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

Role of Cdkn2a in the Emery-Dreifuss Muscular Dystrophy Cardiac Phenotype

The Cdkn2a locus is one of the most studied tumor suppressor loci in the context of several cancer types. However, in the last years, its expression has also been linked to terminal differentiation and the activation of the senescence program in different cellular subtypes. Knock-out (KO) of the entire locus enhances the capability of stem cells to proliferate in some tissues and respond to severe physiological and non-physiological damages in different organs, including the heart. Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy (EDMD) is characterized by severe contractures and muscle loss at the level of skeletal muscles of the elbows, ankles and neck, and by dilated cardiomyopathy. We have recently demonstrated, using the LMNA Δ8-11 murine model of Emery-Dreifuss muscular dystrophy (EDMD), that dystrophic muscle stem cells prematurely express non-lineage-specific genes early on during postnatal growth, leading to rapid exhaustion of the muscle stem cell pool. Knock-out of the Cdkn2a locus in EDMD dystrophic mice partially restores muscle stem cell properties. In the present study, we describe the cardiac phenotype of the LMNA Δ8-11 mouse model and functionally characterize the effects of KO of the Cdkn2a locus on heart functions and life expectancy.

[Sandwiched between the single- and triple-chamber ICD: do we still need the dual-chamber ICD?]

Since it has been shown that adverse events are more frequent with dual-compared to single-chamber ICDs in patients with heart failure, and since the importance of prevention of unnecessary right ventricular pacing and the success of biventricular pacing have been demonstrated in numerous studies, the need for dual-chamber ICD systems has to be reassessed. The development of these systems was accompanied by expectations of improved hemodynamics in patients with bradycardia, a reduced incidence of atrial fibrillation, inappropriate therapies, and bradycardia-associated ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Single-chamber ICDs should be used restrictively and with great caution in patients with (sinus-) bradycardia and heart failure, since a relevant proportion of these patients is at risk of hemodynamic deterioration. Even if the proportion of patients with proven pacemaker syndrome is so small that it does not reach the level of statistical significance in large studies, a small percentage of patients with hemodynamic deterioration due to VVI pacing is still clinically (and economically) intolerable. Since the development of bradycardia or symptomatic chronotropic incompetence (e.g., due to amiodarone) is difficult to predict, it seems reasonable to use the indication for dualchamber systems liberally. However, the systematic prevention of unnecessary right ventricular pacing is crucial if dual-chamber ICDs are used. If advanced tachycardia discrimination algorithms and careful, individual programming are used, dual-chamber ICDs are superior in the prevention of inappropriate therapies. Additionally, dualchannel electrograms allow a more reliable interpretation of stored tachycardia episodes. In summary, dual-chamber systems represent a valuable improvement of ICD therapy but require thorough programming to convey their advantage.

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.

Clinical Experience with Tiered Atrial Therapies and Atrial Arrhythmia Prevention Algorithms in a Dual Chamber Cardioverter Defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

The acceptance of atrial arrhythmia features in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) will depend on their ability to appropriately discriminate atrial tachyarrhythmias/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF). This study tested the effectiveness of an atrial/ventricular ICD with advanced atrial detection and new algorithms designed to prevent atrial arrhythmias.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were implanted with a dual chamber ICD (Model 1900, Guidant Corporation, MN, USA) at 25 US centers. Ten patients received a coronary sinus (CS) lead allowing a defibrillation vector for AT/AF cardioversion. Follow-up was 12.2 months. The addition of new atrial features designed for detection, discrimination, and prevention of AT/AF had no adverse effect upon detection of induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) (mean detection time with new features ON was 2.22 seconds vs 2.19 seconds with features OFF). A total of 100% of the induced and spontaneous ventricular and atrial arrhythmias receiving shock therapy were reviewed as appropriate detection. Atrial shock conversion efficacy for spontaneous and induced AT/AF episodes was 83% and 96%, respectively (144 spontaneous, 162 induced episodes). A 3-month randomized crossover trial of atrial preventative pacing features did not result in adverse effects, but there was no clinical efficacy for prevention of AT/AF.

CONCLUSION

Enhanced atrial detection and discrimination features combined with tiered atrial therapies did not adversely impact the ability of the ICD (Model 1900) to appropriately detect and treat ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

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.

Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with a Dual Defibrillator: Characteristics of Spontaneous and Induced Episodes and Effect of Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia Induction

BACKGROUND

The pattern of FF intervals during atrial fibrillation (AF) has been analyzed in induced and spontaneous AF episodes, after the induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and after atrial shock, in order to suggest practical considerations for AF management in patients implanted with antitachycardia devices.

METHODS

In 13 patients implanted with a dual-chamber defibrillator, FF intervals were analyzed during two separate induced AF episodes, before and after VF induction over AF, as well as during spontaneous AF episodes and after unsuccessful atrial shocks. The following parameters were considered: mean atrial cycle length (CL), atrial CL stability, and standard deviation of the atrial cycle.

RESULTS

The AF pattern had comparable characteristics considering two separate inductions of AF, as well as spontaneous AF episodes. Ventricular tachyarrhythmia induction resulted in a shortening of atrial CL (P < 0.02) and in a less organized AF pattern (P < 0.005). Changes in the FF interval after ineffective shock therapy showed a shortening of AF cycles after shocks with energies far below the defibrillation threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

(a) The AF pattern is reproducible in separate inductions of sustained AF and in spontaneous episodes, (b) dynamic changes involving a shortening of the AF cycle and an evolution to a less homogeneous pattern occur after VF induction, revealing a complex interplay between AF and VF, and (c) FF interval analysis after ineffective shock delivery may allow the relationship between delivered shock energy and effective defibrillation energy to be estimated, thereby providing practical suggestions for step-up protocols in atrial cardioversion.

Comparison of Induced and Spontaneous Atrial Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with a History of Spontaneous Atrial Tachyarrhythmias

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study investigated whether induced episodes could be used to predict the morphology of future spontaneous atrial episodes.

METHODS

Eighty-two patients (64 +/- 12 years; 77% male; CAD in 60%; left ventricular ejection fraction 45 +/- 16%) with a history of atrial tachycardia or atrial fibrillation (AT/AF) were implanted with a dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and followed for 6 months. A total of 224 episodes of induced and spontaneous AT/AF were classified into type I, II, and III according to the method of Israel et al. and then compared based on average cycle length (CL) and atrial amplitude. Episodes were also grouped as "pace-terminable" or "nonpace-terminable" based on the CL definition of Gillis et al.

RESULTS

The analysis of 121 induced episodes (from 80 patients) and 103 spontaneous episodes (from 43 patients) showed that within each arrhythmia type, there were no significant differences in CL or mean amplitude between induced and spontaneous episodes. Additional analysis of patients that had both induced and spontaneous episodes (n = 41) showed 78% had at least one spontaneous episode that matched the induced episode. Fifty-seven percent of spontaneous episodes were considered to be pace-terminable based on CL.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that there is no significant difference between induced and spontaneous episodes of AT/AF of the same type. The majority of patients had at least one spontaneous episode of the same type as the induced episode, showing that induced atrial arrhythmias may be useful in predicting the morphology of future spontaneous episodes and in identifying patients potentially benefiting from atrial antitachycardia pacing.

Optimal Combination of Discriminators for Differentiating Ventricular from Supraventricular Tachycardia by Dual-Chamber Defibrillators

Discriminators for ventricular/supraventricular tachycardia.

INTRODUCTION

Dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) use discriminators to differentiate between supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) and ventricular tachycardias (VT), the accuracy of which may depend on the type and method used. ICDs can combine rate branching of tachyarrhythmias according to their A:V relationship with two SVT-VT discriminators in each rate branch, using ANY (either) or ALL (both) logic. Our goal was to determine the optimal discriminator combination.

METHODS

Stored electrogram data from 596 spontaneous tachyarrhythmias from 203 patients with Photon DR ICDs were analyzed. Arrhythmias are first classified by the relationship of atrial and ventricular rates (rate branches V<A, V=A, and V>A) followed by additional discriminators: morphology and/or sudden onset if V=A; morphology and/or interval stability if V<A. Data were analyzed for all combinations of ANY and ALL logic.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all spontaneous episodes in each analysis. V=A branch: ALL logic produced unacceptably low sensitivity, whereas morphology provided only similar sensitivity but better specificity than ANY logic. A>V branch: ANY logic provided adequate sensitivity. The combination of morphology only in V=A with interval stability or morphology (ANY logic) in V<A, provided the optimal result with sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of 99%, 79%, 87%, and 98%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

SVT-VT combined discriminators strongly influence dual-chamber SVT-VT discrimination performance. In our study, optimal programming is morphology only in the V=A branch and morphology or interval stability (ANY) in the V<A branch. ALL logic should be used with caution due to loss of sensitivity.

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.

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.