Influence of malpositioned transvenous leads on defibrillation efficacy with and without a subcutaneous array electrode

Patients with a high defibrillation threshold: Approaches to management

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the prognosis for patients at elevated risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. For safety, defibrillation should be effective with a minimum of 10 J below the device's maximum energy. While modern ICDs rarely deliver ineffective shocks in primary prevention, the surge in managing severe heart failure patients has led to an increased number of patients with high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). This article elucidates the potential causes of high DFT, including clinical factors, lead and device placement, the presence of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD), prolonged ventricular arrhythmias, shock vectors, waveform tilt, medications, and manufacturer-specific options. We also detail management strategies, highlighting alternative shock coil placements, practical recommendations, and case studies from our institution. Our management algorithm suggests addressing preventable causes, re-evaluating coil positions, considering non-invasive system modifications, upgrading to a higher-capacity device, and adding extra coil(s).

Significance of intraoperative testing in right-sided implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Background

Implantation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) from the left pectoral region is the standard therapeutical method. Increasing numbers of system revisions due to lead dysfunction and infections will consecutively increase the numbers of right-sided implantations. The reliability of devices implanted on the right pectoral side remains controversially discussed, and the question of testing these devices remains unanswered.

Methods

In a prospectively designed study all 870 patients (60.0±14 years, 689 male) who were treated with a first ICD from July 2005 until May 2012 and tested intraoperatively according to the testing protocol were analyzed. The indication for implantation was primary prophylactic in 71.5%. Underlying diseases included ischemic cardiomyopathy (50%), dilative cardiomyopathy (37%), and others (13%). Mean ejection faction was 27±12%. Implantation site was right in 4.5% and left in 95.5%.

Results

Five patients supplied with right-sided ICD (13%, p = 0.02 as compared to left-sided) failed initial intraoperative testing with 21 J. 3 patients were male. The age of the patients failing intraoperative testing with right-sided devices appeared higher than of patients with left-sided devices (p = 0.07). The ejection fraction was 28±8%. All patients reached a sufficient DFT ≤ 21 J after corrective procedures.

Conclusion

Implantation of ICDs on the right side results in significantly higher failure rate of successful termination of intraoperatively induced ventricular fibrillation. The data of our study suggest the necessity of intraoperative ICD testing in right-sided implanted ICDs.

Covering sleeves can shield the high-voltage coils from lead chatter in an integrated bipolar ICD lead

AIMS

Integrated bipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads use the distal high-voltage coil as both the ventricular sensing anode and the distal shocking electrode. Mechanical interactions between the distal ICD coil and other intracardiac leads have been reported to result in electrical oversensing and inappropriate ICD therapies. We sought to determine whether covering sleeves over the high-voltage coils of an integrated bipolar ICD lead could prevent sensed artefact from mechanical lead interactions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Endotak Reliance 0157 and Endotak Reliance-G 0185 leads, the latter with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) sleeves covering the high-voltage coils, were connected to ICD generators and the leads were submerged in saline. Device programmers were used to communicate with the ICD generators, providing real-time electrogram recording throughout testing. A series of mechanical interactions were performed with the ICD leads, including sliding and striking each distal coil against metal and non-metal components of other ICD and pacemaker leads. All direct metal-metal interactions resulted in sensed electrical artefact, including interactions between the bare ICD coil and another bare ICD coil or metal pacemaker ring. Identical mechanical interactions where metal-metal contact was prevented due to an interposed ePTFE covering sleeve were electrically silent with no sensed artefact.

CONCLUSIONS

A covering sleeve over the distal high-voltage coil of an integrated bipolar ICD lead can mechanically shield the lead from metal-metal interactions, which might otherwise result in sensed artefact and inappropriate ICD therapies or withholding of pacing output. This finding has implications for lead selection when a new ICD lead is to be implanted adjacent to abandoned intracardiac leads or lead fragments.

A Biventricular ICD System with Biventricular Defibrillation

We describe the case of a 59-year-old gentleman with severe dilated cardiomyopathy requiring implantation of a dual-chamber biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). High defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were encountered at implant with an inadequate defibrillation safety margin. Testing of all possible shock vectors/polarities with and without the SVC coil and optimization of the distal RV coil position all proved inadequate. A satisfactory defibrillation safety margin was achieved following placement of a second lead in the coronary sinus to enable biventricular defibrillation. This case highlights an additional strategy for combating high DFTs and is an option even in dual-chamber biventricular ICD systems.

Subcutaneous array to transvenous proximal coil defibrillation as a solution to high defibrillation thresholds with implantable cardioverter defibrillator distal coil failure

Implantation of a subcutaneous array to improve the defibrillation threshold of an existing transvenous defibrillation lead system without the need for lead extraction is discussed.

Optimal method to achieve consistently low defibrillation energy requirements

Reduction of the defibrillation energy requirement offers the opportunity to decrease implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) size and to increase device longevity. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to obtain confirmed defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) of < or = 15 J in each patient with an endocardial dual-coil lead system incorporating an active pectoral pulse generator (TRIAD lead system: RV- --> SVC+ + CAN+). According to our previous clinical and experimental studies, we tried to lower DFTs that were > 15 J by repositioning the distal coil of the endocardial lead system in the right ventricle. A total of 190 consecutive patients requiring ICDs for ventricular fibrillation and/or recurrent ventricular tachycardia were investigated at the time of ICD implantation (42 women, 148 men; mean age 61.9 +/- 12.0 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 42.7 +/- 16.6%). Coronary artery disease was present in 139 patients; nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy in 34 patients; and other etiologies in 17 patients; 47 patients had undergone previous cardiac surgery. Regardless of optimal pacing and sensing parameters, for patients having DFTs > 15, we repositioned the distal coil of the endocardial lead system toward the intraventricular septum to include this part of both ventricles within the electrical defibrillating field. In 177 of 190 patients, induced ventricular fibrillation was successfully terminated with < or = 15 J (group I) using the initial lead position. Repositioning of the endocardial lead was necessary in 13 patients whose DFT(plus) (DFT(plus) = second additional success at lowest energy level) were > 15 J (group II). In all patients, repositioning was successful within a 15 J energy level (100% success). The mean DFT(plus) was 7.3 +/- 3.5 J (group I) and 11.0 +/- 4.5 J (group II; p<0.005). The mean DFT(plus) of all patients enrolled in the study was 7.6 +/- 3.7 J (range: 2 to 15 J). In 87% of all patients, DFT(plus) of < or = 10 J was achieved. Repositioning of the endocardial lead in the right ventricle is a simple and effective method to reduce intraoperative high DFTs. As a result of this procedure, ICDs with a 20 J output should be sufficient for the vast majority (87%) of our patients. Furthermore, we were able to avoid additional subcutaneous or epicardial electrodes in all patients.

The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to prospectively investigate the influence of ventricular fibrillation (VF) durations of 5, 10 and 20 s on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

BACKGROUND

Although the DFT using monophasic waveforms has been shown to increase with VF duration in humans, the effect of VF duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans is not known.

METHODS

Thirty patients undergoing primary ICD implantation or pulse generator replacement were randomly assigned to have the DFT determined using biphasic shocks at two durations of VF each (5 and 10 s, 10 and 20 s or 5 and 20 s).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean DFT comparing VF durations of 5 s (9.5+/-6.0 J) and 10 s (10.8+/-7.0 J) (p=0.4). The mean DFT significantly increased from 10.9+/-6.1 J at 10 s of VF to 12.6+/-5.6 J (p=0.03) at 20 s of VF, and from 7.0+/-3.5 J at 5 s of VF to 10.5+/-6.3 J (p=0.04) at 20 s of VF. An increase in the DFT was observed in 14 patients as VF duration increased. There were no clinical characteristics that differentiated patients with and without an increase in the DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation efficacy decreases with increasing VF duration using biphasic waveforms in humans. Ventricular fibrillation durations greater than 10 s may negatively affect the effectiveness of ICD therapy.

Defibrillation efficacy of different electrode placements in a human thorax model

The objective of this study was to measure the defibrillation threshold (DFT) associated with different electrode placements using a three-dimensional anatomically realistic finite element model of the human thorax. Coil electrodes (Endotak DSP, model 125, Guidant/CPI) were placed in the RV apex along the lateral wall (RV), withdrawn 10 mm away from the RV apex along the lateral wall (RVprox), in the RV apex along the anterior septum (RVseptal), and in the SVC. An active pulse generator (can) was placed in the subcutaneous prepectoral space. Five electrode configurations were studied: RV-->SVC, RVprox-->SVC, RVSEPTAL-->SVC, RV-->Can, and RV-->SVC + Can. DFTs are defined as the energy required to produce a potential gradient of at least 5 V/cm in 95% of the ventricular myocardium. DFTs for RV-->SVC, RVprox-->SVC, RVseptal-->SVC, RV-->Can, and RV-->SVC + Can were 10, 16, 7, 9, and 6 J, respectively. The DFTs measured at each configuration fell within one standard deviation of the mean DFTs reported in clinical studies using the Endotak leads. The relative changes in DFT among electrode configurations also compared favorably. This computer model allows measurements of DFT or other defibrillation parameters with several different electrode configurations saving time and cost of clinical studies.

Effect of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator lead placement in the right ventricle on defibrillation energy requirements. A combined experimental and clinical study

OBJECTIVES

The effect of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) lead placement in the right ventricle (RV) on defibrillation efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the goal of this combined experimental and clinical study was to evaluate the effect of a septal and a non-septal position of the right ventricular endocardial spring lead on defibrillation energy.

METHODS

In 12 isoflurane-anaesthetized swine and subsequently in 8 patients who underwent ICD implantation, two different positions of the distal spring lead in the RV were investigated in randomized order: non-septal position (free wall of the RV) and septal position (interventricular septum). For each position, separate 50% probability determinations of energy (E50), peak voltage (V50) and peak current (A50) were calculated using the three reversal up/down defibrillation procedure. The E50, V50, A50 and impedance (I) were averaged and compared using the two-sided t-test for paired samples.

RESULTS

Both the experimental study and the clinical study demonstrated that placing the distal defibrillation lead near to the septum rather than near to the ventricular free wall resulted both in the swine and in the patients in significantly lower E50-31.6%/ - 37.1%, V50-16.1%/-20.9% and A50 -10.0%/ - 24.2%, respectively. Defibrillation impedances were significantly reduced only in the experimental study.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation efficacy depends on the position of the distal spring electrode in the RV. A septal position significantly reduces the energy requirements compared to a non-septal position. The decrease in energy requirements might be explained by an increase in current flow through the septum and the posterolateral wall of the left ventricle. reserved

The effects of ventricular fibrillation duration and a preceding unsuccessful shock on the probability of defibrillation success using biphasic waveforms in pigs

INTRODUCTION

While the defibrillation threshold has been reported to increase with ventricular fibrillation (VF) duration for monophasic waveforms, the effect of VF duration for biphasic waveforms is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ED 50 requirements (the 50% probability of defibrillation success) for an endocardial lead system, which included a subcutaneous array, were determined by logistic regression using a recursive up-down algorithm for a biphasic waveform (6/6 msec). The study was performed in two parts, each with eight pigs. In part 1, ED 50 was compared for shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF and for shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF following a failed first shock at 10 seconds. Energy at ED 50 decreased from 6.5 +/- 0.9 J for shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF to 4.9 +/- 0.8 J (P < 0.01) for shocks delivered after 20 seconds. To determine if improved second shock efficacy was a result of preconditioning by the failed first shock or a function of VF duration, part 2 of the study compared defibrillation efficacy between shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF with shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF with and without a failed first shock at 10 seconds. Mean energy at ED 50 decreased from 10.1 +/- 2.4 J for shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF to 7.9 +/- 2.4 J (P < 0.01) and 7.5 +/- 3.2 J (P < 0.01) for shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF with and without a failed first shock, respectively. The mean energy at ED 50 for shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF with and without a failed first shock was not significantly different (P = 0.53). A strong linear correlation for energy at ED 50 was found between shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF and shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF following a failed first shock (r = 0.95, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

(1) As opposed to monophasic shocks, ED 50 is significantly lower for biphasic shocks delivered after 20 seconds of VF compared with shocks delivered after 10 seconds of VF in pigs. (2) An unsuccessful biphasic shock in pigs does not affect the defibrillation efficacy for a subsequent shock. (3) ED 50 for a biphasic shock delivered after 20 seconds of VF is linearly related to ED 50 for a shock delivered after 10 seconds of VF.

Importance of electrode conductive surface area and edge effects on ventricular defibrillation efficacy

INTRODUCTION

The role of edge effects and electrode surface area of the right ventricular (RV) transvenous lead (TVL) on defibrillation efficacy is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was conducted randomly in 12 dogs using ring electrode leads in an RV/SVC (superior vena cava) or RV/SVC/patch system. The leads (RV-4, RV-8t, RV-8, RV-15) had electrode surface areas of 20%, 20%, 40%, and 70%, respectively. A computer model predicted the magnitude of electrode surface current (RV-8t > RV-4 > RV-8 > RV-15) and the potential distribution (PD) at four sites: electrode surface (site a) and at 2 mm (b), 4 mm (c), and 8 mm (d) away from the surface. Despite different near-field PDs (sites a, b, c), PDs were nearly identical at site d. Resistance decreased as the surface area increased. DFT energy for the RV-15 lead was lower than the RV-4 and RV-8t. There was no difference between energy requirements for the RV-15 and RV-8 leads. No difference was found in DFT current for each lead. Comparison of the RV-8t and RV-4 leads showed no difference in DFT energy despite a lower resistance and a greater number of edges.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the RV TVL surface area lowered the resistance. However, surface area coverages > or = 40% did not lower DFT energy. No significant change in DFT current occurred despite different predicted near-field current densities. PDs were nearly identical 8 mm from the electrode surface. Thus, the far-field current density appears to play a more important role in determining defibrillation success.

Effect of a passive endocardial electrode on defibrillation efficacy of a nonthoracotomy lead system

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the impact of an inactive endocardial lead on the 50% effective dose (ED50%) for successful ventricular defibrillation.

BACKGROUND

The presence of abandoned epicardial mesh patch electrodes detrimentally affects the defibrillation efficacy of an endocardial lead system. It is not known whether abandoned endocardial electrodes produce a similar effect.

METHODS

An endocardial lead system (ENDOTAK, model 0062, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.) was implanted in eight dogs (mean +/- SD weight 23.7 +/- 1.0 kg). The ED50% for each of seven lead configurations was determined by a three-reversal point protocol in a balanced-randomized order with and without a second electrically passive endocardial lead system in the right ventricle (power 0.97 to detect a 50-V difference). Biphasic shocks with 80% tilt were delivered 10 s after the induction of ventricular fibrillation. In one configuration the active electrode made contact with the passive electrode in the right ventricular (RV) apex. In another configuration the active electrode was placed in a more proximal position to avoid contact. Additionally, the ED50% was determined for the endocardial lead system with a passive pacing lead positioned in the RV apex.

RESULTS

ED50% values for peak voltage, peak current and delivered energy were not significantly different with or without a passive RV electrode, and this was true whether or not the active electrode touched the passive electrode. However, ED50% values were significantly higher when the active electrode was slightly proximal than when it was positioned at the apex.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical contact between active and passive endocardial electrodes does not significantly alter defibrillation efficacy in this dog model. An increase in ED50% energy was caused by a slightly proximal position. Therefore, a good electrode position within the right ventricle is a more important determinant of defibrillation efficacy than is avoidance of the electrode touching a passive electrode.