Comparison of Fixed Tilt and Tuned Defibrillation Waveforms: The PROMISE Study

Defibrillation Threshold Testing for Right-sided Device Implants: A Review to Inform Shared Decision-making, in Association with the British Heart Rhythm Society

Prevention of sudden death using ICDs requires the reliable delivery of a high-energy shock to successfully terminate VF. Until more recently, the device implant procedure included conducting defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing involving VF induction and shock delivery to ensure efficacy. Large clinical trials, including SIMPLE and NORDIC ICD, have subsequently demonstrated that this is unnecessary, with a practice of omitting DFT testing having no impact on subsequent clinical outcomes. However, these studies specifically excluded patients requiring devices implanted on the right side, in whom the shock vector is significantly different and smaller studies suggest a higher DFT. In this review, the data regarding the use of DFT testing, focusing on right-sided implants, and the results of a survey of current UK practice are presented. In addition, a strategy of shared decision-making when it comes to deciding on the use of DFT testing during right-sided ICD implant procedures is proposed.

Influence of "high" defibrillation thresholds on patient survival and impact of system modification

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) marks patients with poor outcomes which are improved when DFT is decreased by system modification (subcutaneous coil implant; SM).

BACKGROUND

The electrical substrate generating fast ventricular arrhythmias may generate poor outcomes among patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), even when arrhythmias are treated successfully. Since patients with high DFTs have increased mortality, we contrasted survival among patients with high DFT treated with and without SM.

METHODS

We studied consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation and DFT testing at Cleveland Clinic over a 14-year period. High DFT was defined as successful defibrillation by shock strength >25 J or ≤10 J of maximal device output. Mortality was recorded using the Social Security Death Index. Survival was compared among those high DFT patients receiving SM versus the remainder.

RESULTS

Out of 6353 patients tested, 191 (3%) had high DFT (32.1 ± 3.7 J) versus 13.9 ± 4.9 J in the remainder ("acceptable DFT," p < .001). One hundred twenty-one high DFT patients (63%; 33.3 ± 3.4 J) underwent SM, which significantly decreased DFT (24.8 ± 5.9 J; p < .001). Seventy patients (37%; 30.3 ± 3.3 J) did not undergo SM. During follow-up, 38% (2363/6162; 7.8 yrs) patients with acceptable DFT died versus 48% high DFT patients (91/191; 5.6 yrs.; p < .001). Concomitantly, 48% patients with SM (58/121) died, as compared to 47% patients (33/70) without SM (p = .91); median follow-up 4.9 yrs).

CONCLUSION

Patients with high DFT have a higher mortality than those with acceptable DFT. The additional subcutaneous coil implant decreases DFT to an acceptable range but does not appear to improve survival. The electrical substrate underlying high DFT appears to determine survival.

Azygous Vein Coil Implantation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients: A Hands-on Approach

Recently, there have been reports of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients presenting with multiple ineffective implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks. In such patients, the placement of an azygous vein coil by providing an alternative anteroposterior trajectory of the electrical shock vector can enable successful defibrillation. This review discusses a hands-on approach to azygous vein coil implantation. Additionally, we compare our tools and technique to those that have been previously described by other operators. From 2018 to 2021, eight patients were identified who underwent azygous vein coil implantation at MedStar Washington Hospital Center using a specific technique and tools. Demographic and procedural data were obtained by a retrospective review of patient charts, procedure logs, fluoroscopy, and venography performed during coil implantation. The indication for azygous vein coil implantation was ineffective ICD shocks in seven patients. The presenting rhythm was ventricular fibrillation in six (75%) cases and sustained ventricular tachycardia in two (25%) cases. Using the approach described, we were able to successfully implant an azygous vein coil in all eight (100%) patients. There were no procedure-related complications. Postimplantation, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was successfully performed in six of eight (75%) patients. One patient failed DFT testing despite placement of an azygous vein coil. In another patient, DFT testing was not performed because the patient was in atrial fibrillation and was not systemically anticoagulated. In conclusion, the placement of an azygous vein coil in LVAD patients with failed ICD shocks using the tools and technique described in this report is safe and highly efficacious (successful in 100% of cases).

Device Therapy and Arrhythmia Management in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common, predispose these patients to additional risk, and complicate patient management. However, there is no consensus on best practices for the medical management of these arrhythmias or on the optimal timing for procedural interventions in patients with refractory arrhythmias. Although the vast majority of these patients have preexisting cardiovascular implantable electronic devices or cardiac resynchronization therapy, given the natural history of heart failure, it is common practice to maintain cardiovascular implantable electronic device detection and therapies after LVAD implantation. Available data, however, are conflicting on the efficacy of and optimal device programming after LVAD implantation. Therefore, the primary objective of this scientific statement is to review the available evidence and to provide guidance on the management of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in this unique patient population, as well as procedural interventions and cardiovascular implantable electronic device and cardiac resynchronization therapy programming strategies, on the basis of a comprehensive literature review by electrophysiologists, heart failure cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiovascular nurse specialists with expertise in managing these patients. The structure and design of commercially available LVADs are briefly reviewed, as well as clinical indications for device implantation. The relevant physiological effects of long-term exposure to continuous-flow circulatory support are highlighted, as well as the mechanisms and clinical significance of arrhythmias in the setting of LVAD support.

Should Single-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Be Used in all Patients?

The historical preference for dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads stems from high defibrillation thresholds associated with old device platforms. The high safety margins generated by contemporary devices have rendered the modest difference in defibrillation efficacy between single- and dual-coil leads clinically insignificant. Cohort data demonstrating worse lead extraction outcomes and higher all-cause mortality have brought the incremental utility of an superior vena cava coil into question. This article summarizes the current literature and re-evaluates the utility of dual-coil leads in the context of modern device technology.