Implantation of cardioverter defibrillators without induction of ventricular fibrillation

Defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is a routine practice in some Asian countries for patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, there are few long-term data about the necessity of intraoperative DFT testing in an Asian population. We investigated the safety of DFT testing and the long-term clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing ICD implantation.

METHODS

All patients undergoing de novo transvenous ICD implantation were randomized to undergo periprocedural DFT testing. The study included 67 patients (50 males; 51.5 ± 16.9 years) who underwent ICD implantation with (n = 33) or without (n = 34) intraoperative DFT testing between March 2012 and February 2014. We compared first-shock success, composite safety end points (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days), arrhythmic death, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical characteristics and the procedural-related adverse event rate (3.0% with DFT vs. 0% with non-DFT, p = 0.214) did not differ between groups. The programmed output of the first shock was lower in the DFT testing group (22.9 ± 4.4 J vs. 25.3 ± 5.4 J, p = 0.007). However, there were no significant differences between groups for all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.526) or first-shock success rate for ventricular arrhythmia (100% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.471).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no between-group differences in periprocedural safety, complications, and long-term clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that DFT testing in Asian patients allows reduction of the programmed output of the first shock, but does not affect long-term clinical outcomes.

Safety threshold of R-wave amplitudes in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator

OBJECTIVE

A safety threshold for baseline rhythm R-wave amplitudes during follow-up of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) has not been established. We aimed to analyse the amplitude distribution and undersensing rate during spontaneous episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF), and define a safety amplitude threshold for baseline R-waves.

METHODS

Data were obtained from an observational multicentre registry conducted at 48 centres in Spain. Baseline R-wave amplitudes and VF events were prospectively registered by remote monitoring. Signal processing algorithms were used to compare amplitudes of baseline R-waves with VF R-waves. All undersensed R-waves after the blanking period (120 ms) were manually marked.

RESULTS

We studied 2507 patients from August 2011 to September 2014, which yielded 229 VF episodes (cycle length 189.6±29.1 ms) from 83 patients that were suitable for R-wave comparisons (follow-up 2.7±2.6 years). The majority (77.6%) of VF R-waves (n=13953) showed lower amplitudes than the reference baseline R-wave. The decrease in VF amplitude was progressively attenuated among subgroups of baseline R-wave amplitude (≥17; ≥12 to <17; ≥7 to <12; ≥2.2 to <7 mV) from the highest to the lowest: median deviations -51.2% to +22.4%, respectively (p=0.027). There were no significant differences in undersensing rates of VF R-waves among subgroups. Both the normalised histogram distribution and the undersensing risk function obtained from the ≥2.2 to <7 mV subgroup enabled the prediction that baseline R-wave amplitudes ≤2.5 mV (interquartile range: 2.3-2.8 mV) may lead to ≥25% of undersensed VF R-waves.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline R-wave amplitudes ≤2.5 mV during follow-up of patients with ICDs may lead to high risk of delayed detection of VF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01561144; results.

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Who Doesn't Get It?

Defibrillation testing has been routinely performed as part of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedure, and is currently supported by practice guidelines; however, more recently, this practice has been called into question. Such testing is safe, and serious complications are rare. With modern ICD systems, physicians will rarely encounter a patient in whom defibrillation will fail. This article reviews the literature regarding the utility, necessity, complications, and cost of routine operative and follow-up defibrillation testing, and, it is hoped, clarifies the issue of "Who doesn't get it?"

Sinus rhythm R-wave amplitude as a predictor of ventricular fibrillation undersensing in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) is induced during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to ensure that the ICD will sense, detect, and defibrillate VF. ICD implant guidelines state that the amplitude of the sinus rhythm R wave recorded from the ventricular electrogram should have amplitude ≥5 mV. No study has tested the relationship between sinus rhythm R-wave amplitude and VF sensing using modern, transvenous sensing electrodes.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to determine whether there is a sinus rhythm R-wave amplitude cutoff that can be used to determine which patients are not at risk of VF undersensing.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of induced and spontaneous VF episodes from 2 clinical trials with 2022 patients was performed. Episodes with undersensing during the initial detection of VF were identified, and the distribution of sinus rhythm R-wave amplitudes for patients with and without VF undersensing was analyzed.

RESULTS

Only 3% of analyzed induced VF episodes were considered to have VF undersensing, and none had clinically significant detection delays. There was no correlation between device-measured, rectified sinus rhythm R-wave amplitude and VF undersensing at the time of implantation or during follow-up, although <4% of patients had sinus rhythm R-waves with amplitude <3 mV.

CONCLUSION

We analyzed true bipolar sensing of induced VF or spontaneous ventricular tachycardia/VF detected in the ICD VF zone. Sensing of VF was so reliable that clinically significant undersensing did not occur. Our findings do not support any recommended minimum sinus rhythm R wave to ensure reliable sensing of VF or the necessity of inducing VF to verify sensing for rectified sinus rhythm R-waves with amplitude ≥3 mV.

ICD Shock, Not Ventricular Fibrillation, Causes Elevation of High Sensitive Troponin T after Defibrillation Threshold Testing--The Prospective, Randomized, Multicentre TropShock-Trial

BACKGROUND

The placement of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has become routine practice to protect high risk patients from sudden cardiac death. However, implantation-related myocardial micro-damage and its relation to different implantation strategies are poorly characterized.

METHODS

A total of 194 ICD recipients (64±12 years, 83% male, 95% primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, 35% cardiac resynchronization therapy) were randomly assigned to one of three implantation strategies: (1) ICD implantation without any defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, (2) estimation of the DFT without arrhythmia induction (modified "upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing") or (3) traditional safety margin testing including ventricular arrhythmia induction. High-sensitive Troponin T (hsTnT) levels were determined prior to the implantation and 6 hours after.

RESULTS

All three groups showed a postoperative increase of hsTnT. The mean delta was 0.031±0.032 ng/ml for patients without DFT testing, 0.080±0.067 ng/ml for the modified ULV-testing and 0.064±0.056 ng/ml for patients with traditional safety margin testing. Delta hsTnT was significantly larger in both of the groups with intraoperative ICD testing compared to the non-testing strategy (p≤0.001 each). There was no statistical difference in delta hsTnT between the two groups with intraoperative ICD testing (p = 0.179).

CONCLUSION

High-sensitive Troponin T release during ICD implantation is significantly higher in patients with intraoperative ICD testing using shock applications compared to those without testing. Shock applications, with or without arrhythmia induction, did not result in a significantly different delta hsTnT. Hence, the ICD shock itself and not ventricular fibrillation seems to cause myocardial micro-damage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01230086.

Fatal undersensing of ventricular fibrillation due to intermittent high-amplitude R waves

A 48-year-old man was admitted after an episode of aborted sudden death with external defibrillation. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator implanted 2 years before for secondary prevention failed to sense properly an episode of ventricular fibrillation. Interrogation of the device showed large oscillatory changes of the amplitude of the local electrogram during ventricular fibrillation, causing undersensing and inappropriate refraining from shock therapy.

Problems with implantable cardiac device therapy

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients who have left ventricular dysfunction; however, they are associated with numerous problems at implant and during follow-up. The diagnosis and management of these problems is usually straightforward, but more difficult problems may include the management of patients who have elevated energy requirements to terminate ventricular fibrillation or of those who have postoperative device infections. Long-term issues in ICD patients include the occurrence of inappropriate or frequent appropriate shocks. ICD generators and leads are more prone to failures than are pacing systems alone; management of patients potentially dependent on "recalled" devices to deliver life-saving therapy is a particularly complex issue. The purpose of this article is to review the diagnosis and management of these more troublesome ICD problems.

Patient-tailored implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing using the upper limit of vulnerability: the TULIP protocol

AIMS

We evaluated the feasibility of the TULIP (Threshold test using Upper Limit during ImPlantation) protocol, which was designed to provide a confirmed, low defibrillation energy value during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation with only two induced ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients (62 +/- 12 years, 86 male) from 13 clinical centres underwent an active can ICD implantation. A single coupling interval derived from electrocardiogram lead II during ventricular pacing was used for VF induction shocks at 13, 11, 9, and 6 J in a step-down manner until the upper limit of VF induction (ULVI) was determined. If ULVI >or=9 J, a defibrillation energy of ULVI + 4 J was tested. For ULVI <9 J, the defibrillation test energy was 9 J. In 79/98 patients (80.6%), two induced VF episodes were sufficient to obtain confirmed defibrillation energy of 11.1 +/- 3.3 J. The mean strength of the successful VF induction shock was 6.8 +/- 4.3 J, the coupling interval was 303 +/- 35 ms, and the number of delivered induction shocks until the first VF induction was 3.9 +/- 1.6.

CONCLUSION

TULIP is a safe and simple device testing procedure allowing the determination of confirmed, low defibrillation energy in most patients with two VF episodes induced at a single coupling interval.

Sensing failure associated with the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead

INTRODUCTION

The diameter of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads has become progressively smaller over time. However, the long-term performance characteristics of these smaller ICD leads are unknown.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 357 patients who underwent implantation of a Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillating lead at two separate centers between September 2004 and October 2006. Lead characteristics were measured at implant, at early follow-up (1-4 days post implant), and every 3-6 months thereafter.

RESULTS

During the study period, 357 patients underwent implantation of the Medtronic Sprint Fidelis lead. The mean R-wave measured at implant through the device was not different (P = NS) when compared with that measured at first follow-up (10.5 +/- 5.0 mV vs 10.7 +/- 5.1 mV). Forty-one patients (13%) had an R-wave amplitude <or= 5 mV measured through the device at implant. Of those patients with an R-wave amplitude <or= 5 mV at implant measured through the device, 63% (n = 26) remained <or= 5 mV for the duration of follow-up. The mean time to R-wave amplitude <or= 5 mV was 96.2 +/- 123 days. During follow-up, 65 (18%) patients developed R-wave <or= 5 mV. Overall 10 lead revisions (2.8%) were performed during the first year of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Abnormal R-wave sensing is frequently observed during follow-up with the Medtronic Fidelis ICD lead. Lead revision was necessary in 2.8% of the patients, most often (8 of 10) due to abnormal R-wave sensing along with elevated pacing threshold. Whether this issue is limited to this lead or reflects a potential problem with all downsized ICD leads merits further investigation.

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.

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.

A comparison of the output characteristics of several implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are effective for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. However, despite wide clinical use, there are no generally accepted standardized protocols to characterize and report the output capabilities of ICDs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to measure and compare the output characteristics of standard-output and high-output ICDs from several manufacturers under a common set of conditions.

METHODS

The output characteristics of ICDs randomly selected from hospital stock were measured. The energy delivered for each shock to a range of fixed loads (25-75 Omega) was computed from the voltage waveform and the corresponding load.

RESULTS

Delivered energy varied by approximately 4 J over the range of loads tested and varied between devices (high-output 33.8-35 J; standard-output 26.7-28.6 J, at 50 Omega). Leading-edge voltage varied by approximately 6% over the range of loads tested and varied between devices (high-output 738-792 V; standard-output 593-797 V, at 50 Omega). Pulse width varied by a factor of approximately 3 over the range of loads tested and varied between devices (high-output 10-14.5 ms; standard-output 9-12.2 ms, at 50 Omega). Observed variations between devices and with load were significant (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially important differences in output characteristics of different ICD systems exist and merit further clinical investigation. The reporting of ICD output characteristics should be standardized. Additionally, it is recommended that manufacturers report output characteristics as a function of load over the typical range of patient loads clinically encountered.

Delayed Defibrillation Testing in Patients Implanted with Biventricular ICD (CRT-D): A Reliable and Safe Approach

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing (DT) at the end of the implantation of cardiac resynchronization pacemaker with a defibrillator (CRT-D) exposes heart failure (HF) patients to increased procedural risks. However, until now, delayed DT has not been assessed as a possible option in HF patients implanted with CRT-D.

OBJECTIVE

Aim of the present study is to assess safety and feasibility of delayed DT in HF patients treated with CRT-D.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and eleven consecutive patients (mean age: 65 years, mean NYHA class 3.0, mean EF: 29.3%) underwent CRT-D implantation from October 1999 to December 2004. In the first 17 patients, DT was performed at the end of CRT-D implantation. In the other 194 consecutive patients, DT was performed at 2 months after CRT-D implantation. Outcome of DT, as well as "acute" LV lead dislodgment rate were evaluated in the latter group of 194 patients undergoing a delayed DT. Also, ICD function was assessed through device telemetry analysis at 2 months.

RESULTS

At delayed DT, first shock was effective in 187 of 194 patients (96%), ineffective VF interruption at maximum energy occurred only in one patient (0.5%), and acute LV lead dislodgment was 1%. No ICD therapy failure occurred in the 2-month untested period.

CONCLUSION

DT performed 2 months after CRT-D implantation is safe and feasible; this is possibly related to the improvement of clinical conditions and hemodynamic status as well as greater lead stability 2 months after CRT-D.

Detection of the Defibrillation Threshold Using the Upper Limit of Vulnerability Following Defibrillator Implantation

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to test defibrillation threshold (DFT) with the least number of fibrillation inductions using upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) and to describe the most practical set of ICD during DFT following implantation.

BACKGROUND

Although the correlation between ULV and DFT has been well described, there has been no uniform DFT testing protocol taking the advantage of ULV after defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

METHODS

A total of 26 patients undergoing a new ICD implantation had a DFT induced with scanned T wave shock. The hypothesis that ventricular fibrillation (VF) could be defibrillated with 5 J higher than the highest T wave shock needed to induce VF or with 10 J if the T wave shock needed to induce VF was less than 5 J, was tested and 20 patients fulfilled these criteria. The methodology is improved by detecting peak T wave with 12-lead ECG, applying biphasic T wave shock and scanning the T wave shock in a wider window.

RESULTS

Five patients in the first group (n = 15) and one patient in the second group (n = 11) did not fulfill the above hypothesis. The common features of six patients who did not fulfill the hypothesis were that T wave shock needed to induce VF was either under 5 J (5 patients) or high (1 patient).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the importance of methodology in studies regarding ULV and DFT. Following ICD implantation, we propose the first biphasic T wave detected by 12-lead ECG and rescue shock set at 10 and 15 J, respectively. If any of the scanned T wave (40 ms before and 40 ms after the peak T wave with decrements and increments of 20 ms) shocks could not induce VF, then the T wave and the first rescue shock should be set at 5 and 10 J, respectively. If the induction of VF has been unsuccessful with T wave shock at 5 J, then a safe defibrillation with 10 J should be expected in majority.

Upper limit of vulnerability determination during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement to minimize ventricular fibrillation inductions

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) and upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) were determined using step-down protocols in 50 patients who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement or testing. The sensitivity and specificity of each ULV energy level was assessed for detecting an increased DFT, correlation of the DFT and ULV, and optimal shock timing for ULV determination. A ULV <10 or 11 J (failure to induce ventricular fibrillation with 10- to 11-J shocks) was 100% predictive of an acceptable DFT and may be sufficient to exclude unacceptable DFTs in 60% of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients. All 4 shocks used to scan the peak of the T wave during ULV testing were necessary for accurate ULV determination.

Successful implantation of cardiac defibrillators without induction of ventricular fibrillation using upper limit of vulnerability testing

INTRODUCTION

Conventionally, the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is tested at implantation by measurement of defibrillation threshold (DFT), which involves repeated induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). We report our data on successful ICD implantation without VF induction using a modified upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing method, compared to standard DFT testing.

METHODS

Fourteen patients underwent ICD implantation using a modified ULV testing method by delivering a 15 J shock during the vulnerable period on the peak of the T wave, and if VF was not induced 15 J shocks were repeated at -20 and -40 msec before the peak of T wave. Failure to induce VF, indicating a ULV <15 joules (J), suggested a DFT < or =20 J based on previous studies demonstrating a close correlation (+/-5 J) between ULV and DFT. If VF was induced, a 20 J rescue shock was delivered. ICD therapy was then programmed on the basis of ULV testing. All patients underwent pre-discharge DFT testing to confirm adequate DFT.

RESULTS

Using a modified ULV testing method, ICD implantation was completed without induction of VF in 8 patients and only a single episode of VF in 6 patients. The mean number of VF episodes (0.42 +/- 0.5) induced with ULV testing was significantly lower (p <.001) than the number induced during DFT testing (3.9 +/- 0.8). Pre-discharge DFT testing did not alter ICD programming in any patient. During follow-up of 14.85 +/- 12.31 months, three patients had seven episodes of VT/VF, six of whom were converted with the programmed first-shock strength, while one required a second high-energy shock to convert. This patient had a pre-discharge DFT of 10 joules.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful ICD implantation can be safely performed with no or fewer episodes of VF induction using a modified ULV testing method.