Predictors of atrial defibrillation threshold in internal cardioversion

Defibrillation threshold of internal cardioversion prior to ablation predicts atrial fibrillation recurrence

BACKGROUND

Many studies have reported the predictors of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after persistent AF (peAF) ablation. However, the correlation between the atrial defibrillation threshold (DFT) for internal cardioversion (IC) and AF recurrence rate is unknown. Here we investigated the relationship between the DFT prior to catheter ablation for peAF and AF recurrence.

HYPOTHESIS

DFT prior to ablation was the predictive factor for AF recurrence after peAF ablation.

METHODS

From June 2016 to May 2019, we enrolled 82 consecutive patients (mean age, 65.0 ± 12.4 years), including 45 with peAF and 37 with long-standing peAF, at Hamamatsu Medical Center. To assess the DFT, we performed IC with gradually increasing energy prior to radiofrequency application.

RESULTS

Forty-nine and 33 patients showed DFT values less than or equal to 10 J (group A) and greater than 10 J or unsuccessful defibrillation (group B). During the mean follow-up duration of 20.5 ± 13.1 months, patients in group B showed significantly higher AF recurrence rates than those in group A after the ablation procedure (p = .017). Multivariate analysis revealed that DFT was the only predictive factor for AF recurrence (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.13, p = .047).

CONCLUSIONS

The DFT for IC was among the strongest prognostic factors in the peAF ablation procedure.

How, why, and when may atrial defibrillation find a specific role in implantable devices? A clinical viewpoint

This viewpoint article discusses the potential for incorporation of atrial defibrillation capabilities in modern multi-chamber devices. In the late 1990s, the possibility of using shock-only therapy to treat selected patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) was explored in the context of the stand-alone atrial defibrillator. The failure of this strategy can be attributed to the technical limitations of the stand-alone device, low tolerance of atrial shocks, difficulties in patient selection, a lack of predictive knowledge about the evolution of AF, and, last but not least, commercial considerations. An open question is how atrial defibrillation capability may now assume a specific new role in devices implanted for sudden death prevention or cardiac resynchronization. For patients who already have indications for implantable devices, device-based atrial defibrillation appears attractive as a "backup" option for managing AF when preventive pharmacological/electrical measures fail. This and several other personalized hybrid therapeutic approaches await exploration, though assessment of their efficacy is methodologically challenging. Achievement of acceptance by patients is an essential premise for any updated atrial defibrillation strategy. Strategies that are being investigated to improve patient tolerance include waveform shaping, pharmacologic modulation of pain, and patient-activated defibrillation (patients might also perceive the problem of discomfort somewhat differently in the context of a backup therapy). The economic impact of implementing atrial defibrillation features in available devices is progressively decreasing, and financial feasibility need not be a major issue. Future studies should examine clinically relevant outcomes and not be limited (as occurred with stand-alone defibrillators) to technical or other soft endpoints.

Internal Atrial and Ventricular Defibrillation During Electrophysiology Procedures

Over the last twenty years internal defibrillation has evolved from an experimental technique into an important adjunctive procedure in the electrophysiology laboratory. Internal deflbrillation is used for treating persistent atrial fibrillation and refractory ventricular arrhythmias. Atrial defibrillation can be performed with several electrode configurations but generally shocks from 1 to 50 joules are delivered between electrodes placed in the coronary sinus and lateral wall of the right atrium. Ventricular defibrillation is usually performed with electrodes in the right ventricle and superior vena cava, although "unipolar" configurations with an internal ventricular electrode and a skin electrode can be used. Currently, internal deflbrillation can be required in 5-10% of cases within the electrophysiology laboratory and will become more commonly used as electrophysiologists perform more complex catheter ablation procedures.

Clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to identify clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with standard implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads.

BACKGROUND

Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems. If clinical predictors of atrial defibrillation efficacy with these lead systems were identified, they could be used to predict which patients may require more complex lead systems for atrial defibrillation, such as a coronary sinus electrode.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 135 consecutive patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. The lead system evaluated was a transvenous defibrillation lead with coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular apex (RV), and a left pectoral pulse generator emulator (CAN). The shocking pathway was RV-->SVC+CAN. Atrial DFT was measured using a step-up protocol. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated as predictors of atrial DFT and multiple linear regression was performed.

RESULTS

Mean atrial DFT was 4.6 +/- 3.8 J. Atrial DFT was < or =3 J in 70 patients (52%) and < or = 10 J in 97% of patients. The highest atrial DFT was 20 J (one patient). Left atrial size (r = 0.21, P = .01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (r = 0.19, P = .02) were independent predictors of atrial DFT. However, these two predictors accounted for only 6% of the variability in atrial DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical parameters are of limited use in predicting atrial DFT with a dual-coil, active pectoral ICD lead system. Because the RV--> SVC + CAN shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.

Efficacy of internal cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction

Internal cardioversion can restore sinus rhythm with energies below 6-10 J, often without anaesthesia/sedation. We investigated its safety and short-/medium-term efficacy in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) with left ventricular dysfunction (defined as ejection fraction < or = 40%). Among 34 patients with persistent AF who agreed to receive internal cardioversion, 16 had left ventricular dysfunction and 18 did not (the groups were similar as regards age, duration of AF and pretreatment with amiodarone). Internal CV was performed delivering 3.0/3.0-ms biphasic shocks between coil catheters using a step-up protocol. Sinus rhythm was always restored. General anaesthesia (administered only when discomfort was not tolerated) was required only in 2 of the 16 (12.5%) patients with left ventricular dysfunction. The defibrillation threshold was similar in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction (10.2+/-6.9 vs. 8.4+/-4.9 J; p=0.37). Short-term (within 72 h) AF recurrence rates in the presence and absence of left ventricular dysfunction were 19% (3/16) and 6% (1/18), respectively (p=0.51). After cardioversion, all patients received antiarrhythmic drugs (mostly amiodarone in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and class IC agents in the remainder). With mean follow-up periods of about 220 days, AF recurrence rates among patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction were 50% (8/16) and 28% (5/18), respectively (p=0.328). We conclude that even in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, internal CV is safe and effective, minimizing risks from anaesthesia. Although these patients may have a higher risk of short- or medium-term AF recurrence, 6-month maintenance of sinus rhythm is possible in about 50% of cases.

Effect of body mass index on defibrillation thresholds for internal cardioversion in patients with atrial fibrillation

This study reports that patients with large body mass indexes (BMIs) and long-duration atrial fibrillation (AF) have greater defibrillation thresholds than patients with normal BMIs and AF of short duration. BMI is an independent predictor of defibrillation thresholds in patients with longer duration AF in whom external cardioversion has failed.

Electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

External direct current cardioversion remains the most common and effective method for restoration of normal sinus rhythm in patients with persistent AF. The development of biphasic defibrillators allows for higher success rates of conversion using standard energy levels. For persistent AF, an initial energy of 200 J is recommended for biphasic defibrillators, and 300 to 360 J are recommended for monophasic defibrillators, with the electrodes placed in the anterior posterior position. For refractory cases, alternatives are available such as dual defibrillators or internal cardioversion. Antiarrhythmic drugs may enhance the results of cardioversion by helping overcome shock failure or by preventing immediate recurrence of AF. Thromboembolism is the most important complication associated with cardioversion, but it can be prevented by providing 3 weeks of anticoagulation before the procedure or by excluding the presence of thrombi by transesophageal echocardiography, followed by an additional 4 weeks of anticoagulation.

Simultaneous Double External DC Shock Technique for Refractory Atrial Fibrillation in Concomitant Heart Disease

Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been treated with DC shocks delivered transthoracically, but in 5-30% of patients, the procedures fail to restore sinus rhythm (SR). We hypothesized that applying high energy shock waves to the chest may overcome the inadequate penetration of electrical shock to the atrium. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of higher energy external DC shock for the treatment of refractory AF coexisting with cardiovascular disease using a synchronized double external defibrillator. Fifteen patients (mean age 65 +/- 8) with refractory AF to standard DC cardioversion (CV) underwent higher energy DC shock using a double external defibrillator. Concomitant heart disease was present in all patients. Warfarin and amiodarone (600 mg/day), were administered for at least three weeks duration before DC CV. Sedation was performed with IV midazolam. Two defibrillator paddles were positioned on the anterior and posterior chest wall in a right lateral decubitus position. Defibrillators were synchronized to the R waves and simultaneously 720 joules of energy was administered to the patients. Amiodarone (200 mg/day) was continuously administered after DC shock to maintain SR. Sinus rhythm was obtained in 13 patients. Sinus rhythm was persistent in 11 patients for six months duration. Creatine kinase MB fractions were normal at 4 (22 +/- 4 IU/L) and 12 hours (18 +/- 4 IU/L). None of the patients developed significant hemodynamic compromise or congestive heart failure, higher AV block, stroke, or transient ischemic cerebral events. The results indicate that higher energy DC shock application using a double external defibrillator is an effective and safe method for the cardioversion of refractory AF. We believe this procedure should be performed before internal atrial cardioversion.

Current clinical perspectives on implantable devices for atrial defibrillation

The role of devices that deliver shock therapy for atrial fibrillation is still debated. Following technical improvements in catheter-based atrial defibrillation, implantable devices have become available either in the form of stand-alone atrial defibrillators or in the form of dual defibrillators. Although preliminary results do not support their use as a single, unique treatment for atrial fibrillation patients, in combination with drugs, pacing or other treatments such as ablation, atrial defibrillators should help appropriately selected groups of patients.