Effect of rapid pacing and T-wave scanning on the relation between the defibrillation and upper-limit-of-vulnerability dose-response curves

The roles of pacing interval and pacing strength in ventricular fibrillation induced by rapid pacing with 1 : 1 capture

INTRODUCTION

The roles of pacing interval (PI) and pacing strength (PS) in ventricular fibrillation (VF) induced by rapid pacing with 1 : 1 capture remain unclear.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Epicardial unipolar electrograms (UEs) were simultaneously recorded using contact mapping in 11 swine. Activation-recovery interval (ARI) restitution was constructed at 4 sites, i.e. the apex and base of the left and right ventricles, respectively. A steady state pacing (SSP) protocol was performed to induce VF. The longest PI and the lowest PS for inducing VF were recorded. Statistical correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationship between local ARI restitution properties and PI and PS for VF induction.

RESULTS

Forty restitution curves were constructed from 11 SSP procedures. The maximal slope (Smax) of the ARI restitution curve of the right ventricular apex was positively correlated with the PI for VF induction (r = 0.761, p < 0.05). Spatial dispersions of ARI and Smax were negatively correlated with the PS for VF induction (r = -0.626 and r = -0.722, respectively, both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular fibrillation can be induced by rapid ventricular pacing with 1 : 1 capture. The PI for VF induction was related to the Smax of the ARI restitution curve of the right ventricular apex, while PS for VF induction was associated with the spatial dispersions of ARI and its restitution property.

Three-dimensional mechanisms of increased vulnerability to electric shocks in myocardial infarction: altered virtual electrode polarizations and conduction delay in the peri-infarct zone

Defibrillation efficacy is decreased in infarcted hearts, but the mechanisms by which infarcted hearts are more vulnerable to electric shocks than healthy hearts remain poorly understood. The goal of this study was to provide insight into the 3D mechanisms for the increased vulnerability to electric shocks in infarcted hearts. We hypothesized that changes in virtual electrode polarizations (VEPs) and propagation delay through the peri-infarct zone (PZ) were responsible. We developed a micro anatomically detailed rabbit ventricular model with chronic myocardial infarction from magnetic resonance imaging and enriched the model with data from optical mapping experiments. We further developed a control model without the infarct. The simulation protocol involved apical pacing followed by biphasic shocks. Simulation results from both models were compared.The upper limit of vulnerability(ULV) was 8 V cm(-1) in the infarction model and 4 V cm(-1) in the control model. VEPs were less pronounced in the infarction model, providing a larger excitable area for postshock propagation but smaller transmembrane potential gradients to initiate new wavefronts. Initial post-shock transmural activation occurred at a later time in the infarction model, and the PZ served to delay propagation in subsequent beats. The presence of the PZ was found to be responsible for the increased vulnerability.

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.

The role of transmural ventricular heterogeneities in cardiac vulnerability to electric shocks

Transmural electrophysiological heterogeneities have been shown to contribute to arrhythmia induction in the heart; however, their role in defibrillation failure has never been examined. The goal of this study is to investigate how transmural heterogeneities in ionic currents and gap-junctional coupling contribute to arrhythmia generation following defibrillation strength shocks. This study used a 3D anatomically realistic bidomain model of the rabbit ventricles. Transmural heterogeneity in ionic currents and reduced sub-epicardial intercellular coupling were incorporated based on experimental data. The ventricles were paced apically, and truncated-exponential monophasic shocks of varying strength and timing were applied via large external electrodes. Simulations demonstrate that inclusion of transmural heterogeneity in ionic currents results in an increase in vulnerability to shocks, reflected in the increased upper limit of vulnerability, ULV, and the enlarged vulnerable window, VW. These changes in vulnerability stem from increased post-shock dispersion in repolarisation as it increases the likelihood of establishment of re-entrant circuits. In contrast, reduced sub-epicardial coupling results in decrease in both ULV and VW. This decrease is caused by altered virtual electrode polarisation around the region of sub-epicardal uncoupling, and specifically, by the increase in (1) the amount of positively polarised myocardium at shock-end and (2) the spatial extent of post-shock wavefronts.

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.

Arrhythmogenesis in the heart: Multiscale modeling of the effects of defibrillation shocks and the role of electrophysiological heterogeneity

The mechanisms of initiation of ventricular arrhythmias as well as those behind the complex spatiotemporal wave dynamics and its filament organization during ventricular fibrillation (VF) are the topic of intense research and debate. Mechanistic inquiry into the various mechanisms that lead to arrhythmia initiation and VF maintenance is hampered by the inability of current experimental techniques to resolve, with sufficient accuracy, electrical behavior confined to the depth of the ventricles. The objective of this article is to demonstrate that realistic 3D simulations of electrical activity in the heart are capable of bringing a new level of understanding of the mechanisms that underlie arrhythmia initiation and subsequent organization. The article does this by presenting the results of two multiscale simulation studies of ventricular electrical behavior. The first study aims to uncover the mechanisms responsible for rendering the ventricles vulnerable to electric shocks during a specific interval of time, the vulnerable window. The second study focuses on elucidating the role of electrophysiological heterogeneity, and specifically, differences in action potential duration in various ventricular structures, in VF organization. Both studies share common multiscale modeling approaches and analysis, including characterization of scroll-wave filament dynamics.

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.

Mechanistic enquiry into the effect of increased pacing rate on the upper limit of vulnerability

The goal of this study is to investigate the mechanisms responsible for the increase in the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV; highest shock strength that induces arrhythmia) following the increase in pacing rate. To accomplish this goal, the study employs a three-dimensional bidomain finite element model of a slice through the canine ventricles. The preparation was paced eight times at a basic cycle length (BCL) of either 80 or 150ms followed by delivery of shocks of various strengths and timings. Our results demonstrate that the shock strength, which induced an arrhythmia 50% of the time, increased 20% for the faster pacing compared to the slower pacing. Analysis of the mechanisms underlying the increased vulnerability revealed that delayed post-shock activations originating in the tissue depths appear as breakthrough activations on the surfaces of the preparation following an isoelectric window (IW). However, the IW duration was consistently shorter in the faster-paced preparation. Consequently, breakthrough activations appeared on the surfaces of this preparation earlier, when the tissue was less recovered, resulting in higher probability of unidirectional block and reentry. This explains why shocks of the same strength were more likely to result in arrhythmia induction when delivered to a preparation that was rapidly paced.

Transmural electrophysiological heterogeneities in action potential duration increase the upper limit of vulnerability

Transmural dispersion in action potential duration (APD) has been shown to contribute to arrhythmia induction in the heart. However, its role in termination of lethal arrhythmias by defibrillation shocks has never been examined. The goal of this study is to investigate how transmural dispersion in APD affects cardiac vulnerability to electric shocks, in an attempt to better understand the mechanisms behind defibrillation failure. This study used a three- dimensional, geometrically accurate finite element bidomain rabbit ventricular model. Transmural heterogeneities in ionic currents were incorporated based on experimental data to generate the transmural APD profile recorded in adult rabbits during pacing. Results show that the incorporation of transmural APD heterogeneities in the model causes an increase in the upper limit of vulnerability from 26.7 V/cm in the homogeneous APD ventricles to 30.5 V/cm in the ventricles with heterogeneous transmural APD profile. Examination of shock-end virtual electrode polarisation and postshock electrical activity reveals that the higher ULV in the heterogeneous model is caused by increased dispersion in postshock repolarisation within the LV wall, which increases the likelihood of the establishment of intramural re-entrant circuits.

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.

Improved defibrillation efficacy with an ascending ramp waveform in humans

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Effect of acute global ischemia on the upper limit of vulnerability: a simulation study

The goal of this modeling research is to provide mechanistic insight into the effect of altered membrane kinetics associated with 5-12 min of acute global ischemia on the upper limit of cardiac vulnerability (ULV) to electric shocks. We simulate electrical activity in a finite-element bidomain model of a 4-mm-thick slice through the canine ventricles that incorporates realistic geometry and fiber architecture. Global acute ischemia is represented by changes in membrane dynamics due to hyperkalemia, acidosis, and hypoxia. Two stages of acute ischemia are simulated corresponding to 5-7 min (stage 1) and 10-12 min (stage 2) after the onset of ischemia. Monophasic shocks are delivered in normoxia and ischemia over a range of coupling intervals, and their outcomes are examined to determine the highest shock strength that resulted in induction of reentrant arrhythmia. Our results demonstrate that acute ischemia stage 1 results in ULV reduction to 0.8A from its normoxic value of 1.4A. In contrast, no arrhythmia is induced regardless of shock strength in acute ischemia stage 2. An investigation of mechanisms underlying this behavior revealed that decreased postshock refractoriness resulting mainly from 1) ischemic electrophysiological substrate and 2) decrease in the extent of areas positively-polarized by the shock is responsible for the change in ULV during stage 1. In contrast, conduction failure is the main cause for the lack of vulnerability in acute ischemia stage 2. The insight provided by this study furthers our understanding of mechanisms by which acute ischemia-induced changes at the ionic level modulate cardiac vulnerability to electric shocks.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Upper and lower limits of vulnerability to sudden arrhythmic death with chest-wall impact (commotio cordis)

OBJECTIVES

In an animal model of commotio cordis, sudden death with chest-wall impact, we sought to systematically evaluate the importance of impact velocity in the generation of ventricular fibrillation (VF) with baseball chest-wall impact.

BACKGROUND

Sudden cardiac death can occur with chest-wall blows in recreational and competitive sports (commotio cordis). Analyses of clinical events suggest that the energy of impact is often not of unusual force, although this has been difficult to quantify.

METHODS

Juvenile swine (8 to 25 kg) were anesthetized, placed prone in a sling to receive chest-wall strikes during the vulnerable time window during repolarization for initiation of VF with a baseball propelled at 20 to 70 mph.

RESULTS

Impacts at 20 mph did not induce VF; incidence of VF increased incrementally from 7% with 25 mph impacts, to 68% with chest impact at 40 mph, and then diminished at >/=50 mph (p < 0.0001). Peak left ventricular pressure generated by the chest blow was related to the incidence of VF in a similar Gaussian relationship (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The energy of impact is an important variable in the generation of VF with chest-wall impacts. Impacts at 40 mph were more likely to produce VF than impacts with greater or lesser velocities, suggesting that the predilection for commotio cordis is related in a complex manner to the precise velocity of chest-wall impact.

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.

Experimental cardiac tachyarrhythmias in guinea pigs

Despite years of intense research into the mechanisms of defibrillation, there remain many unanswered questions. In many fields, hypotheses are first tested in rodent models before confirming the results in larger animals. This work suggests the guinea pig as a rodent model for defibrillation. Twenty-eight guinea pigs were studied, all male retired breeders weighing over 900 g. T-wave stimuli (upper limit of vulnerability [ULV]) were given after 15 rapid pacing beats, since the rapid pacing has been suggested to extend the tachyarrhythmia. Defibrillation (DF) was attempted after 5 seconds. The correlation between the ULV50 and DF50 in guinea pigs (0.82, n = 8) is very close to that seen in dogs (0.85). Also, the sensitivity of the DF50 to waveform is similar (476 +/- 176 for monophasic vs 364 +/- 94 V for biphasic P < 0.005, n = 10). The dose-response curve widths (2.3 +/- 1.7 for ULV vs 1.9 +/- 1.8 for defibrillation, n = 10) show the same trend of increasing curve widths for ULV, and similar magnitude to dogs (mean 1.8). We rarely (<1.5%) observed spontaneous conversion in less than 10 seconds. The guinea pig can be used as a model for defibrillation as it shows many of the same characteristics as dogs.

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.

Immediate reproducibility of upper limit of vulnerability measurements in patients undergoing transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) with monophasic T wave shocks has been proposed as a patient-specific measurement of defibrillation efficacy that results in fewer episodes of ventricular fibrillation (VF) than measurement of a defibrillation efficacy curve.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We sought to determine the magnitude of variance in ULV in 63 consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). We measured ULV as the strength at or above which VF is not induced when a stimulus is delivered at 310 msec after an 8-beat ventricular pacing drive at 400 msec. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) was measured in patients with an active can device using a biphasic waveform and the binary search method beginning at 12 J. Sixty-three patients were studied; they had a mean age of 62 +/- 12 years and a mean ejection fraction of 35% +/- 15%. Three quarters of patients had an ischemic cardiomyopathy. Each patient underwent 4.5 +/- 0.8 measurements of ULV. Monophasic ULV correlated poorly with biphasic DFT (R between 0.19 and 0.28, P = 0.04 to 0.17). There was no change in ULV between second to third, third to fourth, and first to last measurement in 22% to 41% of patients. The reliability coefficient was 0.87. A ULV > or = 20 J was found in eight patients. The only predictor of high ULV was a high DFT.

CONCLUSION

Monophasic ULVs do not closely predict biphasic active can DFTs using a standard protocol. High DFTs were predicted by high ULVs. There was little variation in the acute measurement of ULV between trials. These findings have important implications for using ULV measurements to determine changes in DFTs after interventions. The methodology of determining ULV is critical to its use for predicting DFTs and programming ICDs.

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.

Current concepts of ventricular defibrillation

The aim of this article is to review the current concepts of ventricular defibrillation. We studied the interaction between strong electrical stimulus and cardiac responses in both animal models and in humans. We found that a premature stimulus (S2) of appropriate strength results in figure-eight reentry in vitro by inducing propagated graded responses. The same stimulation protocol induces figure-eight reentry and ventricular fibrillation (VF) in vivo. When the S2 strength and the magnitude of graded responses increase beyond a critical level, the increase in refractoriness at the site of the stimulus becomes so long that the unidirectional block becomes bidirectional block, preventing the formation of reentry (upper limit of vulnerability [ULV]). In other studies, we found that the effects of an electrical stimulation on reentry is in part determined by the timing of the stimulus. A protective zone is present after the induction of VF and after an unsuccessful defibrillation shock during which an electrical stimulus can terminate reentry and protect the heart from VF. These results indicate that the effects of a defibrillation shock is dependent on both the strength and the timing of the shock. Timing is not important in areas where the shock field strength is > or = ULV because the shock terminates all reentry but cannot reinitiate new ones. However, in areas where shock field strength is < ULV, the effects of the shock are determined by the timing of the shock relative to local VF activations. This ULV hypothesis of defibrillation explains the probabilistic nature of ventricular defibrillation. It also indicates that, to achieve a high probability of successful defibrillation, a shock must result in a shock field strength of > or = ULV throughout the ventricles.

Efficacy of low-energy T wave shocks for induction of ventricular fibrillation in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

The efficacy of low-energy T wave shocks for induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) was evaluated in 33 patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation (33 sessions) or predischarge ICD testing (20 sessions). To induce VF, the ventricle was paced for eight cycles at a 400-ms cycle length (S1-S1), and the T wave was scanned with a monophasic shock (S2) delivered via the defibrillating lead system. Of 294 attempts, the T wave shocks induced VF in 65%, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 10%, and less than five ventricular beats in 25%. As compared with the failed T shocks, the mean energy of successful T wave shocks was higher and the S1-S2 coupling interval was shorter. When the S2 timing was examined in relation to the T wave peak, the VF induction efficacy was 37% for shocks delivered more than 70 ms before the T wave peak, 82% for shocks delivered 30-70 ms before the T wave peak, and 50% for shocks delivered less than 30 ms before or just after the T wave peak (P < .001). Thus, in patients undergoing ICD implantation or ICD conversion testing, the use of low-energy T wave shocks is an effective and safe method to provoke VF.

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.

Effects of myocardial ischemia on ventricular fibrillation inducibility and defibrillation efficacy

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effects of acute global ischemia on the vulnerable window, the upper limit of vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold.

BACKGROUND

Myocardial ischemia, an important factor for arrhythmogenesis and sudden death, may affect the inducibility of ventricular fibrillation by T wave shocks as well as the defibrillation threshold. However, studies of the effect of ischemia on the defibrillation threshold remain inconclusive, and the effect of ischemia on recently established variables of ventricular fibrillation vulnerability is still unknown.

METHODS

Ten isolated, perfused rabbit hearts were immersed in a tissue bath between two shock plate electrodes. Truncated 5-ms biphasic shocks were used to determine the vulnerable window, the upper limit of vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold. Measurements were performed during baseline and at 10 to 15 min of acute ischemia induced by an 80% reduction of coronary flow. The effects of ischemia were monitored by measuring the dispersion of ventricular activation and repolarization using multiple monophasic action potential recordings.

RESULTS

Acute ischemia caused an increase in dispersion of activation (baseline vs. ischemia [mean +/- SD]: 22 +/- 6 vs. 34 +/- 10 ms, p < 0.001) and dispersion of repolarization (37 +/- 16 vs. 69 +/- 29 ms, p < 0.01). The width of the vulnerable window increased from 25 +/- 22 ms during baseline to 75 +/- 26 ms during ischemia (p = 0.001). The upper limit of vulnerability (baseline vs. ischemia: 294 +/- 44 vs. 274 +/- 53 V, p = 0.21) and the defibrillation threshold (271 +/- 33 vs. 268 +/- 42 V, p = 0.74) remained unchanged during ischemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute global ischemia caused a threefold increase in the width of the vulnerable window. This increase was associated with increased heterogeneity of ventricular activation and repolarization. Despite these marked changes, the upper limit of vulnerability and the defibrillation threshold were not affected by acute myocardial ischemia. Thus, the previously reported similarity between both measures was maintained under these adverse conditions.

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.

[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.