Effect of shock waveform on relationship between upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold

Evaluation of shock waveform configuration on the defibrillation capacity of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in dogs

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) are programmed to detect ventricular arrhythmias and terminate them by delivering an electrical shock. A defibrillation threshold (DFT) at least 10 J below the maximum device output is recommended for successful therapy. Shock waveform configuration is a programmable parameter used to achieve a low DFT. It is hypothesized that a fixed-pulse configuration results in lower defibrillation energy requirements than a fixed-tilt configuration.

ANIMALS

10 mongrel dogs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ICD generator and transvenous lead were surgically implanted. Defibrillation threshold was determined using a protocol guided by the upper limit of vulnerability. Fixed-pulse and fixed-tilt (50%/50%) waveform configurations were tested in a random order. Plasma cardiac troponin I (cTnI) was measured for signs of myocardial injury.

RESULTS

The experiment was completed in 9 dogs. Overall mean DFT value was 424 ± 88 V (9.2 ± 3.9 J). Mean differences among voltage, energy and impedance at the DFT for fixed-pulse (422 ± 97 V, 9.1 ± 4.2 J, 62.6 ± 13.8 Ω) and fixed-tilt (426 ± 83 V, 9.3 ± 3.8 J, 62.8 ± 18.5 Ω) configurations were not statistically significant (All P > 0.21). Cardiac TnI concentration changed from 0.03 ng/mL (95% CI: 0.02-0.04) at baseline to 0.11 ng/mL (95 CI: 0.08-0.16) after DFT was obtained with the first waveform configuration and 0.19 ng/mL (95% CI: 0.13-0.28) at the end of the study period. There were no significant changes in heart rate, end-tidal CO2 and blood pressure over time (all P > 0.09).

CONCLUSION

The tested ICD device and lead placement reliably produced acceptable DFT values, based on a 10-J safety margin below the maximum device output. A benefit of fixed-pulse configuration could not be demonstrated over the standard fixed-tilt waveform. Signs of acute myocardial damage from repeated high-voltage shocks and episodes of ventricular fibrillation seemed of limited clinical significance.

Tunnel propagation of postshock activations as a hypothesis for fibrillation induction and isoelectric window

Comprehensive understanding of the ventricular response to shocks is the approach most likely to succeed in reducing defibrillation threshold. We propose a new theory of shock-induced arrhythmogenesis that unifies all known aspects of the response of the heart to monophasic (MS) and biphasic (BS) shocks. The central hypothesis is that submerged "tunnel" propagation of postshock activations through shock-induced intramural excitable areas underlies fibrillation induction and the existence of isoelectric window. We conducted simulations of fibrillation induction using a realistic bidomain model of rabbit ventricles. Following pacing, MS and BS of various strengths/timings were delivered. The results demonstrated that, during the isoelectric window, an activation originated deep within the ventricular wall, arising from virtual electrodes; it then propagated fully intramurally through an excitable tunnel induced by the shock, until it emerged onto the epicardium, becoming the earliest-propagated postshock activation. Differences in shock outcomes for MS and BS were found to stem from the narrower BS intramural postshock excitable area, often resulting in conduction block, and the difference in the mechanisms of origin of the postshock activations, namely intramural virtual electrode-induced phase singularity for MS and virtual electrode-induced propagated graded response for BS. This study provides a novel analysis of the 3D mechanisms underlying the origin of postshock activations in the process of fibrillation induction by MS and BS and the existence of isoelectric window. The tunnel propagation hypothesis could open a new avenue for interventions exploration to achieve significantly lower defibrillation threshold.

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.

Improved defibrillation efficacy with an ascending ramp waveform in humans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare an ascending ramp waveform (RAMP) with a standard, clinically available biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) for defibrillation in humans.

BACKGROUND

In animal studies, RAMP had a lower defibrillation threshold (DFT) than BTE.

METHODS

We studied 63 patients at implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement using a dual-coil lead and left pectoral active can. The subjects were divided into two groups, one with a 12-ms ascending first phase and one with a 7-ms ascending first phase. Phase 2 of RAMP for both groups was a truncated exponential decay with 65% tilt and reversed polarity. The BTE had a 50% tilt in each phase. DFT and upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) were measured for both waveforms using a binary search protocol.

RESULTS

The patient population was 77% male, with a mean age of 63 +/- 10 years and ejection fraction of 33 +/- 13%. Delivered energy at DFT was lower with the 7-ms RAMP vs BTE (5.4 +/- 2.6 J vs 6.5 +/- 3.4 J; P < .01) but unchanged with the 12-ms RAMP (7.4 +/- 4.5 J vs 7.1 +/- 4.9 J). Maximal voltage at DFT was significantly lower with either RAMP compared to BTE (P < .01). There was a strong correlation between ULV and DFT for both RAMP and BTE (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 7-ms ascending ramp waveform significantly reduced delivered energy (18%) and voltage (24%) at DFT, whereas the 12-ms RAMP reduced only DFT voltage. This is the first report of a waveform that is superior to a BTE for defibrillation in humans. ULV correlates with DFT for RAMP, supporting the use of ULV testing for implantation of devices.

Discrepancies between the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold: prevalence and clinical predictors

INTRODUCTION

Upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has a strong correlation with defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT are infrequent. The aim of this study was to characterize patients with such discrepancies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ULV and DFT were determined in 167 ICD patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate clinical predictors of a significant difference (> or =10 J) between ULV and DFT. Only 8 patients (5%) had > or =10 J difference. ULV exceeded DFT in all of them. Absence of coronary artery disease (6/8 vs 48/159 patients; P = 0.05) and absence of documented ventricular arrhythmias (4/8 vs 12/159 patients; P = 0.01) were the only independent predictors of a significant ULV-DFT discrepancy.

CONCLUSION

Significant discrepancies between ULV and DFT occur in 5% of patients with ICDs. Absence of coronary disease and documented ventricular arrhythmias predict such a discrepancy. At ICD implant, DFT testing is recommended in these patients and in patients with a high (>20 J) ULV before first-shock energy and the need for lead repositioning are determined.

Effect of biphasic shock duration on defibrillation threshold with different electrode configurations and phase 2 capacitances: prediction by upper-limit-of-vulnerability determination

BACKGROUND

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) may be affected by biphasic shock duration (BSD), electrode configuration, and capacitance. The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) may be used to estimate the DFT. For different lead configurations and phase 2 capacitances, we investigated in 18 pigs whether the use of ULV may predict waveforms with lowest DFT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

-DFT and ULV were determined by up-down protocols for 10 BSDs. ULVs were measured by T-wave scanning during ventricular pacing (cycle length 500 ms). In protocol 1 (n=6), a pectoral "active can" was combined with an electrode in the superior vena cava as common cathode and a right ventricle electrode as anode (AC+SVC). In protocol 2 and protocol 3 (n=6 each), only the "active can" was used as proximal electrode (AC). Capacitance was 150 microF during both phases in protocol 1 and protocol 3 but 150 microF (phase 1) and 300 microF (phase 2) in protocol 2. ULV and DFT demonstrated a linear correlation in each protocol (r=0.78 to 0.84). Lowest DFTs were found at 10 ms for AC+SVC and at 14 ms for AC (P<0.001). At optimal BSDs, voltage DFTs did not differ significantly between AC (527+/-57 V) and AC+SVC (520+/-70 V). Switching capacitors for phase 2 in a way that reduced leading-edge voltage by 50% while doubling capacity did not change BSD for optimal voltage DFT but increased minimum DFT from 527+/-57 V to 653+/-133 V (P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The BSD with lowest DFT is shorter for AC+SVC than for AC. There is no significant difference in voltage DFT between both at optimal BSD. A lower phase 2 capacitance reduces DFTs irrespective of BSD. Because strength-duration curves for DFT and ULV correlate for different BSDs, lead systems, and phase 2 capacitances, ULV determination may allow the prediction of waveforms with lowest DFT.