Developments for future implantable cardioverters and defibrillators

[Clinical experience with combined automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker systems]

Patients who need an implantable Cardioverter/Defibrillator (ICD) often require a cardiac pacemaker (PM) to treat underlying symptomatic bradycardia. In some cases the simultaneous therapy has caused interactions between the systems with defaults on both sides.Four patients with an ICD of the newer generation received a single or dual chamber pacemaker system. In all cases bipolar pacemaker electrodes were used. They were positioned together with the ICD-electrode in the right ventricular apex without regard to the distance between them. In order to exclude possible interference between systems special tests were performed during the operative procedure with respect to the system implanted first. In a follow-up period of 4-14 months all patients had episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation that were terminated successfully. Two patients with a bradycardia related arrhythmia after shock delivery showed a correct pacemaker stimulation. Subsequent to the start of pacemaker therapy improvement in stress capacity could be documented, partly on the basis of echocardiography.Combined ICD and PM therapy can thus be generally regarded as compatible. For AV-sequential pacing at least three electrodes and two aggregates are necessary. The development of an ICD with the option for a dual-chamber stimulation would simplify the therapy, along with a greater acceptance on part of the patients.

The value of DDD pacing in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Although the beneficial effects of DDD pacing are well known, currently available ICDs provide only fixed rate ventricular antibradycardia pacing. In a consecutive series of 139 patients with ICDs, we have analyzed the need for antibradycardia pacing and the indications for DDD pacing. We also report our initial experience with the Defender 9001 (ELA Medical, France) DDD-ICD. Out of 139 patients, 25 (18%) were in need of antibradycardia pacing. Ten patients already had a pacemaker at the time of ICD implantation and ten other patients had a conventional pacemaker indication at that time. Five patients became pacemaker dependent during a follow-up of 20 +/- 8 months. The disorders necessitating pacemaker therapy were high degree AV conduction disturbances in 72%, sick sinus syndrome in 12%, and AF with a slow ventricular response in 16% of patients. Based upon current indications, DDD pacing was indicated in 20 (80%) of 25 patients. The Defender 9001 DDD-ICD (ELA Medical) was used in two patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and pacemaker syndrome with VVI pacing. Cardiac output during DDD pacing increased by 36% in one patient with an increase in VO2 max during exercise of 29%. The other patient showed an increase in cardiac output of 50% with DDD pacing, and, while unable to exercise with VVI pacing, had a VO2max of 24 mL/kg per minute during DDD pacing. Up to 18% of our ICD patients are in need of antibradycardia pacing. Of these pacemaker dependent patients, 80% have an indication for DDD pacing. Our first clinical experience with a DDD-ICD confirms the hemodynamic benefit of AV synchronous pacing in ICD patients with pacemaker syndrome.

Combined third-generation implantable cardioverter defibrillator with permanent unipolar pacemakers: preliminary observations

As implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are strictly contraindicated in the presence of unipolar pacemakers, currently available options in patients having such chronic pacing systems include: abandoning the implanted pacemaker and selecting an ICD with ventricular demand (VVI) pacing; or replacing the chronic (dual chamber) unipolar pacing system with a dedicated bipolar version prior to ICD implantation. In three patients with previously implanted unipolar pacemakers, we challenged the premise that all ICD systems are incompatible by combining with a third-generation transvenous ICD system (Medtronic 7217B PCD) incorporating true bipolar sensing, a self-limiting auto-adjusting sensitivity, and a tolerant VF detection algorithm. The potential for pacemaker-ICD interaction was minimized by separating the tip of the ICDs transvenous right ventricular pace/sense-defibrillation coil lead from that of the chronic pacemaker lead by > or = 2-3 cm, and by performing "worst case" intraoperative testing. Although ICD double-counting of the dual chamber pacemaker's atrial and ventricular pacing spikes could be provoked at extreme high output settings, it did not occur at clinically appropriate settings. More importantly, continuous high output asynchronous pacing during ventricular fibrillation (VF) did not interfere with ICD detection. During a mean follow-up period of 18 months, one patient has had VF appropriately terminated by the ICD. In the remaining two patients, proper VF detection and ICD function was reassessed at 3 months and/or at 1 year during noninvasive testing.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary findings demonstrate that this transvenous ICD system's VF sensing and detection features combined with careful implant technique, rigorous "worst case" testing for possible pacemaker-ICD interaction with regular follow-up, may permit implantation of this ICD system in patients with chronic unipolar pacing systems. Further studies are needed to validate the long-term clinical safety of this promising revised approach to a currently contraindicated device combination.

Endocardial pacing, cardioversion and defibrillation using a braided endocardial lead system

The clinical efficacy and safety of a second-generation braided endocardial pacing, cardioversion and defibrillation lead system was evaluated in 25 patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF). The lead system consisted of two 8Fr active fixation endocardial leads each with pacing and defibrillation electrodes and a thoracic patch electrode. Monophasic and biphasic shocks were delivered using a triple-electrode configuration with a right ventricular common cathode and right atrial and thoracic patch anodes. VT and VF were electrically induced. Rapid VT (rate > or = 180 beats/min) and VF were initially terminated by 20 J (550 V) shocks and slow VT (rate < 180 beats/min) by 10 J (400 V) shocks. One hundred fourteen episodes (rapid VT/VF 73, slow VT 41) were treated with 128 shocks (monophasic 80, biphasic 48). Mean ventricular pacing threshold was 0.7 +/- 0.5 ms before and 0.9 +/- 0.5 ms after endocardial shock delivery (p > 0.2). Mean ventricular electrogram amplitude in sinus rhythm was 11.9 +/- 5.7 mV before and 11.4 +/- 5.1 mV after shock delivery (p > 0.2). Simultaneous monophasic endocardial shocks terminated 53% of VF episodes at < or = 20 J. Simultaneous biphasic shocks terminated 94% of all VF episodes at < or = 20 J (p < 0.03). Efficacy of > or = 10 J shocks for rapid VT/VF was greater for biphasic (92%) versus monophasic (74%) shocks (p < 0.05) at lower average shock energy (15 +/- 7 J vs 19 +/- 7 J, respectively, p < 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Long-term multicenter experience with a second-generation implantable pacemaker-defibrillator in patients with malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The Guardian Multicenter Investigators Group

A second-generation implantable pacemaker-cardioverter-defibrillator was evaluated in 200 patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation or prior cardiac arrest. The device permits demand ventricular pacing for bradyarrhythmias and for long QT interval or tachycardia suppression, uses programmable (3 to 30 J) energy shocks for conversion of ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation and is used with conventional pacing and defibrillation leads. Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation recognition is based on the ventricular electrogram rate and requires reconfirmation before shock delivery. Two hundred patients (mean age 62 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36%) were enrolled and followed up for 0 to 23 months (mean 12). Epicardial lead system implantation was performed with use of an anterolateral thoracotomy (38%), median sternotomy (26%) and subxiphoid (20%) or subcostal (16%) approach. Perioperative mortality rate was 5.5% (all nonarrhythmic deaths). Implant defibrillation threshold ranged from 3 to 30 J (mean 15), with initial programmed shock energy ranging from 3 to 30 J (mean 22). Ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation sensing threshold ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 mV (median 1) and the tachycardia detection interval from 288 to 416 ms (median 320). Reprogramming of implant variables was necessary for reliable electrographic sensing (54 patients), programmed shock therapy (61 patients) and tachycardia detection rate (63 patients). Device activation for potential shock delivery occurred in 111 patients (55.5%) with actual shock delivery after ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation reconfirmation in 66 patients (33%). During follow-up study, there was a 1% arrhythmia mortality rate, 6.5% cardiac mortality rate and 10.5% total mortality rate. This study demonstrates that the programmable implantable pacemaker-cardioverter-defibrillator is effective in preventing arrhythmic death, yet reduces patient exposure to repeated shock therapy. Reprogramming is usually necessary during follow-up for optimal function.

Paced beats following single nonsensed complexes in a "codependent" cardioverter defibrillator and bradycardia pacing system: potential for ventricular tachycardia induction

Patients with implantable defibrillators often require bradycardia pacemakers. Adverse interactions between separate defibrillator and bradycardia pacing units have occurred, including failure to detect ventricular fibrillation due to persistent bradycardia pacing during the arrhythmia. A device with combined bradycardia pacing and antitachycardia therapy capability may obviate adverse device interactions. We describe a previously unrecognized phenomenon that may occur in a combined device when the algorithms for sensing bradycardia and tachycardia are "codependent"; that is, the circuitry for brady- and tachyarrhythmia detection relies on the same automatic gain sense amplifier. Three of 37 patients in whom the device was implanted had ventricular tachycardia initiated when bradycardia pacing stimuli were delivered by the device after probable nonsensed sinus beats. In each case, nonsensed beats appeared to have a markedly diminished amplitude, occurred after ventricular premature depolarizations that produced large amplitude electrograms, and had an electrogram morphology that matched that of sinus rhythm. In each case, the bradycardia pacing interval was at least 1,200 msec (range 1,200 to 1,714 msec). In two of the three patients, large amplitude ventricular premature depolarizations or nonsustained ventricular tachycardia caused an adjustment of the gain control that potentiated the failure to sense the subsequent lower amplitude signal. In all three patients, the induced arrhythmia was rapidly terminated by pacing or cardioversion. Decreasing the bradycardia pacing interval by 110-514 msec has prevented recurrence during short-term follow-up. Our findings suggest that codependent bradycardia and antitachycardia devices may have their own unique potential difficulties in adapting to rapid changes in rate and signal amplitude.

Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation without thoracotomy using an endocardial and submuscular patch system

The automatic cardioverter-defibrillator lead system is implanted by a thoracotomy procedure that may result in atelectasis, pleural effusion, cardiac tamponade and lengthy convalescence. A new defibrillator lead system that allows selection of different defibrillating current pathways is implanted without a thoracotomy. Ten patients requiring a cardioverter-defibrillator for recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia (five patients) or aborted sudden cardiac death (five patients) were evaluated for implantation of this lead system. A lead configuration with a bidirectional defibrillating current pathway was implanted in nine patients. The defibrillation threshold with this lead configuration was 15 J in five patients, 20 J in three and 30 to 35 J in one patient. In the remaining patient the lead system had a 40 J defibrillation threshold and was not implanted. No perioperative complications occurred. Induced ventricular fibrillation was successfully terminated at the predischarge and intermediate follow-up (8 to 12 weeks) electrophysiologic studies. During the follow-up period, there were three deaths (one sudden, two due to heart failure) and two lead system failures (oversensing with inappropriate shocks in one patient and patch lead fracture in another). Implantation of the cardioverter-defibrillator lead system by a nonthoracotomy approach is feasible, has no significant perioperative complications and is well tolerated by patients. Effective defibrillation was demonstrated immediately as well as at intermediate follow-up study. The occurrence of patch lead fracture and oversensing requires improvement in the present (nonthoracotomy) lead system technology.

Current status of antitachycardia devices

With the limitations of currently available modalities for treating clinically important tachycardias, the role of implanted antitachycardia devices will continue to expand. The challenge of the future will not only involve continued technological advances but the socioeconomic impact of this efficacious but expensive mode of therapy in an era of increasing financial restraints. Further studies to definitively prove the efficacy of more widespread use of antitachycardia device therapy will be needed.

An effective and adaptable transvenous defibrillation system using the coronary sinus in humans

With use of a coronary sinus catheter electrode, a right ventricular catheter electrode and a chest wall patch electrode system, defibrillation threshold voltage, current and energy were measured with four distinct transvenous defibrillation techniques delivered in random sequence in each of 12 survivors of cardiac arrest immediately before implantation of a standard epicardial patch defibrillation system. The four transvenous defibrillation techniques were 1) single pathway monophasic pulsing, 2) single pathway biphasic pulsing, 3) dual pathway sequential pulsing, and 4) dual pathway simultaneous pulsing. A transvenous defibrillation method was considered to be potentially useful only if the defibrillation threshold was less than or equal to 500 V (less than or equal to 15 J delivered energy). The 500 V value would allow a 2:1 defibrillation safety margin for a device with a maximal output of 30 J. No single transvenous pulsing technique was uniformly superior in efficacy. However, by choosing the best pulsing technique for each patient, it was possible to obtain an average defibrillation threshold of 410 +/- 135 V leading edge voltage, 7.2 +/- 2.5 A leading edge current and 11.3 +/- 7.4 J delivered energy for the group of 12 patients. With the ability to vary defibrillation technique, transvenous antiarrhythmic device implantation would have been possible in 10 (83%) of the 12 patients at or below a 15 J defibrillation threshold cutoff point. In contrast, if only one transvenous defibrillation method had been used, as few as 5 and at most 8 of the 12 patients would have been candidates for a transvenous defibrillation system given a 15 J defibrillation threshold cutoff point for insertion.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical interactions between pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Concomitant use of a pacemaker and an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) is common. Seventeen percent of patients receiving an AICD at The Johns Hopkins Hospital also had a permanent pacemaker implanted before (16 patients), at the same time as (2 patients) or after (12 patients) AICD implantation. Four types of interactions were noted: 1) transient failure to sense or capture immediately after AICD discharge (seven patients); 2) oversensing of the pacemaker stimulus by the AICD, leading to double counting (one patient); 3) AICD failure to sense ventricular fibrillation resulting from pacemaker stimulus oversensing (three patients, one only at high asynchronous output); and 4) pacemaker reprogramming caused by AICD discharge (three patients). No clinical sequelae of these interactions were noted during follow-up study. Thus, potentially adverse clinical interactions are common and routine screening is recommended. With proper attention to lead placements and programming of the devices, clinical consequences of these interactions can be avoided.

Transvenous defibrillation in humans via the coronary sinus

A consistently effective transvenous defibrillation system for use in automatic defibrillators could significantly alter the approach to patients at risk of sudden death. Transvenous defibrillation systems that use a right ventricular (RV) electrode only or an RV electrode in combination with a chest patch are relatively inefficient at applying current to the posterolateral left ventricle. An RV electrode combined with a coronary sinus (CS) electrode, however, may improve current distribution to the posterolateral left ventricle. The purpose of this investigation, therefore, was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a specially designed transvenous lead system with a CS electrode capable of current delivery to this relatively inaccessible region of the heart. In 20 survivors of cardiac arrest, we determined defibrillation efficacy immediately before defibrillator surgery for monophasic pulses delivered between an RV catheter electrode and a CS catheter electrode system and compared these findings with an RV catheter electrode-thoracic patch defibrillation system. Subsequently, we referenced the efficacy of both transvenous systems to an epicardial patch electrode system at the time of defibrillator implantation. The mean delivered-energy defibrillation threshold for the CS-RV electrode system was 17.5 +/- 7.9 J, which was substantially lower than the RV electrode-thoracic patch system (25.6 +/- 11.4 J, p = 0.0016 [46% more]). Defibrillation threshold voltage was 529 +/- 123 V for the CS-RV electrode system and 647 +/- 164 V (22% more) for the RV electrode-thoracic patch system (p = 0.0013).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Clinical efficacy of dual electrode systems for endocardial cardioversion of ventricular tachycardia: a prospective randomized crossover trial

In order to eliminate the need for epicardial electrodes, two large transvenous catheter electrodes or one catheter and one extrathoracic patch electrode have been proposed as alternative electrode configurations for defibrillation and ventricular tachycardia cardioversion by implantable cardioverter/defibrillators. We compared the efficacy and safety of endocardial shocks delivered through these two electrode systems in man in a prospective randomized crossover study. Twelve patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia and heart disease undergoing electrophysiologic study were evaluated. A transvenous tripolar cardioversion electrode catheter with a large distal defibrillation electrode (surface area, 400 mm2) and proximal defibrillation electrode (surface area, 800 mm2) was positioned in the right ventricular apex with a cutaneous patch electrode placed on the cardiac apex. Sustained ventricular tachycardia was induced at electrophysiologic study. Shocks were delivered using two catheter electrodes only (right ventricular cathode and right atrial anode = method I), and one catheter electrode and cutaneous patch (right ventricular cathode and cutaneous apical patch anode = method II). Synchronized monophasic shocks were delivered using three preselected protocols based on ventricular tachycardia cycle length and morphology. Initial shock energies were 25 joules for polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation, 15 joules for monomorphic rapid ventricular tachycardia (cycle length less than or equal to 300 msec), and 5 joules for monomorphic slow ventricular tachycardia (cycle length greater than 300 msec). Ventricular tachycardia was reinduced and shock energies titrated until cardioversion threshold was obtained. Identical ventricular tachycardia episodes were treated with both methods at each energy level.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Devices for tachycardia termination

Remarkable advances have been made over the last 2 decades in the management of tachyarrhythmias. Simultaneous developments have provided new drugs, new surgical and catheter ablation techniques and new implantable devices. Initial enthusiasm with antitachycardia pacemakers was tempered by the realization of dangers and difficulties associated with their use, particularly in the treatment of ventricular tachycardia. However, progress has been made along several lines: (1) improvements in the automatic detection of target tachyarrhythmias; (2) the development of termination algorithms that are more adaptable to spontaneous changes in the tachycardia termination zone; (3) improvements in the safety of termination algorithms; (4) development of automatic cardioversion or defibrillation for the management of malignant ventricular arrhythmias; and (5) incorporation of multiple pacing facilities in single implantable units.

Combined automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and pacemaker systems: implantation techniques and follow-up

The automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) effectively prevents death due to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Some patients who need an AICD also require cardiac pacing to treat symptomatic bradycardia, bradycardia after defibrillation, or to provide a rate floor to reduce the frequency of bradycardia-related ventricular arrhythmias. Some patients also can benefit from antitachycardia pacing. A mapping technique to implant a pacemaker and AICD sensing leads is presented. For patients with a pacemaker who later need an AICD, the left ventricle is mapped with use of the AICD rate-sensing electrodes to identify a site at which the minimal pacemaker stimulus and maximal ventricular electrogram amplitudes are recorded. An external cardioverter-defibrillator that has amplifiers similar to those in the AICD is used to monitor the rate-sensing electrogram. For patients with an implanted AICD, pacemaker implantation is undertaken by mapping the right ventricle with the pacemaker lead while the AICD is in standby mode; the AICD beep monitor is then used to determine a site where pacemaker stimulus detection by the AICD does not occur. Eight patients underwent implantation of a combined AICD-pacemaker system (four ventricular antitachycardia pacemakers, three ventricular demand pacemakers and one atrial demand pacemaker). Neither inhibition of AICD arrhythmia detection nor double counting occurred. Satisfactory AICD-pacemaker function was shown in all patients postoperatively, and no pacemaker malfunction was observed. Thus, with currently available technology, a combined AICD-pacemaker system can be implanted with satisfactory function of both devices and without adverse device-device interactions.

Sequential transvenous pacing and shock therapy for termination of sustained ventricular tachycardia

Rapid ventricular pacing and transvenous shocks are both effective in terminating sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) only in selected patients. We prospectively examined efficacy and safety of an algorithm for VT termination combining rapid ventricular pacing with low and moderate energy transvenous shocks in patients with sustained VT. Sixty-three VT episodes in 23 patients, mean age 64 +/- 12 years, were treated with the algorithm. Bursts of rapid ventricular pacing and transvenous shocks were delivered with a Medtronic 6880 catheter positioned in the right ventricular apex. VT episodes with cycle lengths greater than 270 msec (group A) were treated with sequential therapy with rapid ventricular pacing (90%, 80%, and 70% of VT cycle length), low energy transvenous shocks (0.5 to 2.7 J), and moderate energy (2.7 to 10 J) transvenous shocks. Rapid VT episodes with cycle lengths less than 270 msec (group B) were treated with moderate energy transvenous shocks directly. Forty-one of 48 (85%) VT episodes in group A and 6 of 15 (40%) VT episodes in group B were successfully terminated by this algorithm. There was no difference in clinical or arrhythmia characteristics between responders and nonresponders in either group A or group B to the algorithm. VT acceleration was observed in 12% of episodes in group A and in 47% of episodes in group B. We conclude that an algorithm combining rapid ventricular pacing with low and moderate energy transvenous shocks is effective for VT termination in episodes with a cycle length greater than 270 msec and can reduce the need for transthoracic cardioversion.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Prospective evaluation of a sequential pacing and high-energy bidirectional shock algorithm for transvenous cardioversion in patients with ventricular tachycardia

Rapid ventricular pacing alone or in combination with low- or intermediate-energy shocks has limited efficacy in cardioverting rapid ventricular tachycardia (VT) when delivered through two transvenous catheter electrodes. This prospective study determined the efficacy and safety of an algorithm that used a sequence of rapid ventricular pacing (RVP) and intermediate-energy (5 and 15 J) and high-energy (25J) single, bidirectional shocks delivered by two transvenous catheter electrodes in conjunction with a cutaneous electrode in patients with sustained VT. The bidirectional shock was simultaneously delivered over two electrical vectors via a common right ventricular apical cathode and tow anodes consisting of the superior vena caval catheter electrode and cutaneous patch. The electrical therapy delivered was determined by the cycle length of VT. Slow VT (cycle length greater than 300 msec) was sequentially treated by RVP followed by incremental bidirectional shocks of 5, 15, and 25 J. Rapid VT (cycle length less than 300 msec) was treated with no incremental bidirectional shocks of 15 and 25 J. VT was reinduced to determine reproducibility of the algorithm for episodes that were successfully terminated. For patients in whom the primary algorithm failed, a second algorithm was used that excluded 5 and 15 J shocks and went directly to a 25 J shock. VT was reinduced twice and the secondary algorithm was evaluated. Thus, reproducibility of termination of VT with the primary and secondary algorithm was examined. Fifty episodes of slow VT and 40 episodes of rapid VT were induced in 22 patients (mean left ventricular ejection fraction 31 +/- 14%). Six patients had rapid VT, nine patients had slow VT, and seven patients had both.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)