Long-term evaluation of the ventricular defibrillation energy requirement

No light without the dark: Perspectives and hindrances for translation of cardiac optogenetics

Over the last decade, optogenetic stimulation of the heart and its translational potential for rhythm control attracted more and more interest. Optogenetics allows to stimulate cardiomyocytes expressing the light-gated cation channel Channelrhodopsin 2 (ChR2) with light and thus high spatio-temporal precision. Therefore this new approach can overcome the technical limitations of electrical stimulation. In regard of translational approaches, the prospect of pain-free stimulation, if ChR2 expression is restricted to cardiomyocytes, is especially intriguing and could be highly beneficial for cardioversion and defibrillation. However, there is no light without shadow and cardiac optogenetics has to surmount critical hurdles, namely "how" to inscribe light-sensitivity by expressing ChR2 in a native heart and how to avoid side effects such as possible immune responses against the gene transfer. Furthermore, implantable light devices have to be developed which ensure sufficient illumination in a highly contractile environment. Therefore this article reviews recent advantages in the field of cardiac optogenetics with a special focus on the hindrances for the potential translation of this new approach into clinics and provides an outlook how these have to be carefully investigated and could be solved step by step.

Prospective evaluation of defibrillation threshold and postshock rhythm in young ICD recipients

BACKGROUND

Adaptation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems to the needs of pediatric and congenital heart patients is problematic due to constraints of vascular and thoracic anatomy. An improved understanding of the defibrillation energy and postshock pacing requirements in such patients may help direct more tailored ICD therapy. We describe the first prospective evaluation of defibrillation threshold (DFT) and postshock rhythm in this population.

METHODS

We prospectively studied patients ≤ 60 kg at time of ICD intervention. DFTs were obtained using a binary search protocol with three VF inductions. Postshock pacing was programmed using a stepwise protocol, lowering the rate prior to each VF induction.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were enrolled: 11 had channelopathy, five congenital heart disease, and four cardiomyopathy. The median age was 16 years, median weight 48 kg. Twelve patients had a transvenous high-voltage coil; eight had pericardial +/- subcutaneous coil(s). Median DFT was 7 J (range 3-31 J); 19/20 patients had DFT ≤ 15 J and all patients <25 kg had DFT ≤ 9 J (n = 6). There was no difference in DFT between patients with transvenous versus pericardial +/- subcutaneous coils (median 7 J vs 6 J, P = 0.59). No patient with normal atrioventricular conduction prior to defibrillation required postshock pacing (n = 16). There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that many pediatric ICD patients have low DFTs and adequate postshock escape rhythm. This may help determine appropriate parameters for future design of pediatric-specific ICDs.

Evaluation of defibrillation safety margin in modern implantable cardioverter defibrillators after administration of amiodarone

AIM

The adjunctive medication with amiodarone plays a major role in patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Amiodarone as class III antiarrhythmic drug may significantly alter the defibrillation threshold (DFT). Conflicting results exist on the clinical relevance of a DFT rise on amiodarone. The only prospective study on this issue included only a small number of patients on amiodarone. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and clinical relevance of repeat defibrillator testing after initiation of amiodarone in modern defibrillator systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We assessed risks and clinical consequences of retesting defibrillation safety margin after initiation of amiodarone in 130 consecutive patients. All patients underwent intraoperative testing at the time of first ICD implantation. A repeated VF induction and defibrillator test (by protocol with a single shock and 10 J safety margin) after a total dose of at least 10 g amiodarone 4-6 weeks after initiation of medication was performed. DFT testing after initiation of amiodarone was safe as there were no complications that led to a prolonged hospital stay. In 4 of 114 patients with a left-sided device (1.6%) and 3 of 7 patients with a right-sided device (42.8%), a 10 J safety margin could not be achieved. As a result 4 patients (3.1% of study collective) had a revision of the system.

CONCLUSION

Repeat defibrillation testing after administration of amiodarone therapy rarely fails in patients with left-sided devices. We observed a higher test failure in patients with a device in the right-subpectoral position although this subgroup was small. Repeat defibrillator testing is safe as no relevant complications were observed.

Clinical implications of left superior vena cava persistence in candidates for pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

Persistence of a left superior vena cava (LSVC) has been reported in 0.3%-0.4% of candidates for pacemaker (PM) or cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical implications of LSVC persistence for proper device performance. We observed the prevalence of LSVC during a 15-year period. A total of 2077 consecutive patients underwent PM implantation over a 15-year period: 7 had persistent LSVCs (0.34%). Among 599 patients undergoing ICD implantation, 4 LSVCs (0.66%) were observed. Overall LSVC persistence was found in 11/2676 (0.41%) patients. The right superior vena cava was absent in 4/11 (36%) patients. The leads were placed from the left subclavian approach in 5/7 PM patients: 2 received an elective right sided approach due to physician preference. All ICD patients had the device placed left pectoral with a single-coil lead: defibrillation therapy was effective in the long term in all but one patient, who required the addition of a subcutaneous array. Left superior vena cava persistence in PM/ICD patients is similar to the general population (0.41% in our study). The left-sided implant may be skill-demanding during lead placement; however, this task can be accomplished in the majority of cases, with a reliable outcome in the short term and appropriate device performance at follow-up.

Testing the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator After Implantation?Is It Necessary?

The results of intraoperative and postoperative predischarge implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) testing of 211 consecutive patients, starting at 15 J and requiring two successful terminations of induced VT/VF with a relative defibrillation safety margin (DSM) of >10 J, were reviewed. The aim was to define the type of intraoperative response that would make postoperative predischarge testing unnecessary. The intraoperative responses were divided into three types: A, a DSM > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of < or =20 J; B, a DSM of > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J; and C, a DSM <10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J. At operation, the responses to defibrillation were A, 88.6%; B, 7.1%; and C, 4.3%. Accepting an A response only would leave 11.4% of the patients for postoperative testing. The positive and negative predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative C response were 0.78 and 0.97, respectively. Similarly, the predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative B or C response were 0.71 and 0.97, respectively. The postoperative testing responses were A, 89.1%; B, 4.3%; and C, 6.6%. In summary, an intraoperative A response was sufficient to make a postoperative defibrillation testing unnecessary, while it was found that intraoperative B and C responders should undergo postoperative testing. Applying these criteria, approximately 90% of the patients could be discharged without any postoperative induction test.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

There are several options to achieve a sufficient safety margin in a patient with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT), with varying and typically modest success. Programming fixed (millisecond) durations of both phases of a biphasic waveform in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has demonstrated utility.

METHODS

We established an informal multisite registry of ICD implanting facilities. Each facility agreed to attempt the use of fixed duration waveforms whenever there was an inadequate safety margin with tilt-based waveforms. A 3.5-ms-based fixed duration shock was tried first. If that failed to achieve a 10-J safety margin then a 2-ms-based shock was used. We also tabulated an HEDFT (high estimate DFT) as precise DFTs were not determined.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (15 M, 1 F) were entered into the registry (age 58.2 +/- 17.9 years) with ejection fractions of .30 +/-.11. Superior vena cava coils were used in 7 patients according to physician preference. The tilt-based HEDFTs were 35.4 +/- 3.2 J delivered and 35.8 +/- 3.3 J stored energy. The 3.5-ms based shocks were evaluated on 14 patients and the HEDFT fell to 23.4 +/- 6.3 J delivered (P < 0.0001) and 26.2 +/- 6.9 J stored energy (P < 0.0001). The 2-ms-based fixed duration shocks were then evaluated on 6 patients and the delivered energy HEDFT was 22.2 +/- 5.8 J (P = 0.001 vs. tilt-based shocks) while the stored energy HEDFT was 27.9 +/- 6.4 J (P = 0.01 vs. tilt-based shocks). Using the better of the two fixed duration waveforms, the mean safety margin was improved from -1.2 +/- 1.9 J to 9.5 +/- 5.9 J (P < 0.00001). Multivariate predictors of the safety margin improvement were the absence of the Superior Vena Cava (SVC) coil and absence of Ventricular fibrillation (VF) presentation. Four patients still required lead repositioning after the use of the fixed duration waveforms. No additional leads were implanted.

CONCLUSION

The use of a selection of directly programmed fixed duration biphasic shocks had a striking impact on the HEDFT for these difficult patients. Adequate safety margins were obtained for 12 of 16 patients with no lead manipulation or other approaches.

Stepped defibrillation waveform is substantially more efficient than the 50/50% tilt biphasic

BACKGROUND

Even with biphasic waveforms, patients with high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) still are seen; thus, improved defibrillation waveforms may be of clinical utility. The stepped waveform has three parts: the first portion is positive with two capacitors in parallel, the second is positive with the capacitors in series, and the last portion is negative, also with the capacitors in series.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical utility of improved defibrillation waveforms.

METHODS

We measured the delivered energy DFT in 20 patients in a dual-site study using the stepped waveform and a 50/50% tilt biphasic truncated exponential as the control. All shocks were delivered using an arbitrary waveform defibrillator, which was programmed to mimic two 220-microF capacitors (110 microF in series and 440 microF in parallel).

RESULTS

The peak voltage at DFT was reduced in 19 of the 20 patients. The median peak voltage was reduced by 32.0%, from 472 V to 321 V (P <.001). The median energy DFT was reduced by 33%, from 11.7 J to 7.8 J (P = .008). The mean voltage and energy were reduced by 25.3% and 20.2%, respectively. On average, the stepped waveform was able to defibrillate as well as the 50/50% tilt biphasic, with 33% more energy. The benefit was more pronounced in patients with either a lower ejection fraction or a superior vena cava coil. The benefit of the stepped waveform had an inverse quadratic correlation with the resistance (r(2) = 0.47), suggesting that the capacitance values chosen for the stepped waveform were close to optimal for a 35-Omega resistance.

CONCLUSION

The stepped waveform reduced the DFT compared to the 50/50% tilt waveform in this preliminary study.

Benefit of millisecond waveform durations for patients with high defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Patients with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) present an atypical but vexing problem with regard to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Their implant procedures are lengthy and involve more risk of complications. These patients often sustain a reduced safety margin that may compromise their survival.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of fixed millisecond duration model-optimized biphasic waveforms compared with conventional tilt-based waveforms in patients having a high DFT.

METHODS

We compared a 65%/65% tilt biphasic waveform to a millisecond duration biphasic waveform based on the biphasic burping theory using a 90-microF shock capacitor.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were evaluated. Mean DFT with tilt was reduced from 11.0 +/- 5.5 J to 8.8 +/- 4.1 J, for a mean reduction of 20% (P < .0001). For the 13 patients with tilt-based DFTs > or = 15 J, DFT was reduced from 18.7 +/- 4.1 J to 13.4 +/- 3.5 J, for a mean DFT reduction of 28% (P = .009). The population peak DFT was reduced from 29.0 J to 17.5 J, for a 41% reduction (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Use of simple millisecond biphasic waveforms instead of conventional tilt-based waveforms can lead to substantial reductions in DFT, especially in patients with high DFT.

Efficacy and temporal stability of reduced safety margins for ventricular defibrillation: primary results from the Low Energy Safety Study (LESS)

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, a safety margin of at least 10 J between the maximum output of the pulse generator and the energy needed for ventricular defibrillation has been used because lower safety margins were associated with unacceptably high rates of failed defibrillation and sudden cardiac death. The Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) was a prospective, randomized assessment of the safety margin requirements for modern implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) systems.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 636 patients undergoing initial ICD implantation with a dual-coil lead and active pulse generator were evaluated. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) and enhanced DFT (DFT+ and DFT++) were measured using a modified step-down protocol. Conversion testing of induced ventricular fibrillation before discharge, at 3 months, and at 12 months was performed, as was randomization to chronic programming at either 2 steps above DFT++ or maximal output. The induced ventricular fibrillation data had conversion success rates of 91.4%, 97.9%, 99.1%, 99.6%, and 99.8% for safety margins of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 steps above the DFT++, respectively. A margin of 4 to 6 J was adequate to maintain high conversion success over time (98.9% before discharge versus 99.2% at 12 months; P=NS). Over a mean follow-up of 24+/-13 months, conversion of spontaneously occurring ventricular tachyarrhythmias >200 bpm was identical (97.3%), despite a safety margin difference of 5.2+/-1.1 J for the 2-step group versus 20.8+/-4.2 J for maximal output.

CONCLUSIONS

With a rigorous implantation algorithm, a safety margin of about 5 J is adequate for safe implantation of modern ICD systems.

Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to characterize temporal changes in defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) after implantation with an active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous lead system.

BACKGROUND

Ventricular DFTs rise over time when monophasic waveforms are used with non-thoracotomy lead systems. This effect is attenuated when biphasic waveforms are used with transvenous lead systems; however, significant increases in DFT still occur in a minority of patients. The long-term stability of DFTs with contemporary active pectoral lead systems is unknown.

METHODS

This study was a prospective assessment of temporal changes in DFT using a uniform testing algorithm, shock polarity and dual-coil active pectoral lead system. Thresholds were measured at implantation, before discharge and at long-term follow-up (70 +/- 40 weeks) in 50 patients.

RESULTS

The DFTs were 9.2 +/- 5.4 J at implantation, 8.3 +/- 5.8 J before discharge and 6.9 +/- 3.6 J at long-term follow-up (p < 0.01 by analysis of variance; p < 0.05 for long-term follow-up vs. at implantation or before discharge). The effect was most marked in a prespecified subgroup with high implant DFTs (> or =15 J). No patient developed an inadequate safety margin (< 9 J) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The DFTs declined significantly after implantation with an active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous lead system, and no clinically significant increases in DFT were observed. Therefore, routine defibrillation testing may not be required during the first two years after implantation with this lead system, in the absence of a change in the cardiac substrate or treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator are now standard for initial defibrillator implantations. However, the optimal transvenous lead system and coil location for such active can configurations are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit and optimal position of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil on defibrillation thresholds with an active left pectoral pulse generator and right ventricular coil.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, randomized study was performed on 27 patients. Each subject was evaluated with three lead configurations, with the order of testing randomized. Biphasic shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and an active can alone (unipolar), or an active can in common with the proximal coil positioned either at the right atrial/SVC junction (low SVC) or in the left subclavian vein (high SVC). Stored energies at defibrillation threshold were higher for the single-coil, unipolar configuration (11.2 +/- 6.6 J) than for the high (8.9 +/- 4.2 J) or low (8.5 +/- 4.2 J) SVC configurations (P < 0.01). Moreover, 96% of subjects had low (< or = 15 J) thresholds with the SVC coil in either position compared with 81% for the single-coil configuration. Shock impedance (P < 0.001) was increased with the unipolar configuration, whereas peak current was reduced (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduces defibrillation energy requirements. The position of this coil has no significant effect on defibrillation thresholds.