Reversing the initial phase polarity in biphasic shocks: is the polarity benefit reproducible?

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.

Present Understanding of Shock Polarity for Internal Defibrillation: The Obvious and Non-Obvious Clinical Implications

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty about the best electrode configuration has combined with the programming flexibility in modern implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) to result in routine polarity reversal during an implant to deal with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT). We feel that this practice is not always supported by the clinical data and the present scientific understanding of defibrillation.

METHOD

A meta-analysis of the clinical studies on ICD shock polarity was performed. Subgroup analyses were also performed to test the impact of high DFTs, various tilts, and the use of the hot can electrode. A review of the basic research surrounding the effects of polarity in defibrillation is also presented.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients were studied. The use of an anodal right ventricular (RV) coil lowers the mean DFT by 14.8% (P = 0.00001). It provides thresholds equal to or lower than cathodal defibrillation in 83% of patients. The fraction of patients with lower anodal DFTs was 94/224 versus 38/224 for cathodal polarity. This phenomenon may be explained by virtual electrode effects. In particular, anodal electrodes tend to produce collapsing wavefronts while cathodal electrodes tend to produce expanding proarrhythmic wavefronts.

CONCLUSION

In an ICD implant, the RV coil should be the anode. Furthermore, DFT testing beginning with cathodal defibrillation is most likely unnecessary and needlessly extends the procedure's duration and increases the risks for the patient.