An approximate Bayesian up-down method for estimating a percentage point on a dose-response curve

Esophageal electric fields are predictive of atrial defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia characterized by disorganized cardiac electrical activity. Defibrillation electrode placement has been shown to affect the amount of energy and number of shocks required to defibrillate. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between esophageal electric fields (EEFs) and atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) to determine the feasibility of using EEFs during a low-strength shock to predict patient-specific defibrillation electrode placements.

METHODS

AF was induced and defibrillated according to a Bayesian four-shock protocol for 12-electrode placements in six pigs. EEFs were measured during each of the four shocks of the protocol and during a 1-J shock for each electrode placement. Squared EEFs (EEF(2) s) during all shocks were compared to the ADFTs using a linear regression.

RESULTS

There was a negative relationship between EEF(2) s during the 1-J shocks and ADFTs, with median R(2) values of 0.863 and 0.840 for anterior-anterior (AA) and anterior-posterior (AP) electrode placements, respectively. There was a strong, positive relationship between applied energy and EEF(2) s, with median R(2) values of at least 0.866 for all animals. The placement with the highest EEF(2) resulted in the lowest ADFT for both AA and AP placements in four of six pigs. In the other two animals, this held for one electrode set but not both.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a strong negative relationship between EEF(2) s during 1-J shocks and ADFTs for both AA and AP electrode placements. These preliminary results suggest that using EEF(2) s to predict patient-specific electrode placements is feasible.

The dilemma of ICD implant testing

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been induced at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation. Despite its risks, the value was self-evident for early ICDs: failure of defibrillation was common, recipients had a high risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF, and the only therapy for rapid VT or VF was a shock. Today, failure of defibrillation is rare, the risk of VT/VF is lower in some recipients, antitachycardia pacing is applied for fast VT, and vulnerability testing permits assessment of defibrillation efficacy without inducing VF in most patients. This review reappraises ICD implant testing. At implant, defibrillation success is influenced by both predictable and unpredictable factors, including those related to the patient, ICD system, drugs, and complications. For left pectoral implants of high-output ICDs, the probability of passing a 10 J safety margin is approximately 95%, the probability that a maximum output shock will defibrillate is approximately 99%, and the incidence of system revision based on testing is < or = 5%. Bayes' Theorem predicts that implant testing identifies < or = 50% of patients at high risk for unsuccessful defibrillation. Most patients who fail implant criteria have false negative tests and may undergo unnecessary revision of their ICD systems. The first-shock success rate for spontaneous VT/VF ranges from 83% to 93%, lower than that for induced VF. Thus, shocks for spontaneous VT/VF fail for reasons that are not evaluated at implant. Whether system revision based on implant testing improves this success rate is unknown. The risks of implant testing include those related to VF and those related to shocks alone. The former may be due to circulatory arrest alone or the combination of circulatory arrest and shocks. Vulnerability testing reduces risks related to VF, but not those related to shocks. Mortality from implant testing probably is 0.1-0.2%. Overall, VF should be induced to assess sensing in approximately 5% of ICD recipients. Defibrillation or vulnerability testing is indicated in 20-40% of recipients who can be identified as having a higher-than-usual probability of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin based on patient-specific factors. However, implant testing is too risky in approximately 5% of recipients and may not be worth the risks in 10-30%. In 25-50% of ICD recipients, testing cannot be identified as either critical or contraindicated.

Esophageal electric fields are correlated to atrial defibrillation thresholds: towards patient-specific optimization of external atrial defibrillation

Studies have investigated the effect of defibrillator paddle position on the efficacy of external electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation, without agreeing upon an optimal placement. We wish to investigate using esophageal electric fields (EEFs) to predict atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) on a patient-specific basis. We propose to (1) investigate the relationship between EEFs and ADFTs using computer simulations, (2) develop an esophageal probe that can accurately measure three-dimensional electric fields and (3) investigate the relationship between EEFs and ADFTs values in-vivo. Sixteen anterior-anterior and eleven anterior-posterior placements were simulated yielding a negative relationship between EEFs and ADFTs (R2=0.91 and 0.93, respectively). An esophageal probe was developed that accurately measures EEFs. Animal studies showed a negative relationship between EEFs and ADFTs. This data suggests using EEFs to predict ADFTs on a patient-specific basis is plausible.

The defibrillation efficacy of high frequency alternating current sinusoidal waveforms in guinea pigs

There have been few basic studies of alternating current (AC) defibrillation, despite growing interest in the ability of AC to terminate or alter ongoing fibrillation. Based on fibrillation threshold testing, it has been suggested that cardiac tissue is most sensitive to long duration, low strength AC stimulation at around 50 Hz. This has not been directly tested for defibrillation. Two subcutaneous electrodes were placed 40 mm apart on opposing aspects of the guinea pig thorax. Seven seconds were allowed to elapse between fibrillation initiation and defibrillation. The tested waveforms were at 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 Hz with 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32-cycles. The efficacy of every waveform was measured using a single stimulus in a large population of animals. Forty-one guinea pigs were used in the fixed energy group. Thirty-three guinea pigs were used in the fixed amplitude group with additional 1-cycle waveforms tested. The 200-Hz and the 2-cycle waveforms were significantly more efficacious than those at other frequencies (P < 0.02) and other durations (P < 0.001). The 50-Hz waveforms were the least successful. Amplitude, not duration or energy, was the determinate of efficacy for 2-cycle (the most efficacious) waveforms. Unlike low strength stimulation, defibrillation strength stimuli are most effective with high frequency (200 Hz) pulses (2 cycles).