantly.

Reducing atrial tachycardia and atrial fibrillation episodes with a prevention and treatment device and tailored treatment

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker treatment of known trigger mechanisms for atrial tachyarrhythmias (AT) and atrial fibrillation (AF) has shown reduction in the incidence of AF. A new arrhythmia management device, which included storage of AT/AF (for tailoring treatment) and three prevention algorithms and one for treatment, was examined in order to identify the influence on arrhythmia episodes over a 12-month follow-up (FU) period.

METHODS

Twenty-three consecutive patients with known tachybradyarrhythmias were examined. Seven patients had to be excluded (two outliers, four developed permanent AF, one had no detection algorithm turned on at implantation). The remaining 16 patients showed 2723 episodes (675 treated episodes) for evaluation of the effect on episodes/month/patient (e/m/p), treatment success, duration of episodes, circadian distribution and quality of life.

RESULTS

The AT/AF e/m/p were reduced from 37 +/- 102 e/m/p at 1-month FU to 16 +/- 48 e/m/p at 3-month FU, 15 +/- 48 e/m/p at 6-month FU and 10 +/- 28 e/m/p at 12-month FU (p < 0.05), according to fewer subjective symptoms. Treatment success remained stable during the observation period (29-40%). Only minor changes in the duration of episodes and the distribution of start times were observed.

CONCLUSION

Tailoring treatment by the pacemaker examined with several prevention and treatment algorithms reduces e/m/p and might be a promising supplement in the treatment of selected patients with known AT/AF and bradycardia.

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.

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.

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.

Suppression of atrial tachyarrhythmias by pacing

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) remains difficult in many patients. Accordingly, new therapeutic approaches for AT suppression are evaluated. Atrial pacing may prevent ATs by modifying the electrophysiologic conditions required for sustained ATs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

New pacing algorithms for prevention of AT are aimed at permanent overdrive suppression of arrhythmic activity, reduction of dispersion of atrial refractoriness produced by short-long cycles, more aggressive overdrive pacing after spontaneous sinus conversion to prevent early reinitiation of ATs, and prevention of inadequate rate decay in patients with vagally induced ATs. AT prevention may be achieved by dedicated atrial pacing sites, e.g., pacing at the insertion of Bachmann's bundle or biatrial pacing, which compensates for interatrial conduction delay. Preexciting regions of critical conduction delay, pacing at the triangle of Koch or coronary sinus os, and dual-site right atrial pacing have shown antiarrhythmic effects. Atrial preventive pacing and pharmacologic treatment may work synergistically in the concept of hybrid therapy. To prevent atrial electrical remodeling, early termination of AT seems desirable. This may be achieved by implanted devices that automatically detect ATs and provide atrial antitachycardia pacing for organized ATs. Initial studies showed that regular AT can automatically be terminated in approximately 50% of treated episodes.

CONCLUSION

Pacing for prevention of AT and termination of organized AT episodes may become important steps within the concept of hybrid therapy of AT. However, their clinical efficacy and optimal patient selection remain to be evaluated in prospective, well-designed clinical trials.

Automatic atrial anti-tachy pacing for the termination of spontaneous atrial tachyarrhythmias: clinical experience with a novel dual-chamber pacemaker

Automatic atrial anti-tachy pacing (aATP) is a novel approach to treat paroxysmal/persistent atrial tachyarrhythmias in pacemaker patients. To evaluate the efficacy of aATP in terminating spontaneous atrial flutter/tachycardia episodes (AT), a dual-chamber stimulator with extensive diagnostic capabilities and programmable aATP therapies (AT500(TM), Medtronic Inc.) was implanted in 30 patients with conventional pacing indications. During a mean follow-up time of 5.5 (1-12) months, aATP was delivered for 10494 AT. According to automatic device analysis, 8289 AT were treated with success (success-rate 79.0%). On 468 AT stored with the corresponding atrial EGM, an additional manual analysis was performed. The success-rate based on automatic analysis of these AT episodes (73.1%) was comparable to that found for all treated AT (79.0%), but manual EGM analysis revealed that only 209 of the 468 treated AT episodes (44.7%) were actually terminated by aATP. The aATP success-rate in the slower (cycle length 360-270 ms) AT detection zone was significantly higher (73.8%, 62/84 eps) than in the overlapping, faster (cycle length 270-220 ms) AT zone (38.3%, 147/384 eps, P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

According to manual analysis, 1. aATP was safe and had a success-rate of 44.7%, 2. aATP success-rate was higher for AT in the slower than in the faster detection zone and 3. automatic analysis overestimated the efficacy of aATP.

Implantable dual-chamber cardioverter-defibrillator-pacemaker

The fifth generation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators offer enhanced modes of detection of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, antitachycardia pacing and shocks, multiprogrammability, intracardiac electrogram storage, and all functions of antibradycardia dual-chamber pacing including rate responsiveness and mode switching. There is no consensus on the indications for dual-chamber pacemaker defibrillator systems. This review focuses on the four major options of newer devices that might benefit patients: 1) permanent dual-chamber pacing in ischemic coronary disease patients, 2) detection and management of atrial fibrillation or other atrial tachyarrhythmias, 3) some newer indications for pacing, and 4) the suppression of inappropriate interventions. On the basis of published data, newer indications for the dual-chamber systems, advantages and limitations, and future perspectives are discussed.