Relationship between the upper limit of vulnerability determined in normal sinus rhythm and the defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

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.

Using the Upper Limit of Vulnerability to Assess Defibrillation Efficacy at Implantation of ICDs

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the weakest shock strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation (VF) is not induced when the shock is delivered during the vulnerable period. The ULV, a measurement made in regular rhythm, provides an estimate of the minimum shock strength required for reliable defibrillation that is as accurate or more accurate than the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV hypothesis of defibrillation postulates a mechanistic relationship between the ULV-measured during regular rhythm-and the minimum shock strength that defibrillates reliably. Vulnerability testing can be applied at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to confirm a clinically adequate defibrillation safety margin without inducing VF in 75%-95% of ICD recipients. Alternatively, the ULV provides an accurate patient-specific safety margin with a single fibrillation-defibrillation episode. Programming first ICD shocks based on patient-specific measurements of ULV rather than programming routinely to maximum output shortens charge time and may reduce the probability of syncope as ICDs age and charge times increase. Because the ULV is more reproducible than the DFT, it provides greater statistical power for clinical research with fewer episodes of VF. Limited evidence suggests that vulnerability testing is safer than conventional defibrillation testing.

Detection of the Defibrillation Threshold Using the Upper Limit of Vulnerability Following Defibrillator Implantation

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to test defibrillation threshold (DFT) with the least number of fibrillation inductions using upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) and to describe the most practical set of ICD during DFT following implantation.

BACKGROUND

Although the correlation between ULV and DFT has been well described, there has been no uniform DFT testing protocol taking the advantage of ULV after defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

METHODS

A total of 26 patients undergoing a new ICD implantation had a DFT induced with scanned T wave shock. The hypothesis that ventricular fibrillation (VF) could be defibrillated with 5 J higher than the highest T wave shock needed to induce VF or with 10 J if the T wave shock needed to induce VF was less than 5 J, was tested and 20 patients fulfilled these criteria. The methodology is improved by detecting peak T wave with 12-lead ECG, applying biphasic T wave shock and scanning the T wave shock in a wider window.

RESULTS

Five patients in the first group (n = 15) and one patient in the second group (n = 11) did not fulfill the above hypothesis. The common features of six patients who did not fulfill the hypothesis were that T wave shock needed to induce VF was either under 5 J (5 patients) or high (1 patient).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the importance of methodology in studies regarding ULV and DFT. Following ICD implantation, we propose the first biphasic T wave detected by 12-lead ECG and rescue shock set at 10 and 15 J, respectively. If any of the scanned T wave (40 ms before and 40 ms after the peak T wave with decrements and increments of 20 ms) shocks could not induce VF, then the T wave and the first rescue shock should be set at 5 and 10 J, respectively. If the induction of VF has been unsuccessful with T wave shock at 5 J, then a safe defibrillation with 10 J should be expected in majority.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator: Current Progress and Management

With greater technologic advances during the past decade, use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has increased to more than 200,000 implants worldwide to date. Indications for ICD implant have expanded to include both patients who have survived sudden cardiac death (secondary prevention of cardiac arrest) and those who are at high risk for experiencing lethal arrhythmias (primary prevention of cardiac ar rest). Thus, it is likely that physicians will encounter defibrillators in their clinical practice and must be familiar with their indications for implant, basic opera tion, and long-term management of devices. Several prospective clinical trials have recently shown the long- term efficacy of ICD therapy at aborting sudden death in the high-risk patient population. Although still evolving, general guidelines and indications for ICD implant have been put forth and are discussed in this review. From the first defibrillation in humans during surgery in 1947 to the sophisticated dual-chamber pacing and memory functions of the modern device, ICD development has led to ever smaller devices with more complex technol ogy. The implant procedure of current ICDs parallels that used to place pacemakers. However, the anesthe sia team plays a vital role in initial ICD implantation by monitoring cardiopulmonary status during defibrilla tion threshold (DFT) testing. Additionally, long-term management of ICDs often requires repeat DFT testing with anesthesia involvement. Finally, possible electro magnetic (environmental) interactions with the ICD of which physicians should be aware are described in this article.