Comparison of upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation probability of success curves using a nonthoracotomy lead system

R-on-T and the initiation of reentry revisited: Integrating old and new concepts

Initiation of reentry requires 2 factors: (1) a triggering event, most commonly focal excitations such as premature ventricular complexes (PVCs); and (2) a vulnerable substrate with regional dispersion of refractoriness and/or excitability, such as occurs during the T wave of the electrocardiogram when some areas of the ventricle have repolarized and recovered excitability but others have not. When the R wave of a PVC coincides in time with the T wave of the previous beat, this timing can lead to unidirectional block and initiation of reentry, known as the R-on-T phenomenon. Classically, the PVC triggering reentry has been viewed as arising focally from 1 region and propagating into another region whose recovery is delayed, resulting in unidirectional conduction block and reentry initiation. However, more recent evidence indicates that PVCs also can arise from the T wave itself. In the latter case, the PVC initiating reentry is not a separate event from the T wave but rather is causally generated from the repolarization gradient that manifests as the T wave. We call the former an "R-to-T" mechanism and the latter an "R-from-T" mechanism, which are initiation mechanisms distinct from each other. Both are important components of the R-on-T phenomenon and need to be taken into account when designing antiarrhythmic strategies. Strategies targeting suppression of triggers alone or vulnerable substrate alone may be appropriate in some instances but not in others. Preventing R-from-T arrhythmias requires suppressing the underlying dynamic tissue instabilities responsible for producing both triggers and substrate vulnerability simultaneously. The same principles are likely to apply to supraventricular arrhythmias.

Measurement of the Upper Limit of Vulnerability during Defibrillator Implantation can Substitute Defibrillation Threshold Measurement

We investigated whether defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) could be measured more safely during defibrillator implantation by measuring the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) without using any special equipment.

Nonthoracotomy ICD implantation with endocardial leads was performed in 13 patients, and through the use of the ICD function itself, ULV and DFT were measured using the delayed four-episode up-down algorithm. Myocardial injures caused by high-energy current were assessed by electrocardiograms and serial CPK-MB.

ULV was confirmed in all cases, and it strongly correlated with DFT. The average ULV was 5.9 ± 3.3J, while the average DFT was 7.9 ± 4.3J (r = 0.89, p < 0.0001, DFT = 1.20+1.14x ULV). The average ULV was thus significantly lower (p < 0.01). Although six patients were on amiodarone therapy, the strong correlation between ULV and DFT was also maintained (r = 0,97), p < 0.01) in these patients.

In all cases, the CPK-MB failed to increase, and no myocardial injuries were detectable on electrocardiograms.

We confirmed that ULV could be easily and safety measured during ICD implantation, and that ULV could be used instead of DFT.

Mechanisms of defibrillation

Electrical shock has been the one effective treatment for ventricular fibrillation for several decades. With the advancement of electrical and optical mapping techniques, histology, and computer modeling, the mechanisms responsible for defibrillation are now coming to light. In this review, we discuss recent work that demonstrates the various mechanisms responsible for defibrillation. On the cellular level, membrane depolarization and electroporation affect defibrillation outcome. Cell bundles and collagenous septae are secondary sources and cause virtual electrodes at sites far from shocking electrodes. On the whole-heart level, shock field gradient and critical points determine whether a shock is successful or whether reentry causes initiation and continuation of fibrillation.

The role of mechanoelectric feedback in vulnerability to electric shock

Experimental and clinical studies have shown that ventricular dilatation is associated with increased arrhythmogenesis and elevated defibrillation threshold; however, the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. The goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis that (1) stretch-activated channel (SAC) recruitment and (2) geometrical deformations in organ shape and fiber architecture lead to increased arrhythmogenesis by electric shocks following acute ventricular dilatation. To elucidate the contribution of these two factors, the study employed, for the first time, a combined electro-mechanical simulation approach. Acute dilatation was simulated in a model of rabbit ventricular mechanics by raising the LV end-diastolic pressure from 0.6 (control) to 4.2 kPa (dilated). The output of the mechanics model was used in the electrophysiological model. Vulnerability to shocks was examined in the control, the dilated ventricles, and in the dilated ventricles that also incorporated currents through SAC as a function of local strain, by constructing vulnerability grids. Results showed that dilatation-induced deformation alone decreased upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) slightly and did not result in increased vulnerability. With SAC recruitment in the dilated ventricles, the number of shock-induced arrhythmia episodes increased by 37% (from 41 to 56) and the lower limit of vulnerability (LLV) decreased from 9 to 7 V/cm, while ULV did not change. The heterogeneous activation of SAC caused by the heterogeneous fiber strain in the ventricular walls was the main reason for increased vulnerability to electric shocks since it caused dispersion of electrophysiological properties in the tissue, resulting in postshock unidirectional block and establishment of reentry.

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.

Differences between left and right ventricular chamber geometry affect cardiac vulnerability to electric shocks

Although effects of shock strength and waveform on cardiac vulnerability to electric shocks have been extensively documented, the contribution of ventricular anatomy to shock-induced polarization and postshock propagation and thus, to shock outcome, has never been quantified; this is caused by lack of experimental methodology capable of mapping 3-D electrical activity. The goal of this study was to use optical imaging experiments and 3-D bidomain simulations to investigate the role of structural differences between left and right ventricles in vulnerability to electric shocks in rabbit hearts. The ventricles were paced apically, and uniform-field, truncated-exponential, monophasic shocks of reversed polarity were applied over a range of coupling intervals (CIs) in experiment and model. Experiments and simulations revealed that reversing the direction of externally-applied field (RV- or LV- shocks) alters the shape of the vulnerability area (VA), the 2-D grid encompassing episodes of arrhythmia induction. For RV- shocks, VA was nearly rectangular indicating little dependence of postshock arrhythmogenesis on CI. For LV- shocks, the probability of arrhythmia induction was higher for longer than for shorter CIs. The 3-D simulations demonstrated that these effects stem from the fact that reversal of field direction results in relocation of the main postshock excitable area from LV wall (RV- shocks) to septum (LV- shocks). Furthermore, the effect of septal (but not LV) excitable area in postshock propagation was found to strongly depend on preshock state. Knowledge regarding the location of the main postshock excitable area within the 3-D ventricular volume could be important for improving defibrillation efficacy.

On the mechanism of the probabilistic nature of ventricular defibrillation threshold

The probabilistic nature of the ventricular defibrillation threshold (DFT) remains poorly understood. We hypothesized that shock outcome is a function of the amount of myocardium in its vulnerable period (VP). The endocardial surface of five isolated, perfused swine right ventricles was mapped with 477 bipolar electrodes during ventricular fibrillation (VF). Shock parameters and VF cycle length were not significantly different in the successful (S; n = 26) and failed (F; n = 26) trials. At the instant of the shock, the number of sites with 45- to 55-ms recovery was significantly smaller in the S trials than the F trials (P < 0.04). No significant difference in the number of sites with recovery intervals outside the 45- to 55-ms range was seen in S and F shocks. Endocardial action potential showed that a recovery time of 45-55 ms corresponded to the VP spanning -15 to -60 mV in 92% of the regenerative action potentials. We conclude that the probabilistic nature of the DFT is related to the amount of myocardium in its VP.

Hemodynamic collapse, geometry, and the rapidly paced upper limit of ventricular vulnerability to fibrillation by T-wave stimulation

There is an upper limit to the vulnerability (ULV) of the ventricles to fibrillation (VF) induced by T-wave stimuli. Across species, disease states, and pharmacological treatments, the ULV is correlated to the defibrillation threshold (DF50). However, one factor known to increase the ULV far above the DF50 is rapid pacing. In this article we test the hypothesis that this increase is owing to an accompanying hemodynamic collapse or geometric change. In 18 dogs, T-wave stimuli were delivered from transvenous defibrillating electrodes. The T-wave shock strength that induced VF 50% of the time (the ULV50) was measured using a 10-step Bayesian up-down protocol. T-wave stimuli were delivered after 15 paced beats at one of several rates: normal (80% of the R-R interval), rapid (the interval just fast enough to cause hemodynamic collapse), or 10 milliseconds greater than rapid (which did not cause hypotension). We measured the geometry of the left ventricle at the moment of T-wave stimulation using linear ultrasound. Rapid pacing significantly increased the ULV50 above the normal rate ULV (507 +/- 62.9 vs 379 +/- 70.6 V, P < .005, n = 18), even in the subset without hemodynamic collapse (505 +/- 84.4 vs 394 +/- 66.5 V, P < .005, n = 6). No significant geometric changes were noted between rapid (19.8 mm) and normal (20.6 mm, n = 6, P < NS) pacing, but QT interval reduction appears to correlate with the ULV50 (QT vs ULV50, r > 0, P < .01). Rapid pacing can dramatically increase the measured ULV50. The most likely cause is a concurrent change in the electrophysiology, eg, QT or APD, of the myocardium. As the only known factor to consistently alter the relationship between ULV and the DF50, rapid pacing offers a unique opportunity for the study of the link between defibrillation and ULV testing.

Effect of pacing site on ventricular fibrillation initiation by shocks during the vulnerable period

The critical point hypothesis for the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) states that the site of S1 pacing should not affect the ULV S2 shock strength for a single S2 shock electrode configuration but may affect the S1-S2 interval at which sub-ULV shocks induce ventricular fibrillation (VF). Furthermore, early post-S2 activations leading to VF should arise in areas with low potential gradients of similar magnitude, regardless of the S1 site. This hypothesis was tested in 10 pigs by determining ULVs for three S1 sites [left ventricular apex (LVA), LV base (LVB), and right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT)] with one S2 configuration (LVA patch to superior vena cava catheter). T-wave scanning was performed with biphasic S2 shocks incremented from 60 V in 40-V steps and stepped up or down in 20- and 10-V steps. Activations and S2 potential gradients were recorded at 528 epicardial sites. Although shocks just below the ULV induced VF significantly earlier in the T wave when the S1 site was the RVOT than when it was the LVA or LVB, ULVs were not significantly different for the three S1 pacing sites. Early post-S2 activations arose closer to the S2 electrode for weak S2s but moved to distant low potential gradient areas as the S2 strengthened. Just below the ULV, early post-S2 activations arose in the RVOT when the S1 site was the LVA or LVB but arose along the RV base when the S1 site was the RVOT. Early site potential gradients were not significantly different just below the ULV (LVA: 8.2 +/- 4.1 V/cm; LVB: 8.6 +/- 4. 9 V/cm; RVOT: 8.7 +/- 4.4 V/cm). At the ULV, early post-S2 activations arose from the same areas but did not induce VF. The results support the critical point hypothesis for the ULV. For this S2 configuration, no single point in the T wave could be used to determine the ULV for all S1 sites.

A four-shock Bayesian up-down estimator of the 80% effective defibrillation dose

INTRODUCTION

New defibrillation techniques are often compared to standard approaches using the defibrillation threshold. However, inference from thresholding data necessitates extrapolation from reactions to relatively ineffective shocks, an error prone procedure requiring large sample sizes for hypothesis testing and large safety margins for defibrillator implantation. In contrast, this article presents a clinically validated statistical model of a minimum error, four-shock defibrillation testing protocol for estimating the 80% effective defibrillation strength for a given patient (ED80).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A Bayesian statistical model was constructed assuming that the defibrillation dose-response curve is sigmoidal, and the ED80 is between 150 and 750 V. The model was used to design a minimum predicted error testing protocol and estimates. To prospectively validate the testing protocol and estimates, 170 patients received voltage-programmed biphasic testing. Four fibrillation episodes were induced and terminated in each patient according to the Bayesian up-down protocol. In addition, a validation attempt was made at the estimated ED80 rounded up to the nearest 50 V. In order to estimate the safety margin, in 136 patients, a defibrillation attempt was made at the rounded ED80 + 100 V. Of the 170 attempts at the rounded ED80, 143 (84%) attempts terminated fibrillation. Of the 136 attempts at the rounded ED80 + 100 V, 133 (98%) were effective.

CONCLUSIONS

The four-shock Bayesian up-down protocol is the first clinical protocol to accurately predict an ED80 voltage. A 100 V increment above the ED80 provides an adequate safety margin. This simple and accurate method for estimating a highly effective defibrillation dose may be a valuable tool for population-based clinical hypothesis testing, as well as defibrillator implantation.

The effect of inducing ventricular fibrillation with 50-Hz pacing versus T wave stimulation on the ability to defibrillate

When testing an ICD, there are at least two techniques for inducing ventricular fibrillation: (1) high frequency (approximately equal to 50 Hz) pacing; and (2) a single T wave stimulus. It is generally assumed that these two methods yield similar results. This study directly tested this assumption. In six dogs, one defibrillation electrode was placed in the right ventricular (RV) apex and the second was placed cutaneously on the left thorax. All defibrillation and T wave stimuli were biphasic between these two electrodes. Pacing was monophasic from the tip of the RV catheter to the cutaneous patch. The voltage which defibrillates 50% of the time (DF50) was measured using a 10-step Bayesian up-down method. Observations for two DF50 measurements were randomly interleaved. For one DF50 measurement, fibrillation was induced with 99 pacing stimuli at a 20-ms pacing interval (50-Hz pacing). For the second DF50 measurement, fibrillation was induced with a single defibrillation shock of approximately 1/2 J delivered at a time corresponding to the peak of the T wave in the lead II electrogram (T wave stimuli). The average DF50 when measured after fibrillation induced with 50-Hz pacing was 379 +/- 54.6 V, as compared to 382 +/- 50.3 V when fibrillation was induced with T wave stimuli. The difference of 3 V was not statistically significant. If these results are confirmed in humans, it is reasonable to assume that the efficacy of a defibrillation shock is the same whether T wave stimuli or 50-Hz pacing are used to induce fibrillation.

Progressive depolarization: a unified hypothesis for defibrillation and fibrillation induction by shocks

Experimental studies of defibrillation have burgeoned since the introduction of the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) hypothesis for defibrillation. Much of this progress is due to the valuable work carried out in pursuit of this hypothesis. The ULV hypothesis presented a unified electrophysiologic scheme for linking the processes of defibrillation and shock-induced fibrillation. In addition to its scientific ramifications, this work also raised the possibility of simpler and safer means for clinical defibrillation threshold testing. Recent results from an optical mapping study of defibrillation suggest, however, that the experimental data supporting the ULV hypothesis could instead be interpreted in a manner consistent with traditional views of defibrillation such as the critical mass hypothesis. This review will describe the evidence calling for such a reinterpretation. In one regard the ULV hypothesis superseded the critical mass hypothesis by linking the defibrillation and shock-induced fibrillation processes. Therefore, this review also will discuss the rationale for developing a new defibrillation hypothesis. This new hypothesis, progressive depolarization, uses traditional defibrillation concepts to cover the same ground as the ULV hypothesis in mechanistically unifying defibrillation and shock-induced fibrillation. It does so in a manner consistent with experimental data supporting the ULV hypothesis but which also takes advantage of what has been learned from optical studies of defibrillation. This review will briefly describe how this new hypothesis relates to other contemporary viewpoints and related experimental results.

Relationship between the upper limit of vulnerability determined in normal sinus rhythm and the defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The upper limit of vulnerability is the strength above which ventricular fibrillation is no longer inducible with a shock delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. It has been demonstrated that the upper limit of vulnerability correlates with the defibrillation threshold in a paced rhythm. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the correlation of the upper limit of vulnerability determined in normal sinus rhythm with the defibrillation threshold using a simplified protocol in patients undergoing placement of an ICD. We studied 28 patients who underwent ICD implantation. CPI generators and Endotak leads were used in all patients. Device-based testing was used to determined the defibrillation threshold and the upper limit of vulnerability. The upper limit of vulnerability was tested with three shocks delivered at 0, 20, and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave during normal sinus rhythm. The defibrillation threshold was determined by a simple step up-down protocol. The upper limit of vulnerability (9.0 +/- 4.5 J) did not significantly differ from the defibrillation threshold (9.9 +/- 4.0 J), P = NS. A close correlation was present, correlation coefficient = 0.75, P < 0.0001. The upper limit of vulnerability was within 5 J of the defibrillation threshold in 27 (96%) of the 28 patients. The upper limit of vulnerability underestimated the defibrillation threshold by 10 J in one patient who had a defibrillation threshold of 15 J. The upper limit of vulnerability determined in normal sinus rhythm correlates significantly with the defibrillation threshold in patients undergoing ICD implantation. The protocol is simple and easily implemented clinically.

Effects of long-term amiodarone treatment on ventricular-fibrillation vulnerability and defibrillation efficacy in response to monophasic and biphasic shocks

Antiarrhythmic drugs, most notably amiodarone, are often used to combat life-threatening tachyarrhythmias simultaneous with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. However, the effects of long-term amiodarone treatment on ventricular fibrillation (VF) vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold (DFT) remain incompletely understood. VF vulnerability and the DFF for monophasic and biphasic shocks were studied in 10 isolated perfused hearts of rabbits treated over the long term with amiodarone (50 mg/kg/day orally for 28 days) before the experiment. The results were compared with those of a control group (n = 10). Monophasic action potentials were recorded from 10 sites simultaneously to determine ventricular activation and repolarization. Myocardial tissue concentrations were 17.1 +/- 14.8 microg/g for amiodarone and 4.6 +/- 4.4 microg/g for desethylamiodarone. Amiodarone treatment prolonged action-potential duration by 12.9 ms (p = 0.025) and ventricular repolarization by 16.5 ms (p = 0.03) without changing ventricular activation and dispersion of repolarization. Amiodarone treatment caused a rightward shift of the vulnerable window for monophasic and biphasic shocks by 13-17 ms (p < 0.05). The width of the vulnerable window, the upper (ULV) and lower (LLV) limits of VF vulnerability, and the DFT remained unchanged. The fact that ULV and DFT remained unchanged suggests that the ULV still may be valid surrogate for the DFT during long-term amiodarone therapy.

Timing of the upper limit of vulnerability is different for monophasic and biphasic shocks: implications for the determination of the defibrillation threshold

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) has been used in clinical studies to predict the DFT in patients with ICDs. Despite the ULV-DFT correlation, uncertainties about the optimal timing of the ULV determination remain. Previous studies using monophasic or biphasic shock waveforms reported differences in the ULV timing with respect to the electrocardiographic T wave. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the ULV timing for mono- versus biphasic T wave shocks. In ten isolated rabbit hearts, mono- and biphasic shocks were delivered randomly during the vulnerable window and at varying shock strengths to determine the ULV. The ULV timing was expressed as the coupling interval at the ULV, the myocardial repolarization state at the ULV measured by monophasic action potential recordings, and the relation between the ULV and the peak of the simultaneously recorded volume conducted T wave. The ULV for biphasic shocks occurred at longer coupling intervals than for monophasic shocks (188.0 +/- 9.5 ms vs 173.5 +/- 8.8 ms, P < 0.001). This resulted in a more repolarized myocardial state at the ULV for biphasic than for monophasic shocks (81.1% +/- 7.5% vs 66.9% +/- 9.0%, P = 0.002). The ULV for monophasic shocks occurred predominantly during the upslope of the T wave (8.0 +/- 9.7 ms before the peak of the T wave) whereas the ULV for biphasic shocks occurred at or after the peak of the T wave (5.9 +/- 9.3 ms after the peak of the T wave) (P < 0.001). Biphasic shocks delay the timing of the ULV as compared to monophasic shocks. This is important for the prediction of the DFT by ULV measurements.

The ventricular defibrillation and upper limit of vulnerability dose-response curves

INTRODUCTION

A stimulus delivered in the T wave of a paced cardiac cycle can induce ventricular fibrillation (VF). If the stimulus strength is increased, the probability of inducing VF decreases. This study determines an ideal mathematical model (a dose-response curve) for the relationship between the shock strength and the probability of inducing VF or defibrillating.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillating electrodes were implanted in the right ventricle and superior vena cava in 16 pigs. The electrode in the vena cava was electrically connected to a cutaneous patch. The same electrodes were used for both VF induction and defibrillation. T wave stimuli were given at the peak of the T wave according to a modified up-down protocol (40 V up, 20 V down). When a T wave stimulus induced VF, a defibrillation stimulus was delivered 10 seconds later, also according to the modified up-down protocol. Exponential, logistic, log-dose logistic, piecewise linear and Box-Tiao dose-response curves were fit to the resulting data using the maximum likelihood method. For the defibrillation data, it was found that only the logistic and Box-Tiao curves fit all of the animals (P < 0.05). For VF induction, only the Box-Tiao curve fit all of the animals (P < 0.05). Extrapolating along a dose-response curve that did not fit to a shock strength with a very low probability of inducing VF or a very high probability of defibrillating yielded errors as great as 610 V.

CONCLUSION

The Box-Tiao dose-response curve is the best single choice for fitting VF induction or defibrillation datasets.

An up-down Bayesian, defibrillation efficacy estimator

In both the clinic and the laboratory, efficacy estimators are used to estimate the shock strength required to achieve a given defibrillation success rate. In the clinic, efficacy estimators are used to estimate highly effective doses (i.e., the shock strength that defibrillates 95% of the time), in order to choose the setting for an ICD. Efficacy estimators are used in the laboratory to compare defibrillation techniques and configurations. Current efficacy estimators are inadequate because they are either difficult to use, can only estimate the shock strength that defibrillates 50% of the time, or do not yield desirable accuracy (low RMS error). This article presents a Bayesian estimation technique that forces the difference between successive test shock strengths (step-size) to be a fixed value after each measurement. Constraining the difference dramatically reduces the computational complexity of the up-down Bayesian method. This new, up-down Bayesian protocol can be used with up to 15 measurements to estimate the shock strength for any given success rate. Simulations show that the added constraint (fixed step-size) only slightly increases the rms error, as compared to the optimum Bayesian protocol. Our simulations also show that protocols can be generated for shock strengths rounded to the nearest 1, 10, or 50 V. without a great increase in RMS error. Experimental results from a subset of all the simulations are reported from six animals, showing a < -2.4% difference between the simulated and measured errors.

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.

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.

Estimating defibrillation efficacy using combined upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation testing

It is frequently necessary, both clinically and in the laboratory, to estimate how strong a stimulus is required to defibrillate. Current techniques for forming such estimates require the repeated induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and subsequent attempts at defibrillation (DF testing). DF testing can be time consuming and in the operating room may increase the patient risks. A novel scheme is presented which combines DF testing with upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) testing. ULV testing is a relatively safe procedure which yields data well correlated with defibrillation efficacy. A Bayesian statistical model of combined ULV/DF testing is presented which is both powerful and concise. The model is used in two examples to design minimum rms error protocols and estimators for the DF95 (the stimulus strength which defibrillates 95% of the time). A simulation for humans of one example solution shows that a single VF episode of combined ULV/DF testing (rms error = 23% of the mean DF95) is better than two VF episodes with DF testing alone (25%). The simulation results for a second example are directly compared with laboratory results from six pigs, showing a less than 1.0% average difference between the simulated and measured rms errors.