Effect of capacitor size and pathway resistance on defibrillation threshold for implantable defibrillators

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.

Parameters characterizing implantable defibrillator output: a proposal

AIMS

Recently, a discussion was carried out in Heart Rhythm on the specifications that could characterize implantable defibrillators. It is the intention of this paper to participate in this discussion on defibrillation characteristics and to give recommendations on how this problem could be solved. Theoretical considerations and results There are different defibrillation theories, all finding that the defibrillation's efficacy depends on the time constant RC which is output capacitance C times load resistance R. Efficacy decreases with increasing RC. This means that (i) the knowledge of C is of paramount importance, (ii) the energy is 'devalued' with increasing RC and that those parameter settings such as tilt or pulse duration should be adjusted to the time constant, and (iii) the energy values given without further specification are not meaningful. As there is always a voltage drop across an internal resistance within the ICD, the measured voltage across the output differs from the capacitor voltage and is reduced which determines the efficiency of the device. From the data given by Thammanomai et al., one can determine the parameters maximum voltage, capacitance, internal resistance, and tilt. These parameters are adequate and necessary to describe an ICD device and to derive the effective energy for device comparison. Discussion The 'high output devices' with their high nominal energy are reduced in their effective energies to a degree that they are comparable to the best 'standard output devices'. They do not offer that superiority which is promised by the nominal energy. Moreover, if the tilt is fixed and larger than optimal, the energy requirements are still higher or the effective energy will further drop. The term 'delivered energy' is not used by us because the delivered energy increases with increasing tilt. However, today's tilts are too large as judged by theories, which means that high delivered energies can be worse than lower ones. The delivered energy is, therefore, not a meaningful parameter in judging ICDs.

CONCLUSION

ICD devices should be characterized by: (i) voltage, (ii) capacitance, (iii) tilt or pulse duration (if not programmable), and (iv) internal resistance. All other parameters can be derived from them by simple calculations. Introduction of a 'devaluation factor' characterizes the decreasing efficacy with increasing time constant and renders the output characteristics transparent and comparable.

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.

The Strength-Duration Relationship of Monophasic Waveforms with Varying Capacitance Sizes in External Defibrillation

The shape of the shock waveform influences defibrillation efficacy. However, the optimal combination between capacitance size and truncation/tilt which can determine monophasic waveform's shape, has not been determined for external defibrillation. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of varying capacitance and tilt on external defibrillation using exponential monophasic waveforms. In a pig model of external defibrillation (n = 10, 30 +/- 6 kg), nine exponential monophasic waveforms combining three capacitance values (30 microF, 60 microF, and 120 microF) and three tilt values (55%, 75%, and 95%) were tested randomly. The energy and leading edge voltage at 50% defibrillation success (E50 and V50) were used to evaluate defibrillation efficacy. E50 and V50 were determined by the Bayesian technique. The lowest stored E50 for the 30microF, 60 microF, and 120 microF waveforms were 90 +/- 12 J (95% tilt), 106 +/- 45 J (55% tilt), and 107 +/- 52 J (75% tilt), respectively. The lowest V50 for the 30 microF, 60 microF, and 120 microF waveforms were 2,439 +/- 166 V (95% tilt), 1,849 +/- 375 V (55% tilt), and 1,301 +/- 322 V (75% tilt), respectively. The average current at external defibrillation threshold demonstrated a strength versus pulse duration relationship similar to that seen with pacing. Reducing capacitance has the same effect as truncating the waveform. The E50 is more sensitive to tilt values changes in larger capacitance waveforms. This study suggests that the optimal combination between capacitance and tilt may be 120 microF and 55%-75% for external defibrillation.

Multicenter study of principles-based waveforms for external defibrillation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The efficacy of a shock waveform for external defibrillation depends on the waveform characteristics. Recently, design principles based on cardiac electrophysiology have been developed to determine optimal waveform characteristics. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of principles-based monophasic and biphasic waveforms for external defibrillation.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, blinded, multicenter study of 118 patients undergoing electrophysiologic testing or receiving an implantable defibrillator was conducted. Ventricular fibrillation was induced, and defibrillation was attempted in each patient with a biphasic and a monophasic waveform. Patients were randomly placed into 2 groups: group 1 received shocks of escalating energy, and group 2 received only high-energy shocks.

RESULTS

The biphasic waveform achieved a first-shock success rate of 100% in group 1 (95% confidence interval [CI] 95.1% to 100%) and group 2 (95% CI 94.6% to 100%), with average delivered energies of 201+/-17 J and 295+/-28 J, respectively. The monophasic waveform demonstrated a 96.7% (95% CI 89.1% to 100%) first-shock success rate and average delivered energy of 215+/-12 J for group 1 and a 98.2% (95% CI 91.7% to 100%) first-shock success rate and average delivered energy of 352+/-13 J for group 2.

CONCLUSION

Using principles of electrophysiology, it is possible to design both biphasic and monophasic waveforms for external defibrillation that achieve a high first-shock efficacy.

ICD waveform optimization: a randomized, prospective, pair-sampled multicenter study

The theoretical tissue model-based estimates of phase 1 and phase 2 duration of biphasic waveforms are considerably shorter than the pulse widths currently used in ICDs with standard tilt. This study used a tissue resistance/capacitance (RC) model to identify optimal biphasic pulse widths. By paired step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, the efficacy of standard versus "tuned" biphasic waveforms was evaluated in 91 patients. Standard waveforms consisted of a phase 1 set to 65% tilt and phase 2 = phase 1. The tuned waveform was based on an RC model of membrane characteristics with a time constant of 3.5 ms. The optimal phase 1 truncation point is at the peak of membrane response. The optimal phase 2 duration ends with a membrane response near or just below 0. In paired analysis, no significant differences were found in DFT or impedance between standard and tuned waveforms. In patients with DFTs > 400 V, the tuned waveform lowered the DFT by an average of 38 V (P < 0.05). Multivariate analyses showed a significant inverse relationship between DFT and impedance (P < 0.001). As impedance increased, the tuned waveform was associated with DFTs comparable to the standard waveform with shorter pulse duration and lower delivered energy. No single tilt value allowing an easy calculation of delivered energy was related to ICD waveform efficacy. The use of ICDs with tuned optimal pulse durations offer a greater flexibility of choice for patients with high DFTs.

Preliminary clinical results of a biphasic waveform and an RV lead system

Biphasic defibrillation waveforms have provided a reduction in defibrillation thresholds in transvenous ICD systems. Although a variety of biphasic waveforms have been tested, the optimal pulse durations and tilts have yet to be identified. A multicenter clinical study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a new ICD biphasic waveform and new RV active fixation steroid eluting lead system. Fifty-three patients were entered into the study. Mean age was 63 years with a mean ejection fraction of 36.8%. Primary indication for implantation was monomorphic ventricular tachycardia alone (54.7%). Forty-eight patients (90.6%) were implanted with an RV shocking lead and active can alone as the anodal contact. The ICD can was the cathode. In four cases (7.5%), an additional SVC or CS lead was used due to a high DFT with the RV lead alone. In an additional case, a chronic SVC lead was used although the RV-Can DFT was acceptable. DFT for all cases at implant was 9.8 +/- 3.7 J. Repeat testing at 3 months for a subset of patients showed a reduction in DFT (7.4 +/- 3.0 J), P value = 0.03. Sensing and pacing characteristics of the RV lead system remained excellent during the study period (acute 0.047 +/- 0.005 ms at 5.4 V and 9.9 +/- 6.2 mV R wave; chronic 0.067 +/- 0.11 ms at 5.4 V and 9.3 +/- 5.4 mV R wave). It is concluded that this lead system provides good acute and chronic sensing and pacing characteristics with good DFT values in combination with this waveform.

Effects of respiration phase on ventricular defibrillation threshold in a hot can electrode system

The impedance of defibrillation pathways is an important determinant of ventricular defibrillation efficacy. The hypothesis in this study was that the respiration phase (end-inspiration versus end-expiration) may alter impedance and/or defibrillation efficacy in a "hot can" electrode system. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) parameters were evaluated at end-expiration and at end-inspiration phases in random order by a biphasic waveform in ten anesthetized pigs (body weight: 19.1 +/- 2.4 kg; heart weight: 97 +/- 10 g). Pigs were intubated with a cuffed endotracheal tube and ventilated through a Drager SAV respirator with tidal volume of 400-500 mL. A transvenous defibrillation lead (6 cm long, 6.5 Fr) was inserted into the right ventricular apex. A titanium can electrode (92-cm2 surface area) was placed in the left pectoral area. The right ventricular lead was the anode for the first phase and the cathode for the second phase. The DFT was determined by a "down-up down-up" protocol. Statistical analysis was performed with a Wilcoxon matched pair test. The median impedance at DFT for expiration and inspiration phases were 37.8 +/- 3.1 omega, and 39.3 +/- 3.6 omega, respectively (P = 0.02). The stored energy at DFT for expiration and inspiration phases were 5.7 +/- 1.9 J and 6.0 +/- 1.0 J, respectively (P = 0.594). Shocks delivered at end-inspiration exhibited a statistically significant increase in electrode impedance in a " hot can" electrode system. The finding that DFT energy was not significantly different at both respiration phases indicates that respiration phase does not significantly affect defibrillation energy requirements.

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

INTRODUCTION

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV can be determined with a single episode of ventricular fibrillation and is more reproducible than the single-point DFT. The critical-point hypothesis of defibrillation predicts that the relation between the ULV and the DFT is independent of shock waveform. The principal goal of this study was to test this prediction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 45 patients at implants of pectoral cardioverter defibrillators. In the monophasic-biphasic group (n = 15), DFT and ULV were determined for monophasic and biphasic pulses from a 120-microF capacitor. In the 60- to 110-microF group (n = 30), DFT and ULV were compared for a clinically used 110-microF waveform and a novel 60-microF waveform with 70% phase 1 tilt and 7-msec phase 2 duration. In the monophasic-biphasic group, all measures of ULV and DFT were greater for monophasic than biphasic waveforms (P < 0.0001). In the 60- to 110-microF group, the current and voltage at the ULV and DFT were higher for the 60-microF waveform (P < 0.0001), but stored energy was lower (ULV 17%, P < 0.0001; DFT 19%, P = 0.03). There was a close correlation between ULV and DFT for both the monophasic-biphasic group (monophasic r2 = 0.75, P < 0.001; biphasic r2 = 0.82, P < 0.001) and the 60- to 110-microF group (60 microF r2 = 0.81 P < 0.001; 110 microF r2 = 0.75, P < 0.001). The ratio of ULV to DFT was not significantly different for monophasic versus biphasic pulses (1.17 +/- 0.12 vs 1.14 +/- 0.19, P = 0.19) or 60-microF versus 110-microF pulses (1.15 +/- 0.16 vs 1.11 +/- 0.14, P = 0.82). The slopes of the ULV versus DFT regression lines also were not significantly different (monophasic vs biphasic pulses, P = 0.46; 60-microF vs 110-microF pulses, P = 0.99). The sample sizes required to detect the observed differences between experimental conditions (P < 0.05) were 4 for ULV versus 6 for DFT in the monophasic-biphasic group (95% power) and 11 for ULV versus 31 for DFT in the 60- to 110-microF group (75% power).

CONCLUSION

The relation between ULV and DFT is independent of shock waveform. Fewer patients are required to detect a moderate difference in efficacy of defibrillation waveforms by ULV than by DFT. A small-capacitor biphasic waveform with a long second phase defibrillates with lower stored energy than a clinically used waveform.

Biphasic waveforms for ventricular defibrillation: optimization of total pulse and second phase durations

Waveform parameters may affect the efficacy of ventricular defibrillation. Certain biphasic pulse waveforms are more effective for ventricular defibrillation than monophasic waveforms, but the optimal biphasic waveform parameters have not been identified. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of total pulse duration and the duration of the second (negative) phase on voltage and energy defibrillation requirements using biphasic waveforms. Defibrillation efficacy was evaluated in an isolated rabbit heart model using the Langendorff technique. The biphasic waveform was a truncated exponential with the initial voltage of the second phase equal to 50% of the final voltage of the first phase. An up/down protocol was used to determine the 50% probability-of-success levels (E50) for delivered energy and initial voltage. First, using pulse waveforms with equal positive and negative phase durations, test waveforms with total durations of 4 ms (2 ms positive + 2 ms negative), 6 ms (3 + 3 ms), and 16 ms (8 + 8 ms) were compared to the control waveform of 8 ms (4 + 4 ms) in 30 experiments. Defibrillation voltage requirements with 4 ms (174 +/- 56 V) were higher (P = 0.001) compared to 8 ms (127 +/- 49 V). Defibrillation voltage requirements for the 6-ms and 16-ms waveforms were similar to the 8-ms control waveform. Delivered energies tended to be higher with the 4-ms waveform. A second series of 40 experiments were performed to compare monophasic (4 + 0 ms) and three asymmetric biphasic waveforms (4 + 2 ms, 4 + 8 ms, and 4 + 16 ms) to the symmetric control waveform (4 + 4 ms). The monophasic (2.15 +/- 1.21 J) and the 4 + 16 ms waveform (1.86 +/- 1.09 J) required higher energies (P < or = 0.05) than the control waveform (1.24 +/- 0.41 J and 0.87 +/- 0.7 J, respectively). The monophasic waveform also resulted in greater voltage requirements (223 +/- 64 V) compared to the control waveform (160 +/- 26 V) (P = 0.02). Energy and voltage requirements were similar for the 4 + 2 ms and 4 + 8 ms waveforms compared to the control. Defibrillation requirements with biphasic waveforms were affected by total and second phase duration. For waveforms with equal phase durations, total durations between 6-16 ms resulted in the lowest values for defibrillation. For waveforms with variable second (negative) phase durations, durations ranging from 50%-200% of the first phase did not affect defibrillation efficacy.

Low-energy endocardial defibrillation using dual, triple, and quadruple electrode systems

The feasibility of achieving both universal application of nonthoracotomy leads and low (< or = 15 J) defibrillation energy requirements by optimizing lead system configuration for use with low-output (<30 J) biphasic shock pulse generators was examined. Sixteen patients (mean age 62 +/- 8 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 38 +/- 15%) were included in the study. All patients had either experienced syncope with induced ventricular tachycardia (n = 4) or had documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 7) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 5). Defibrillation threshold testing was performed in 2 stages on different days in these patients. In the first stage, 2 defibrillation catheter electrodes were positioned in the right ventricle and superior vena cava with an axillary cutaneous patch. Fifteen-joule, 10- and 5-J biphasic shocks were delivered across 3 different electrode configurations-right ventricle to superior vena cava, right ventricle to axillary patch, right ventricle to a combination of superior vena cava and axillary patch. In the second stage, an 80-ml can electrode was added subcutaneously in a pectoral location to the previous leads. Configurations compared were the right ventricle to pectoral can, and right ventricle to an "array"-combining superior vena cava, can, and axillary patch leads. The defibrillation threshold was determined using a step-down method. In stage 1, mean defibrillation threshold for the right ventricle to axillary patch (12.7 +/- 5.9 J) and right ventricle to superior vena cava plus axillary patch (9.8 +/- 5.2 J) configurations was lower than the right ventricle to superior vena cava configuration (14.2 +/- 6.4 J, p <0.05). In stage 2, the defibrillation was higher for the right ventricle to pectoral can (9.2 +/- 5.1 J) configuration compared with the right ventricle to the array (5.6 +/- 3.6 J, p < or =0.05). The right ventricle to array had the lowest defibrillation threshold, whereas the right ventricle to pectoral can was the best dual electrode system. Low-energy endocardial defibrillation (< or =10 J) was feasible in 72% of tested patients with > 1 electrode configuration at 10 J, whereas only 53% of successful patients could be reverted at >1 electrode configuration at 5 J (p <0.05). Reduction in maximum pulse generator output to < or =25 J using these electrode configurations with bidirectional shocks is feasible and maintains an adequate safety margin.

Comparison of single-biphasic versus sequential-biphasic shocks on defibrillation threshold in pigs

Current generation implantable cardioverter defibrillators use monophasic, biphasic, or sequential pulse shocks, most of which truncate after a given time, dumping the remaining charge on the capacitor through an internal resistor. We hypothesized that having an additional current pathway, and delivering the majority of the remaining charge on a single capacitor to the two pathways using additional shock phases, would improve defibrillation efficacy. This hypothesis was tested by comparing DFTs using a simulated single capacitor, single-biphasic shock (two 5-ms pulses separated by 0.2 ms), delivered to coupled pairs of electrodes, to those using a sequential-biphasic shock (four 5-ms pulses separated by 0.2 ms) delivered to separate opposing electrodes, delivered from the same electrodes for both waveforms. In eight open-chest anesthetized pigs, four mesh electrodes (Medtronic TX-7, 6.5 cm2), were sutured on the epicardium of the anterior and posterior surfaces of each ventricle. Shocks were delivered from a 200-microF capacitor bank. Triplicate DFTs were obtained using each waveform in a randomized crossover design. Initial leading edge voltage (mean +/- SEM: 420 +/- 33 V vs 497 +/- 34 V; P < 0.05), initial peak current (4.8 +/- 0.4 A vs 13 +/- 1.1 A; P < 0.001), and delivered energy (16.9 +/- 2.6 J vs 30.4 +/- 5.3 J; P < 0.05) at the DFT were all significantly lower using sequential-biphasic shocks than those using single-biphasic shocks, respectively. We conclude that for direct heart defibrillation, it is worthwhile to combine sequential capability to biphasic shocks and deliver the remaining charge on the capacitor to the two different pathways.

Optimized first phase tilt in "parallel-series" biphasic waveform

INTRODUCTION

A biphasic defibrillation waveform can achieve a large second phase leading-edge voltage by a "parallel-series" switching system. Recently, such a system using two 30-microF capacitances demonstrated better defibrillation threshold than standard waveforms available in current implantable devices. However, the optimized tilt of such a "parallel-series" system had not been defined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation thresholds were evaluated for five different biphasic "parallel-series" waveforms (60/15 microF) and a biphasic "parallel-parallel" waveform (60/60 microF) in 12 anesthetized pigs. The five "parallel-series" waveforms had first phase tilts of 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% with second phase pulse width of 3 msec. The "parallel-parallel" waveform had first phase tilt of 50% with second phase pulse width of 3 msec. The defibrillation lead system comprised a left pectoral "hot can" electrode (cathode) and a right ventricular lead (anode). The stored energy at defibrillation threshold of the "parallel-series" waveform with first phase tilts of 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% was 7.0 +/- 2.1, 6.1 +/- 2.8, 6.8 +/- 2.8, 7.2 +/- 2.9, and 8.4 +/- 3.1 J, respectively. The stored energy of the "parallel-series" waveform with a 50% first phase tilt was 16% less than the nonswitching "parallel-parallel" waveform (7.3 +/- 2.8 J, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A first phase tilt of 50% maximized defibrillation efficacy of biphasic waveforms implemented with a "parallel-series" switching system. This optimized "parallel-series" waveform was more efficient than the comparable "parallel-parallel" biphasic waveform having the same first phase capacitance and tilt.

Upper limit of vulnerability predicts chronic defibrillation threshold for transvenous implantable defibrillators

INTRODUCTION

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the shock strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation cannot be induced when delivered in the vulnerable period. It correlates acutely with the acute defibrillation threshold (DFT) and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation. The goal of this prospective study was to determine the relationship between the ULV and the chronic DFT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 40 patients at, and 3 months after, implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillators. The ULV was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that failed to induce fibrillation when delivered 0, 20, and 40 msec before the peak of the T wave. patients were classified as clinically stable or unstable based on prospectively defined criteria. There were no significant differences between the group means for the acute and chronic determinations of ULV (13.5 +/- 5.3 J vs 12.4 +/- 6.8 J, P = 0.25) and DFT (10.1 +/- 5.0 J vs 9.9 +/- 5.7 J, P = 0.74). Five patients (15%) were classified as unstable. The strength of the correlation between acute ULV and acute DFT (r = 0.74, P < 0.001) was similar to that between the chronic ULV and chronic DFT (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). There was a correlation between the change in ULV from acute to chronic and the corresponding change in DFT (r = 0.67, P < 0.001). The chronic DFT was less than the acute ULV +3 J in all 35 stable patients, but it was greater in 2 of 5 unstable patients (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the correlation between the chronic ULV and the chronic DFT is comparable to that between the acute ULV and the acute DFT. Temporal changes in the ULV predict temporal changes in the DFT. In clinically stable patients, a defibrillation safety margin of 3 J above the acute ULV proved an adequate chronic safety margin.

Does reducing capacitance have potential for further miniaturisation of implantable defibrillators?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether considerably smaller capacitors could replace 125 microF capacitors as the standard for use in implantable defibrillators.

METHODS

Measured energy, impedance, voltage, and current delivered were compared at defibrillation threshold in 10 mongrel dogs for defibrillation using 75 microF and 125 microF capacitors alternated randomly. Defibrillation was attempted with biphasic shocks of comparable tilt between an endocardial lead in the right ventricular apex and a "dummy" active can of an experimental implantable device placed in the subpectoral position.

RESULTS

A reduction of capacitor size of 40% was associated with an increase in voltage of 21% and in current of 22%. With a 65% tilt, no significant differences were found between the two capacitances with respect to the impedance or energy required for defibrillation.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple advances in electrode material, electrode configuration, shock morphology, and shock polarity have reduced defibrillation energy requirements. Smaller capacitors could be used in implantable cardioverter/defibrillators without a major decrease in effectiveness.

[Influence of waveform and configuration of electrodes on the defibrillation threshold of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators]

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) is no threshold in the true sense. Between energy levels which defibrillate in all cases and energy levels which never defibrillate, a broad range of energies exists which might or might not defibrillate. Thus, the value of the DFT is dependant on the protocol used for its determination. Usually the DFT presents an energy at which the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) will defibrillate successfully at a rate of approximately 75%. To achieve a 100% success rate the energy has to be programmed 15 J above the DFT or twice the DFT.Using DFT measurements the energy needed for internal defibrillation could be gradually reduced in the last years. Major break throughs have been the introduction of the biphasic defibrillation waveform and the use of pectorally implanted ICD shells as defibrillation electrodes. The shortening of the defibrillation impulse by the use of lower capacitances could not improve DFTs but allowed to construct ICDs of smaller volume. Addition of a superior vena cava electrode or a subcutaneous array electrode at the left lateral chest to the standard bipolar electrode system (right ventricle, pectoral ICD can) allowed for tri- and quadripolar lead configurations which reduced DFTs on average only slightly but reduced the standard deviation of DFTs significantly and thus helped to avoid high DFTs. Besides building smaller ICDs, reduction of DFTs and thus programming of lower defibrillation ICD energies allows for improved battery longevities and reduced capacitor charging times and thus a lower incidence of syncopes.

The zone of vulnerability to T wave shocks in humans

INTRODUCTION

Shocks during the vulnerable period of the cardiac cycle induce ventricular fibrillation (VF) if their strength is above the VF threshold (VFT) and less than the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV). However, the range of shock strengths that constitutes the vulnerable zone and the corresponding range of coupling intervals have not been defined in humans. The ULV has been proposed as a measure of defibrillation because it correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT), but the optimal coupling interval for identifying it is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 14 patients at implants of transvenous cardioverter defibrillators. The DFT was defined as the weakest shock that defibrillated after 10 seconds of VF. The ULV was defined as the weakest shock that did not induce VF when given at 0, 20, and 40 msec before the peak of the T wave or 20 msec after the peak in ventricular paced rhythm at a cycle length of 500 msec. The VFT was defined as the weakest shock that induced VF at any of the same four intervals. To identify the upper and lower boundaries of the vulnerable zone, we determined the shock strengths required to induce VF at all four intervals for weak shocks near the VFT and strong shocks near the ULV. The VFT was 72 +/- 42 V, and the ULV was 411 +/- V. In all patients, a shock strength of 200 V exceeded the VFT and was less than the ULV. The coupling interval at the ULV was 19+/- 11 msec shorter than the coupling interval at the VFT (P < 0.001). The vulnerable zone showed a sharp peak at the ULV and a less distinct nadir at the VFT. A 20-msec error in the interval at which the ULV was measured could have resulted in underestimating it by a maximum of 95 +/- 31 V. The weakest shock that did not induce VF was greater for the shortest interval tested than for the longest interval at both the upper boundary (356 +/- 108 V vs 280 +/- 78 V; P < 0.01) and lower boundary (136 +/- 68 msec vs 100 +/- 65 msec; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The human vulnerable zone is not symmetric with respect to a single coupling interval, but slants from the upper left to lower right. Small differences in the coupling interval at which the ULV is determined or use of the coupling interval at the VFT to determine the ULV may result in significant variations in its measured value. An efficient strategy for inducing VF would begin by delivering a 200-V shock at a coupling interval 10 msec before the peak of the T wave.

Comparison of defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms delivered from various capacitances/pulse widths

The efficacy of the biphasic waveform shock for the defibrillation of the ventricular myocardium has been reported by researchers and physicians. Although many authors have suggested that biphasic waveforms delivered from lower capacitances and shorter pulse widths could result in the reduction of the energy required for successful defibrillation, no report has described the smallest capacitance and pulse width yielding the lowest DFT. In this study, we compared efficacies of the biphasic waveform shocks and DFT safety margins among five different capacitances (175 mu f, 125 mu f. 100 mu f. 75 mu f, and 50 mu f) combined with 1-3 pulse widths. These experiments performed in six dogs used an endocardial lead/subcutaneous patch defibrillation electrode system. The average DFTs at E50 for 175 mu f (6.5/3.5 ms), 125 mu f (6.5/3.5 ms), 100 mu f (6.0/3.0 ms), 75 mu f (4.0/2.0) ms, and 50 mu f (3.0/2.0 ms) were 8.5, 10.0, 11.0, 14.0, and 16.5), respectively. These results indicate that a biphasic waveform delivered from a larger capacitance with a proper pulse width could achieve a higher defibrillation efficacy. All DFTs at E50 for all waveforms were compared to their deliverable energies and maximum stored energies. This comparison indicated a narrow DFT safety margin with capacitances below 100 mu f. Therefore, it is concluded that higher energy and higher leading edge voltage are required for a biphasic waveform delivered from a smaller capacitance with a shorter pulse width. Since the current capacitor technology provides a maximum voltage of 750 V using two capacitors in series, with the electrode impedance system used in this study, smaller capacitors appear to have a decreased probability of defibrillation success at a given energy.

Comparative reproducibility of defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the strength at or above which VF is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. Previous studies have demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between the ULV and the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in groups of patients. However, the correlation between ULV and DFT may not be close in individual patients. This imperfect correlation may be due to physiological factors or to limitations of the measurement methods. The reproducibility of either DFT or ULV has not been studied critically. The purpose of this study was to compare the reproducibility of clinically applicable methods for determination of DFT and ULV. We prospectively studied 25 patients with a transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (Medtronic 7219D) at postoperative electrophysiological study. DFT was defined as the lowest energy that defibrillated after 10 seconds of VF. The ULV was defined as the lowest energy that did not induce VF with three shocks at 0, 20, and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave in ventricular paced rhythm at a cycle length of 500 ms. Both the DFT and the ULV were determined twice for biphasic pulses using a three-step, midpoint protocol. There was no significant difference between the two determinations of DFT (10.1 +/- 5.9 J vs 10.4 +/- 5.8 J), the two determinations of ULV (13.4 +/- 6.8 J vs 13.8 +/- 6.6) or the DFT-ULV Pearson correlation coefficients for each determination (0.84, P < 0.001 vs 0.75, P < 0.001). To analyze reproducibility, Lin concordance coefficients for second determination versus first determination were constructed for both ULV and DFT. This coefficient is similar to the Pearson correlation coefficient, but measures closeness to the line of identity rather than the line of regression. The Lin concordance coefficient for ULV was higher than that for DFT (0.93, 95% CI 0.85-0.97 vs 0.64, 95% CI 0.33-0.82; P < 0.01). For paired comparison of defibrillation efficacy under different experimental conditions, the sample sizes required to detect differences of 2 J, 3 J, and 4 J (80% power, P < 0.05) were 52, 24, and 15 for DFT versus 15, 8, and 6 for ULV. We conclude that a simple, clinically applicable method for determination of ULV is more reproducible than the single point DFT. Measured correlations between the ULV and single point are limited by the reproducibility of the DFT measurement.

Testing different biphasic waveforms and capacitances: effect on atrial defibrillation threshold and pain perception

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to compare the effect of different tilts and capacitances for biphasic shocks on atrial defibrillation efficacy and pain threshold.

BACKGROUND

Although biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks, the effect of tilt and capacitance on atrial defibrillation success and pain perception has not been studied in patients.

METHODS

Atrial defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed using a right atrial appendage/coronary sinus lead configuration in 38 patients with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing an invasive electrophysiologic study. Biphasic waveforms with 40%, 50%, 65%, 80%, 30%/50% and 40%/50% were tested randomly in 22 patients (Group 1). In 16 patients (Group 2), a 65% tilt waveform with 50- and 120-microF capacitance was tested. Before sedation, pain sensation was graded by 15 patients in Group 1 after delivery of a 0.5-J shock and by 10 patients in Group 2 after two 1.5-J shocks with 50- and 120-microF capacitance were delivered.

RESULTS

The DFT energy for the 50% tilt waveform was significantly lower than the 65%, 80% and 30%/50% tilt waveforms. The 40%/50% tilt waveform provided slightly lower energy requirements than the 50% tilt waveform. Nine patients (60%) described the 0.5-J shock as very painful, and four (26.6%) complained of slight pain. The 50-microF capacitor lowered energy requirements compared with the 120-microF capacitor. Six patients (60%) perceived the 1.5-J 50-microF capacitor shock as more painful, whereas three (30%) perceived both shocks as equally painful.

CONCLUSIONS

Biphasic waveforms with 50% tilt in both phases and a smaller tilt in the positive phase than that in the negative phase (40%/50%) provided a decrease in energy requirements at atrial DFT. In addition, stored energy was reduced by biphasic shocks with 50-microF capacitance compared with 120-microF capacitance. Despite the reduction in energy requirements, shocks < 1 J continued to be perceived as painful in the majority of patients.

Short biphasic pulses from 90 microfarad capacitors lower defibrillation threshold

For defibrillation between right ventricular and retropectoral patch electrodes using truncated exponential pulses, the stored energy defibrillation threshold (DFT) is lower for short pulses from small 60-microF capacitors than for conventional pulses from 120-microF capacitors, but 60-microF pulses frequently require higher voltages than are currently used. The goal of this study was to determine if DFT could be reduced by intermediate size 90-microF capacitors. This study compared biphasic waveform DFTs for 120 microF-65% tilt pulses, 90 microF-65% tilt pulses, and 90 microF-50% tilt pulses in 20 patients at defibrillator implantation. The 90 microF-50% tilt pulses were selected because their duration is half that of 120 microF-65% tilt pulses. The stored energy DFT for 90 microF-50% tilt pulses (9.1 +/- 4.3 J) was less than both the DFT for 120 microF-65% tilt pulses (12.0 +/- 5.5 J, P < 0.005) and the DFT for 90 microF-65% tilt pulses (11.6 +/- 5.8 J, P < 0.005). There was no significant difference between the latter two values. The voltage DFTs for 90 microF-50% pulses (436 +/- 113 V) and 120 microF-65% tilt pulses (436 +/- 104 V) were not statistically different; the voltage DFT for 90 microF-65% tilt pulses was higher than for either of the other two pulses (490 +/- 131, P < 0.005). The DFT was 20 J or greater in three patients for both 120 microF-65% tilt pulses and 90 microF-65% tilt pulses, but it was 16 J or less in all patients for 90 microF-50% tilt pulses. When pathways were dichotomized by the median resistance of 71 omega, 90 microF-50% tilt pulses significantly reduced DFTs compared to 120 microF-65% tilt pulses for higher resistance pathways (9.2 +/- 4.0 J vs 13.0 +/- 6.2 J, P = 0.002), but not lower resistance pathways (9.0 +/- 4.8 J vs 10.9 +/- 4.6 J, P = NS). For the electrode configuration tested, biphasic 90 microF-50% tilt pulses reduce stored energy DFT in comparison with 120 microF-65% tilt pulses without increasing voltage DFT. However, 90 microF-65% tilt pulses provide no benefit.

Upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation in humans with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study were to determine the probability of successful defibrillation at the upper limit of vulnerability and to evaluate a minimal safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks based solely on the upper limit of vulnerability.

BACKGROUND

The upper limit of vulnerability is the strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. It has been proposed as an estimate of defibrillation efficacy because it correlates with the defibrillation threshold and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation.

METHODS

We studied 40 patients prospectively at implantation of transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators. Defibrillation threshold was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that defibrillated after 10 s of ventricular fibrillation. The upper limit of vulnerability was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that did not induce ventricular fibrillation when given at 0, 20 and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave in ventricular paced rhythm at cycle length 500 ms. After determination of the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold, patients underwent six additional fibrillation-defibrillation episodes. The strength of five of the defibrillation shocks was equal to the upper limit of vulnerability; the strength of one of the six shocks was randomly selected to be equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was tested at the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J in 28 patients.

RESULTS

The defibrillation threshold was 8.8 +/- 5.0 J (mean +/- SD), and upper limit of vulnerability was 11.3 +/- 4.6 J; the defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability were highly correlated (r = 0.89, p < 0.001). The success rate for the 200 defibrillation shocks with strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability was 90% (95% confidence intervals based on proportion of successes in 40 patients: 86% to 94%). All five defibrillation test shocks at the upper limit of vulnerability were successful in 24 patients (60%); four of five were successful in 12 patients (30%); and three of five were successful in 4 patients (10%). All 40 test shocks and 28 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks with a strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J were successful.

CONCLUSIONS

The upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of the shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation (DFT90). A strength of 3 J above the upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimate of the minimal acute safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks.

A prospective randomized comparison in humans of 90-mu F and 120-mu F biphasic pulse defibrillation using a unipolar defibrillation system

INTRODUCTION

Capacitance is known to influence defibrillation. Optimal biphasic waveform capacitance for transvenous unipolar defibrillation systems in man is currently being defined. In an effort to improve defibrillation efficacy, we examined the relative defibrillation efficacy of a 65% tilt biphasic pulse from a 90-mu F capacitor compared to a 65% tilt biphasic pulse from a 120-mu F capacitor in a prospective, randomized fashion in 16 consecutive cardiac arrest survivors undergoing defibrillator surgery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The transvenous unipolar pectoral defibrillation system uses a single endocardial RV anodal defibrillation coil and the shell of an 80-cc volume (88 cm2 surface area) pulse generator (Medtronic Model 7219C PCD "active CAN") as the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic shock: RV+ --> CAN-. Defibrillation thresholds for each capacitance were determined prospectively in a randomized fashion. The defibrillation threshold results for the 90-mu F capacitance were: leading edge voltage 383 +/- 132 V; stored energy 7.4 +/- 5.0 J; and resistance 57 +/- 10 omega. The results for the 120-mu F capacitance were: leading edge voltage 315 +/- 93 V (P = 0.002); stored energy 6.5 +/- 3.7 J (P = 0.21); and resistance 57.0 +/- 11 omega (P = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that 90-mu F, 65% tilt biphasic pulses used with unipolar pectoral defibrillation systems have equivalent stored energy defibrillation efficacy compared to 120-mu F, 65% tilt pulses. Use of lower capacitance is possible in present implantable defibrillators without compromising defibrillation.

Impedance to defibrillation countershock: does an optimal impedance exist?

Defibrillation is thought to occur because of changes in the transmembrane potential that are caused by current flow through the heart tissue. Impedance to electric countershock is an important parameter because it is determined by the magnitude and distribution of the current that flows for a specific shock voltage. The impedance is comprised of resistive contributions from: (1) extra-tissue sources, which include the defibrillator, leads, and electrodes; (2) tissue sources, which include intracardiac and extra-cardiac tissue; and (3) the interface between electrode and tissue. Tissue sources dominate the impedance and probably contribute to the wide range of impedance values presented to the defibrillation pulse. Because impedance is not constant within or between subjects, defibrillators must be designed to accommodate these differences without compromising patient safety or therapeutic efficacy. Experimental investigations in animals and humans suggest that impedance changes at several different time scales ranging from milliseconds to years. These alterations are believed to be a result of both electrochemical and physiological mechanisms. It is commonly thought that impedance is optimized when it has been decreased to a minimum, since this allows the most current flow for a given voltage shock. However, if the impedance is lowered by changing the location or size of the electrodes in such a way that current flow is decreased in part of the heart even though current flow is increased elsewhere, then the total voltage, current, and energy needed for defibrillation may increase, not decrease, even though impedance is decreased. A simple boundary element computer model suggests that the most even distribution of current flow through the heart is achieved for those electrode locations in which the impedance across the heart is at or near the maximum cardiac impedance for any location of these particular electrodes. Thus, the optimum shock impedance is achieved when impedance is minimized for extra-tissue and extra-cardiac tissue sources and is at or near a maximum for intracardiac tissue sources.

Optimal electrode configuration for pectoral transvenous implantable defibrillator without an active can

A new 83 cm3 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) designed for pectoral implantation has been implanted most frequently using right ventricular and superior vena cava (RV-->SVC) electrodes; a patch electrode (RV-->patch + SVC) has been added when necessary to decrease the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The goal of this prospective study was to compare biphasic waveform DFTs for 3 electrode configurations: RV-->patch, RV-->SVC, and RV-->patch + SVC in 25 consecutive patients. The patch was positioned in a left retro-pectoral pocket, and the SVC electrode was positioned with the tip at the junction of the SVC and innominate vein. In the first 15 patients, all 3 electrode configurations were tested in random order; in the last 10 patients, only the RV-->patch and RV-->patch + SVC configurations were tested. In the first 15 patients, the stored-energy DFT for the RV-->SVC configuration (15.2 +/- 7.7 J) was higher (p < 0.001) than the DFT for the RV-->patch configuration (11.3 +/- 6.2 J) and the RV-->patch + SVC configuration (10.0 +/- 5.8 J). For all 25 patients, the DFT was lower for the RV-->patch + SVC configuration (9.7 +/- 5.1 J) than for the RV-->patch configuration (12.4 +/- 6.6 J, p = 0.005). The pathway resistance was highest for the RV-->patch configuration (72 +/- 9 omega), lower for the RV-->SVC configuration (63 +/- 6 omega, p < 0.01), and lowest for the RV-->patch + SVC configuration (46 +/- 3 omega, p < 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Internal defibrillation with smaller capacitors: a prospective randomized cross-over comparison of defibrillation efficacy obtained with 90-microF and 125-microF capacitors in humans

INTRODUCTION

The size of current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is still large in comparison to pacemakers and thus not convenient for pectoral implantation. One way to reduce ICD size is to defibrillate with smaller capacitors. A trade-off exists, however, since smaller capacitors may generate a lower maximum energy output.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a prospective randomized cross-over study, the step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) of an experimental 90-microF biphasic waveform was compared to a standard 125-microF biphasic waveform. The 90-microF capacitor delivered the same energy faster and with a higher peak voltage but provided only a maximum energy output of 20 instead of 34 J. DFTs were determined intraoperatively in 30 patients randomized to receive either an endocardial (n = 15) or an endocardial-subcutaneous array (n = 15) defibrillation lead system. Independent of the lead system used, energy requirements did not differ at DFT for the experimental and the standard waveforms (10.3 +/- 4.1 and 9.5 +/- 4.9 J, respectively), but peak voltages were higher for the experimental waveform than for the standard waveform (411 +/- 80 and 325 +/- 81 V, respectively). For the experimental waveform the DFT w as 10 J or less using an endocardial lead-alone system in 10 (67%) of 15 patients and in 12 (80%) of 15 patients using an endocardial-subcutaneous array lead system.

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter duration waveform delivered by smaller capacitors does not increase defibrillation energy requirements and might reduce device size. However, the smaller capacitance reduces the maximum energy output. If a 10-J safety margin between DFT and maximum energy output of the ICD is required, only a subgroup of patients will benefit from 90-microF ICDs with DFTs feasible using current defibrillation lead systems.

Optimizing defibrillation through improved waveforms

Defibrillation of the heart is achieved if an electrical current depolarizes the majority of the unsynchronized fibrillating myocardial cells. The applied current or the corresponding voltage described as a function of time is called the waveform. In pacing, to stimulate myocardial cells close to the electrode, a relatively low voltage is needed for a relatively brief duration. However, in defibrillation, approximately a 100-fold higher voltage is needed and achieved by the use of capacitors. The exponential voltage decay of a capacitor during its discharge determines the basic waveform for defibrillation. In an attempt to lower the energy needed for defibrillation, the steepness of the decay (different capacitances), the duration (fixed duration waveforms) or tilt (fixed tilt waveforms), or the initial polarity can be changed. Additionally, the polarity of the electrodes can be reversed during the discharge of the capacitor once (biphasic waveform) or twice (triphasic waveform). If two capacitors and defibrillation pathways are available, bidirectional defibrillation pulses can be delivered sequentially. In humans, the original standard waveform used with endocardial leads was a single monophasic pulse delivered by a 125-microF capacitor using the endocardial right ventricular electrode as cathode. It is now known that a reversal of the initial polarity and a reversal of polarity during capacitor discharge may significantly lower the energy needed for defibrillation, thereby preventing formerly frequent failures of defibrillation with endocardial lead systems. The use of sequential pulses showed no or only slight reductions of energy requirements and was abandoned due to the additional electrode needed. The use of a smaller capacitance (60-90 microF reduced maximum energy output but generally did not reduce energy requirements for defibrillation. However, with more efficient electrodes, smaller capacitances that will help to reduce the size of the defibrillator might be used. Thus, today defibrillation is optimized with respect to energy, capacitor size, and ease of implantation if an approximately 90-microF capacitor is used to deliver a biphasic pulse via a bipolar lead system using the right ventricular electrode as anode.