Estimating defibrillation efficacy using combined upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation testing

Effect of stress induced by electrical stimulation of the hypothalamus on the electrical stability of the heart in rabbits

The influence of stress on cardiac electrical stability (CES) and chaotic dynamics of the electrical activity of the heart was studied in acute and chronic experiments in rabbits. Stress was caused by 2-3 h daily immobilization of the animals with electrical stimulation of emotiogenic centers of the hypothalamus through implanted electrodes. CES was estimated by the thresholds for ventricular arrhythmia: paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia, repeated ventricular extrasystoles and ventricular fibrillation (VF). The results showed: (i) CES in stressed rabbits was decreased significantly compared with controls; (ii) the level of chaos at the onset of VF in stressed rabbits was increased significantly compared with controls; (iii) heart rate of stressed rabbits was significantly greater than in controls; (iv) changes in CES parameters depended on whether stress was acute or chronic; (v) acute stress promoted transition of spontaneously reversible VF into spontaneously irreversible VF. Thus, stress increased the degree of disorganization of heart electrical activity and also decreased its electrical stability. The experiments indicate that stress is a destabilizing factor influencing the reversibility of heart rate disorders. The probability of such reversibility depends on whether stress is acute or chronic: acute stress is more likely to lead to irreversible spontaneous VF.

The role of electroporation in defibrillation

Electric shock is the only effective therapy against ventricular fibrillation. However, shocks are also known to cause electroporation of cell membranes. We sought to determine the impact of electroporation on ventricular conduction and defibrillation. We optically mapped electrical activity in coronary-perfused rabbit hearts during electric shocks (50 to 500 V). Electroporation was evident from transient depolarization, reduction of action potential amplitude, and upstroke dV/dt. Electroporation was voltage dependent and significantly more pronounced at the endocardium versus the epicardium, with thresholds of 229+/-81 versus 318+/-84 V, respectively (P=0.01, n=10), both being above the defibrillation threshold of 181.3+/-45.8 V. Epicardial electroporation was localized to a small area near the electrode, whereas endocardial electroporation was observed at the bundles and trabeculas throughout the entire endocardium. Higher-resolution imaging revealed that papillary muscles (n=10) were most affected. Electroporation and conduction block thresholds in papillary muscles were 281+/-64 V and 380+/-79 V, respectively. We observed no arrhythmia in association with electroporation. Further, preconditioning with high-energy shocks prevented reinduction of fibrillation by 50-V shocks, which were otherwise proarrhythmic. Endocardial bundles are the most susceptible to electroporation and the resulting conduction impairment. Electroporation is not associated with proarrhythmic effects and is associated with a reduction of vulnerability.

Hemodynamic collapse, geometry, and the rapidly paced upper limit of ventricular vulnerability to fibrillation by T-wave stimulation

There is an upper limit to the vulnerability (ULV) of the ventricles to fibrillation (VF) induced by T-wave stimuli. Across species, disease states, and pharmacological treatments, the ULV is correlated to the defibrillation threshold (DF50). However, one factor known to increase the ULV far above the DF50 is rapid pacing. In this article we test the hypothesis that this increase is owing to an accompanying hemodynamic collapse or geometric change. In 18 dogs, T-wave stimuli were delivered from transvenous defibrillating electrodes. The T-wave shock strength that induced VF 50% of the time (the ULV50) was measured using a 10-step Bayesian up-down protocol. T-wave stimuli were delivered after 15 paced beats at one of several rates: normal (80% of the R-R interval), rapid (the interval just fast enough to cause hemodynamic collapse), or 10 milliseconds greater than rapid (which did not cause hypotension). We measured the geometry of the left ventricle at the moment of T-wave stimulation using linear ultrasound. Rapid pacing significantly increased the ULV50 above the normal rate ULV (507 +/- 62.9 vs 379 +/- 70.6 V, P < .005, n = 18), even in the subset without hemodynamic collapse (505 +/- 84.4 vs 394 +/- 66.5 V, P < .005, n = 6). No significant geometric changes were noted between rapid (19.8 mm) and normal (20.6 mm, n = 6, P < NS) pacing, but QT interval reduction appears to correlate with the ULV50 (QT vs ULV50, r > 0, P < .01). Rapid pacing can dramatically increase the measured ULV50. The most likely cause is a concurrent change in the electrophysiology, eg, QT or APD, of the myocardium. As the only known factor to consistently alter the relationship between ULV and the DF50, rapid pacing offers a unique opportunity for the study of the link between defibrillation and ULV testing.

A four-shock Bayesian up-down estimator of the 80% effective defibrillation dose

INTRODUCTION

New defibrillation techniques are often compared to standard approaches using the defibrillation threshold. However, inference from thresholding data necessitates extrapolation from reactions to relatively ineffective shocks, an error prone procedure requiring large sample sizes for hypothesis testing and large safety margins for defibrillator implantation. In contrast, this article presents a clinically validated statistical model of a minimum error, four-shock defibrillation testing protocol for estimating the 80% effective defibrillation strength for a given patient (ED80).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Bayesian statistical model was constructed assuming that the defibrillation dose-response curve is sigmoidal, and the ED80 is between 150 and 750 V. The model was used to design a minimum predicted error testing protocol and estimates. To prospectively validate the testing protocol and estimates, 170 patients received voltage-programmed biphasic testing. Four fibrillation episodes were induced and terminated in each patient according to the Bayesian up-down protocol. In addition, a validation attempt was made at the estimated ED80 rounded up to the nearest 50 V. In order to estimate the safety margin, in 136 patients, a defibrillation attempt was made at the rounded ED80 + 100 V. Of the 170 attempts at the rounded ED80, 143 (84%) attempts terminated fibrillation. Of the 136 attempts at the rounded ED80 + 100 V, 133 (98%) were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The four-shock Bayesian up-down protocol is the first clinical protocol to accurately predict an ED80 voltage. A 100 V increment above the ED80 provides an adequate safety margin. This simple and accurate method for estimating a highly effective defibrillation dose may be a valuable tool for population-based clinical hypothesis testing, as well as defibrillator implantation.

Immediate reproducibility of upper limit of vulnerability measurements in patients undergoing transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) with monophasic T wave shocks has been proposed as a patient-specific measurement of defibrillation efficacy that results in fewer episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) than measurement of a defibrillation efficacy curve.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We sought to determine the magnitude of variance in ULV in 63 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We measured ULV as the strength at or above which VF is not induced when a stimulus is delivered at 310 msec after an 8-beat ventricular pacing drive at 400 msec. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) was measured in patients with an active can device using a biphasic waveform and the binary search method beginning at 12 J. Sixty-three patients were studied; they had a mean age of 62 +/- 12 years and a mean ejection fraction of 35% +/- 15%. Three quarters of patients had an ischemic cardiomyopathy. Each patient underwent 4.5 +/- 0.8 measurements of ULV. Monophasic ULV correlated poorly with biphasic DFT (R between 0.19 and 0.28, P = 0.04 to 0.17). There was no change in ULV between second to third, third to fourth, and first to last measurement in 22% to 41% of patients. The reliability coefficient was 0.87. A ULV > or = 20 J was found in eight patients. The only predictor of high ULV was a high DFT.

CONCLUSION

Monophasic ULVs do not closely predict biphasic active can DFTs using a standard protocol. High DFTs were predicted by high ULVs. There was little variation in the acute measurement of ULV between trials. These findings have important implications for using ULV measurements to determine changes in DFTs after interventions. The methodology of determining ULV is critical to its use for predicting DFTs and programming ICDs.

The ventricular defibrillation and upper limit of vulnerability dose-response curves

INTRODUCTION

A stimulus delivered in the T wave of a paced cardiac cycle can induce ventricular fibrillation (VF). If the stimulus strength is increased, the probability of inducing VF decreases. This study determines an ideal mathematical model (a dose-response curve) for the relationship between the shock strength and the probability of inducing VF or defibrillating.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillating electrodes were implanted in the right ventricle and superior vena cava in 16 pigs. The electrode in the vena cava was electrically connected to a cutaneous patch. The same electrodes were used for both VF induction and defibrillation. T wave stimuli were given at the peak of the T wave according to a modified up-down protocol (40 V up, 20 V down). When a T wave stimulus induced VF, a defibrillation stimulus was delivered 10 seconds later, also according to the modified up-down protocol. Exponential, logistic, log-dose logistic, piecewise linear and Box-Tiao dose-response curves were fit to the resulting data using the maximum likelihood method. For the defibrillation data, it was found that only the logistic and Box-Tiao curves fit all of the animals (P < 0.05). For VF induction, only the Box-Tiao curve fit all of the animals (P < 0.05). Extrapolating along a dose-response curve that did not fit to a shock strength with a very low probability of inducing VF or a very high probability of defibrillating yielded errors as great as 610 V.

CONCLUSION

The Box-Tiao dose-response curve is the best single choice for fitting VF induction or defibrillation datasets.

Estimating defibrillation efficacy using combined upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation testing

It is frequently necessary, both clinically and in the laboratory, to estimate how strong a stimulus is required to defibrillate. Current techniques for forming such estimates require the repeated induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and subsequent attempts at defibrillation (DF testing). DF testing can be time consuming and in the operating room may increase the patient risks. A novel scheme is presented which combines DF testing with upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing. ULV testing is a relatively safe procedure which yields data well correlated with defibrillation efficacy. A Bayesian statistical model of combined ULV/DF testing is presented which is both powerful and concise. The model is used in two examples to design minimum rms error protocols and estimators for the DF95 (the stimulus strength which defibrillates 95% of the time). A simulation for humans of one example solution shows that a single VF episode of combined ULV/DF testing (rms error = 23% of the mean DF95) is better than two VF episodes with DF testing alone (25%). The simulation results for a second example are directly compared with laboratory results from six pigs, showing a less than 1.0% average difference between the simulated and measured rms errors.