Effective defibrillation in pigs using interleaved and common phase sequential biphasic shocks

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.

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.

Transvenous biventricular defibrillation halves energy requirements in patients

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation thresholds (DFT) with standard implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads in the right ventricle (RV) may be determined by weak shock field intensity in the myocardium of the left ventricle (LV). Adding a shocking electrode in a coronary vein on the middle of the LV free wall, thereby establishing biventricular defibrillation, substantially reduced defibrillation requirements in animals. We investigated the feasibility of this approach in 24 patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator using a prototype over-the-wire temporary LV defibrillation lead.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The LV lead was inserted through the coronary sinus, using a guide catheter and guidewire, into a posterior or lateral coronary vein whose location was determined by retrograde venography. Paired DFT testing compared a standard system (RV to superior vena cava plus can emulator [SVC+Can], 60% tilt biphasic shock) to a system including the LV lead. The biventricular system was tested with a dual-shock waveform (20% tilt monophasic shock from LV-->SVC+Can, then 60% tilt biphasic shock from RV-->SVC+Can). Twenty patients completed DFT testing. Venography and LV lead insertion time was 46+/-40 minutes. The biventricular system reduced mean DFT by 45% (8.9+/-1.1 J versus 4.9+/-0.5 J, P<0.001). Twelve patients (60%) had a standard system DFT >/=8 J, and the biventricular system gave a lower DFT in all patients. There were no adverse events related to the use of the LV lead, which was removed after testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal defibrillation using a transvenously inserted LV lead is feasible, produces significantly lower DFTs, and seems safe under the conditions tested. Biventricular defibrillation may be a useful option for reducing DFTs or could be added to an LV pacing lead for heart failure.

Transvenous biventricular defibrillation

The recent success of biventricular pacing with transvenously implantable left ventricular leads suggests that left ventricular leads may be useful for other modes of therapy. Animal studies showed small leads inserted into a left ventricular vein dramatically reduced defibrillation strength requirements. This article describes a human investigation of the feasibility of biventricular defibrillation. Fifty-one patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation were enrolled. After insertion of a standard ICD lead, a prototype over-the-wire left ventricular defibrillation lead was inserted through the coronary sinus and into a vein on the left ventricle. Lead insertion was guided by retrograde venography. The left ventricular lead's location was randomized to the anterior or posterior vein. Randomized, paired defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed to compare a standard ICD shock configuration (Control: right ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+) to 1 of 3 biventricular shock configurations. In the anterior vein, the left ventricular lead was tested with either a single biphasic shock from right ventricle + left ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+ or a dual biphasic shock. In the posterior vein, the left ventricular lead was tested with a dual biphasic shock. Dual shocks consisted of a 40% tilt biphasic shock from right ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+ followed by another 40% tilt biphasic shock from left ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+, delivered from a single 225 microF capacitance. Left ventricular lead positioning was successful in 41 of 46 patients (89%). Mean left ventricular lead insertion time was 17 +/- 17 minutes and 13 +/- 15 minutes for anterior and posterior locations, respectively. Mean DFTs were not statistically lower for the left ventricular shock configurations, but retrospective analysis showed a well-defined region of the posterolateral left ventricle where consistent DFT reduction was achieved with dual shocks (14.0 +/- 2.7 J vs 7.8 +/- 0.9 J; n = 5; p = 0.04). There were no adverse events requiring intervention due to the use of the left ventricular lead. Biventricular defibrillation is feasible and safe under the conditions used in this study. Additional studies are needed to verify whether dual shocks with posterolateral left ventricular lead positions consistently reduce DFTs.

Marked reduction of ventricular defibrillation threshold by application of an auxiliary shock to a catheter electrode in the left posterior coronary vein of dogs

INTRODUCTION

For endocardial shocks near the defibrillation threshold (DFT), postshock activity originates from the lateral left ventricular apex, where the shock field is weak. This study tested the hypothesis that an auxiliary shock (AS) delivered between an electrode at this site and a superior vena cava (SVC) electrode before the primary endocardial shock (PS) would reduce the DFT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In six pentobarbital-anesthetized dogs (26 to 36 kg), catheter electrodes were placed in the right ventricular (RV) apex and the SVC. To simulate transvenous introduction, a small electrode was inserted into the posterior cardiac vein using an epicardial approach. For dual shock treatments, AS (2-msec monophasic) was applied to the coronary vein electrode at different time intervals before a biphasic PS (4 msec/3 msec) to the RV-SVC electrodes. The mean DFT energy for dual shocks treatments were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in comparison to the control treatment (no AS, 26.5+/-8.8 J). Mean DFT energy after 10 seconds of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation for dual shocks, in which AS and PS were separated by 1, 5, 10, and 20 msec, were 10.2+/-4.1 J, 10.9+/-5.5 J, 11.3+/-6.3 J, and 15.4+/-7.2 J, respectively. These values were all significantly lower than the PS alone (26.5+/-8.8 J).

CONCLUSION

Addition of an AS from the posterior cardiac vein before an endocardial PS reduces DFT energy by more than 50%. Such DFT reduction could improve therapeutic safety margin or permit reduction in volume of implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Marked reduction in internal atrial defibrillation thresholds with dual-current pathways and sequential shocks in humans

BACKGROUND

This study tested the ability of sequential shocks delivered through dual-current pathways to lower the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) compared with a biphasic shock through a standard single-current pathway.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electrodes were positioned in the right atrial appendage (RA), left subclavian vein (LSV), proximal coronary sinus (CSos), and distal coronary sinus (DCS) in 14 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (170+/-185 days). Using a step-up protocol, we compared ADFTs for a single-current pathway (RA-->DCS) that used a single 7.5/2.5-ms biphasic shock from a 150-microF capacitor with those for a dual-current pathway system (RA-->DCS followed by CSos-->LSV) using sequential 7.5/2.5-ms biphasic shocks with capacitor discharge waveforms for 150-microF and 600-microF capacitors. Both dual-current pathway configurations (2.0+/-0.4 J for 150-microF capacitance, 2.4+/-0.5 J for 600-microF capacitance) had a significantly lower ADFT than the single-current pathway (5.1+/-1.8 J). Whereas the dual-current pathway with 150-microF capacitor shocks had a significantly lower energy threshold, there was no statistical difference in terms of leading-edge voltage compared with the dual-current pathway with 600-microF capacitance shocks. There were no ventricular arrhythmias induced with appropriately synchronized shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

For internal atrial defibrillation in humans, sequential biphasic waveforms delivered over dual-current pathways resulted in a markedly reduced (>50% reduction) ADFT compared with a single shock over a single-current pathway.

Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: marked reduction in defibrillation threshold with dual current pathways

BACKGROUND

The ultimate acceptance of a fully automatic atrial defibrillator will depend on the reduction of pain to acceptable levels, requiring a marked decrease in defibrillation thresholds. The purpose of this study was to determine whether atrial defibrillation thresholds can be reduced by sequential shocks delivered through two current pathways.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sustained atrial fibrillation was induced with rapid atrial pacing in 12 adult sheep. Defibrillation electrodes were positioned in the right atrial appendage (RAap), distal coronary sinus (DCS), proximal coronary sinus (CSos), main/left pulmonary artery junction (PA), and right ventricular apex (RV). Single-capacitor biphasic waveforms (3/1 ms) were delivered through combinations of these electrodes. Probability-of-success curves were determined for single shocks with a single current pathway and sequential shocks with either single- or dual current pathways. The ED50 for delivered energy for the dual current pathway RAap to DCS then CSos to PA was 0.36+/-0.13 J, which was significantly lower than the ED50 of the standard single current pathway RAap to DCS (1.31+/-0.3 J) and was significantly lower than all other configurations tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Internal atrial defibrillation thresholds can be markedly reduced with two sequential biphasic shocks delivered over two current pathways compared with the standard single shock delivered over a single current pathway or with sequential shocks delivered over a single current pathway.

Comparison of single-biphasic versus sequential-biphasic shocks on defibrillation threshold in pigs

Current generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators use monophasic, biphasic, or sequential pulse shocks, most of which truncate after a given time, dumping the remaining charge on the capacitor through an internal resistor. We hypothesized that having an additional current pathway, and delivering the majority of the remaining charge on a single capacitor to the two pathways using additional shock phases, would improve defibrillation efficacy. This hypothesis was tested by comparing DFTs using a simulated single capacitor, single-biphasic shock (two 5-ms pulses separated by 0.2 ms), delivered to coupled pairs of electrodes, to those using a sequential-biphasic shock (four 5-ms pulses separated by 0.2 ms) delivered to separate opposing electrodes, delivered from the same electrodes for both waveforms. In eight open-chest anesthetized pigs, four mesh electrodes (Medtronic TX-7, 6.5 cm2), were sutured on the epicardium of the anterior and posterior surfaces of each ventricle. Shocks were delivered from a 200-microF capacitor bank. Triplicate DFTs were obtained using each waveform in a randomized crossover design. Initial leading edge voltage (mean +/- SEM: 420 +/- 33 V vs 497 +/- 34 V; P < 0.05), initial peak current (4.8 +/- 0.4 A vs 13 +/- 1.1 A; P < 0.001), and delivered energy (16.9 +/- 2.6 J vs 30.4 +/- 5.3 J; P < 0.05) at the DFT were all significantly lower using sequential-biphasic shocks than those using single-biphasic shocks, respectively. We conclude that for direct heart defibrillation, it is worthwhile to combine sequential capability to biphasic shocks and deliver the remaining charge on the capacitor to the two different pathways.

Effect of chronic oral moricizine and intravenous epinephrine on ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation thresholds

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of chronic oral moricizine therapy and physiological doses of epinephrine on ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation thresholds using an implantable transvenous/subcutaneous defibrillation system in a pig model. Thirteen pigs completed the three phases of the study. After a baseline study on day 1, the animals were randomized to receive moricizine 10-15 mg/kg tid or placebo for seven doses, at which time the protocol was repeated on day 4. The same protocol was again repeated on the same day after infusion of physiological doses of epinephrine. Multiple ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation thresholds were measured during each study. Moricizine did not alter ventricular fibrillation nor defibrillation thresholds, whereas epinephrine increased the ventricular defibrillation threshold from 20.8 J to 23.7 J (P < 0.05). In addition, we observed an increase in both ventricular fibrillation (19.7 J vs 12.6 J; P < 0.05) and defibrillation (20.8 J vs 17.8 J; P 0.05) thresholds over the 4 days of the study. These findings suggest that moricizine may be a safe antiarrhythmic agent to use in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and that elevated endogenous epinephrine may render defibrillation more difficult.