Achieving Sufficient Safety Margins with Fixed Duration Waveforms and the Use of Multiple Time Constants

Higher defibrillation threshold in methamphetamine cardiomyopathy patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Identification of patients with an increased risk of high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) is important in planning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures. Clinical observations have suggested that patients with methamphetamine cardiomyopathy (MACMP) have significantly elevated defibrillation thresholds. We hypothesized that MACMP patients would have higher DFT thresholds than controls and would require procedural changes during ICD implantation to accommodate higher thresholds.

METHODS

We identified consecutive patients with MACMP undergoing ICD implantation at the academic center from 2003 to 2007. We then compared DFTs against age-and sex-matched controls.

RESULTS

The MACMP (n = 10) group showed significantly increased DFT thresholds (23.7 ± 6.7 J) compared with age and sex-matched controls (14.5 ± 4.6 J, p < 0.005). Additionally, patients with MACMP had evidence of more severe congestive heart failure, with increased B-type natrieutic protein (BNP) levels (1173 ± 784 vs 260 ± 349, p = 0.02) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (17.8 ± 9.4 vs 35.9 ± 15.2, p = 0.02). MACMP patients required high output devices than controls (50% versus 0%, p = 0.03). Differences between groups remained significant despite adjusting for LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Planning for ICD implantation should take into consideration a history of methamphetamine abuse, mandating DFT testing and empiric consideration of high output devices for such patients.

Implantable intravascular defibrillator: evaluation of defibrillation waveforms with inferior vena cava electrode system

BACKGROUND

A percutaneously placed, totally intravascular defibrillator has been developed that shocks via a right ventricular (RV) single-coil and titanium electrodes in the superior vena cava (SVC) and the inferior vena cava (IVC). This study evaluated the defibrillation threshold (DFT) with this electrode configuration to determine the effect of different biphasic waveform tilts and second-phase durations as well as the contribution of the IVC electrode.

METHODS

Eight Bluetick hounds (wt = 30-40 kg) were anesthetized and the RV coil (first-phase anode) was placed in the RV apex. The intravascular defibrillator (PICD®, Model no. IIDM-G, InnerPulse Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) was positioned such that the titanium electrodes were in the SVC and IVC . Ventricular fibrillation was electrically induced and a Bayesian up-down technique was employed to determine DFT with two configurations: RV to SVC + IVC and RV to SVC. Three waveform tilts (65%, 50%, and 42%) and two second-phase durations (equal to the first phase [balanced] and truncated at 3 ms [unbalanced]) were randomly tested. The source capacitance of the defibrillator was 120 μF for all waveforms.

RESULTS

DFT with the IVC electrode was significantly lower than without the IVC electrode for all waveforms tested (527 ± 9.3 V [standard error], 14.5 J vs 591 ± 7.4 V, 18.5 J, P < 0.001). Neither waveform tilt nor second-phase duration significantly changed the DFT.

CONCLUSION

In canines, a totally intravascular implantable defibrillator with electrodes in the RV apex, SVC, and IVC had a DFT similar to that of standard nonthoracotomy lead systems. No significant effect was noted with changes in tilt or with balanced or unbalanced waveforms.

Optimizing defibrillation waveforms for ICDs

While no simple electrical descriptor provides a good measure of defibrillation efficacy, the waveform parameters that most directly influence defibrillation are voltage and duration. Voltage is a critical parameter for defibrillation because its spatial derivative defines the electrical field that interacts with the heart. Similarly, waveform duration is a critical parameter because the shock interacts with the heart for the duration of the waveform. Shock energy is the most often cited metric of shock strength and an ICD's capacity to defibrillate, but it is not a direct measure of shock effectiveness. Despite the physiological complexities of defibrillation, a simple approach in which the heart is modeled as passive resistor-capacitor (RC) network has proved useful for predicting efficient defibrillation waveforms. The model makes two assumptions: (1) The goal of both a monophasic shock and the first phase of a biphasic shock is to maximize the voltage change in the membrane at the end of the shock for a given stored energy. (2) The goal of the second phase of a biphasic shock is to discharge the membrane back to the zero potential, removing the charge deposited by the first phase. This model predicts that the optimal waveform rises in an exponential upward curve, but such an ascending waveform is difficult to generate efficiently. ICDs use electronically efficient capacitive-discharge waveforms, which require truncation for effective defibrillation. Even with optimal truncation, capacitive-discharge waveforms require more voltage and energy to achieve the same membrane voltage than do square waves and ascending waveforms. In ICDs, the value of the shock output capacitance is a key intermediary in establishing the relationship between stored energy-the key determinant of ICD size-and waveform voltage as a function of time, the key determinant of defibrillation efficacy. The RC model predicts that, for capacitive-discharge waveforms, stored energy is minimized when the ICD's system time constant taus equals the cell membrane time constant taum, where taus is the product of the output capacitance and the resistance of the defibrillation pathway. Since the goal of phase two is to reverse the membrane charging effect of phase one, there is no advantage to additional waveform phases. The voltages and capacitances used in commercial ICDs vary widely, resulting in substantial disparities in waveform parameters. The development of present biphasic waveforms in the 1990s resulted in marked improvements in defibrillation efficacy. It is unlikely that substantial improvement in defibrillation efficacy will be achieved without radical changes in waveform design.