Single capacitive discharge utilizing an auxiliary shock in the coronary venous system reduces the defibrillation threshold

Extended charge banking model of dual path shocks for implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Background

Single path defibrillation shock methods have been improved through the use of the Charge Banking Model of defibrillation, which predicts the response of the heart to shocks as a simple resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit. While dual path defibrillation configurations have significantly reduced defibrillation thresholds, improvements to dual path defibrillation techniques have been limited to experimental observations without a practical model to aid in improving dual path defibrillation techniques.

Methods

The Charge Banking Model has been extended into a new Extended Charge Banking Model of defibrillation that represents small sections of the heart as separate RC circuits, uses a weighting factor based on published defibrillation shock field gradient measures, and implements a critical mass criteria to predict the relative efficacy of single and dual path defibrillation shocks.

Results

The new model reproduced the results from several published experimental protocols that demonstrated the relative efficacy of dual path defibrillation shocks. The model predicts that time between phases or pulses of dual path defibrillation shock configurations should be minimized to maximize shock efficacy.

Discussion

Through this approach the Extended Charge Banking Model predictions may be used to improve dual path and multi-pulse defibrillation techniques, which have been shown experimentally to lower defibrillation thresholds substantially. The new model may be a useful tool to help in further improving dual path and multiple pulse defibrillation techniques by predicting optimal pulse durations and shock timing parameters.

Examination of a middle cardiac vein defibrillation coil as stand-alone anode, auxiliary anode, and bystander electrode in a transvenous defibrillation circuit

In porcine studies anodes in the middle cardiac vein compare favorably with those in the RV. It has not been demonstrated whether the RV and middle cardiac vein or the middle cardiac vein alone anodes are superior when shocking to a conventional SVC and active housing cathode nor whether a bystander middle cardiac vein electrode exerts a passive electrode affect. Twelve pigs were anesthetized and had an active housing implanted in the left pectoral region and defibrillation coils placed at the RV apex and in the SVC. A custom-made defibrillation coil (Ela Medical) was advanced into the middle cardiac vein through a 9 Fr transvenous catheter. The DFT for three anodes (RV; RV and middle cardiac vein; middle cardiac vein) to the SVC and active housing was then assessed by a three reversal binary search, the order of testing was randomized. In seven animals DFT was assessed in the same way for the configuration of RV to SVC and active housing twice more, with and without a bystander middle cardiac vein coil electrode in place. The results were middle cardiac vein 7.5 +/- 1.7 J, RV and middle cardiac vein 7.3 +/- 1.7 J reduced DFT significantly compared to RV 13.8 +/- 4.2 J (both P < 0.000). There was no significant difference between the middle cardiac vein and the middle cardiac vein and RV (P = 0.67, 95% CI for difference -0.64-0.96). The DFT of RV to SVC and the active housing was the same with (13.2 +/- 4.0) and without (13.7 +/- 4.2) the middle cardiac vein bystander coil in place (P = 0.177, 95% CI for difference -0.33-1.33 J). Shocking to a SVC and active housing cathode, middle cardiac vein, and RV and middle cardiac vein anodes are equally effective in lowering DFT compared to the RV. The middle cardiac vein coil electrode does not exert a passive electrode affect on the RV to the SVC and active housing defibrillation.

Effect of Rapid Biphasic Shock Subpulse Switching on Ventricular Defibrillation Thresholds

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to demonstrate that significant reductions in defibrillation threshold (DFT) can be achieved by rapidly switching defibrillation pulses within an overall biphasic envelope between multiple endovascular electrode sets.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation electrodes were implanted in four locations in nine anesthetized swine (41.7 +/- 8.7 kg). Electrodes were implanted into the right ventricular apex (RV), the superior vena cava (SVC), over the left pectoral region as a "hot can" (Can), and within the middle cardiac vein on the posterior left ventricular (LV) surface. The 50% DFT (level for which 50% of delivered shocks successfully defibrillated) for control shocks (7-ms first phase, 0.5-ms interpulse period, 4-ms second phase, RV- --> SVC+ + Can+) were determined to have energy of 20.5 +/- 5.5 J (mean +/- SD). Mean 50% DFTs were also determined for waveforms that split each phase of the same overall biphasic waveform between various electrode sets. Each phase was divided into 2, 3, 4, or 6 subpulses, the defibrillation shock was sequentially delivered to multiple electrode sets, and DFTs were determined (11.9 +/- 4.8 J, 11.7 +/- 2.9 J, 17.9 +/- 8.7 J, 16.7 +/- 6.1 J, respectively). DFT energy was statistically lower than the control (Wilcoxon sign rank test; P < 0.05) when each phase was divided into 2 or 3 subpulses.

CONCLUSION

Rapid shock switching within an overall biphasic waveform between electrode sets including an electrode in the middle cardiac vein potentially can lower DFT energy by 40% or more.