Defibrillation efficacy of commercially available biphasic impulses in humans. Importance of negative-phase peak voltage

Etiology and Programming Effects on Shock Efficacy in ICD Recipients

BACKGROUND

We sought to assess the efficacy of high-energy shocks to restore rhythm and predictors of success in patients with sustained ventricular arrhythmias and implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from 162 patients included in the UMBRELLA study that experienced one or more episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) for which ICD shocks of at least 30 Joules were delivered (appropriate high-energy shocks) were analyzed. In total, 456 ventricular arrhythmia episodes were registered. Forty four episodes (9.6%) from 39 patients (24%) had at least one ineffective high-energy shock delivered. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was more frequent among patients with unsuccessful shocks (10.3% vs 2.4%). Patients with ineffective shocks had higher proportion of sustained monomorphic ventricular arrhythmias (86.4%; the other 13.6% were sustained polymorphic and ventricular fibrillation [VF]) compared with patients with all their shocks effective (62.9%, P = 0.02). No statistical differences were found between groups in time from detection to the high-energy shock delivery, in tachycardia cycle length, or in antitachycardia pacing, but patients with ineffective high-energy shocks had higher proportion of previously ineffective low-energy shock (9.1% vs 0.5%, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We found a substantial rate of ineffective high-energy shocks for the treatment of VT or VF in patients with ICD. High-energy shock efficacy seems to be reduced by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and by the administration of previous low-energy shocks.

Comparison of rectilinear biphasic waveform with biphasic truncated exponential waveform in a pediatric defibrillation model

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rectilinear biphasic waveform with a biphasic truncated exponential waveform for pediatric defibrillation.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Experimental laboratory of a university-affiliated research institute.

SUBJECTS

Male domestic piglets (4-24 kg).

INTERVENTIONS

Eleven piglets (4-8 kg), which represented a patient <1 yr old, and ten piglets (16-24 kg), which represented a pediatric patient between the ages of 2 and 8 yrs, were anesthetized, intubated, and mechanically ventilated. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and maintained for 30 secs, and a predetermined shock was then delivered to defibrillate. Following defibrillation, the animal was permitted to stabilize hemodynamically for 4 mins. Fifty shocks were applied to each animal using a randomization schedule based on a predetermined permutation of 50. The 50 shocks were 25 shocks for each rectilinear biphasic and biphasic truncated exponential waveforms, comprising five shocks at five energy settings. Each group of five shocks was fixed at a predetermined energy value, depending on the body weight of the animal. Dose-response curves were constructed using logistic regression. Aortic pressure, electrocardiogram, left ventricular pressure, and left ventricular pressure value of 40 mm Hg were continually measured.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Dose-response curves determined defibrillation thresholds at 50% (D50) and 90% (D90) probability of success. The rectilinear biphasic waveform defibrillated with <90% of the D50 and D90 energies required for a biphasic truncated exponential waveform. The rectilinear biphasic waveform also successfully defibrillated with significantly less energy per body weight and per heart weight compared with a biphasic truncated exponential waveform.

CONCLUSIONS

The rectilinear biphasic waveform has superior defibrillation performance compared with a biphasic truncated exponential waveform in a piglet defibrillation model for young children.

Ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation

Cardiac arrest in children is not often due to a disturbance in rhythm that is amenable to electrical defibrillation, contrary to the situation in adults. When a shockable rhythm is present, defibrillation using an external electric shock applied at an early stage after pre-oxygenation and chest compressions is of proven efficacy. Success at conversion of ventricular fibrillation is dependent on the delay before delivering the shock and defibrillation efficiency, which is itself a function of thoracic impedance, energy dose and waveform.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

Comparison of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. ZOLL Investigators

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy of a novel rectilinear biphasic waveform, consisting of a constant current first phase, with a damped sine wave monophasic waveform during transthoracic defibrillation.

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have shown that for endocardial defibrillation, biphasic waveforms have a greater efficacy than monophasic waveforms. More recently, a 130-J truncated exponential biphasic waveform was shown to have equivalent efficacy to a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic waveform for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation. However, the optimal type of biphasic waveform is unknown.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, multicenter trial, 184 patients who underwent ventricular defibrillation were randomized to receive a 200-J damped sine wave monophasic or 120-J rectilinear biphasic shock.

RESULTS

First-shock efficacy of the biphasic waveform was significantly greater than that of the monophasic waveform (99% vs. 93%, p = 0.05) and was achieved with nearly 60% less delivered current (14 +/- 1 vs. 33 +/- 7 A, p < 0.0001). Although the efficacy of the biphasic and monophasic waveforms was comparable in patients with an impedance < 70 ohms (100% [biphasic] vs. 95% [monophasic], p = NS), the biphasic waveform was significantly more effective in patients with an impedance > or = 70 ohms (99% [biphasic] vs. 86% [monophasic], p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a superior efficacy of rectilinear biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation, particularly in patients with a high transthoracic impedance. More important, biphasic shocks defibrillated with nearly 60% less current. The combination of increased efficacy and decreased current requirements suggests that biphasic shocks as compared with monophasic shocks are advantageous for transthoracic ventricular defibrillation.

Significant differences in charge times among currently available implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Capacitor charging accounts for most of the delay between arrhythmia detection and therapy delivery in ICDs. Long capacitor charge times may increase the risk of syncope in patients with poorly tolerated arrhythmias. To determine if there are clinically important differences in charge time among currently available devices, we analyzed charge times at various delivered energy levels in three manufacturers' devices: Medtronic, CPI, and Ventritex. Charge times were measured for shocks delivered for spontaneous or induced arrhythmias occurring from time of implant to 4 months after implant. A total of 343 shocks were assessed in 63 patients with ICDs: 16 Medtronic (MicroJewel II, model 7223Cx), 14 CPI (Mini II, model 1762), and 33 Ventritex (Cadet and Contour, models V-115 and V-145). The curves of the relationship between charge time and delivered energy for the three types of devices were significantly different, with Medtronic charge times shorter than CPI or Ventritex (P < 0.0001), and CPI charge times shorter than Ventritex (P = 0.002). The difference in mean charge times between the Ventritex and Medtronic devices ranged from 1.7 seconds at a delivered energy of 10 +/- 2.5 J to 8.0 seconds at a delivered energy of 30 +/- 2.5 J. Thus, clinically important differences in charge time exist among the three types of defibrillators studied. These results should be considered in selecting an ICD for patients with poorly tolerated arrhythmias.

Effect of biphasic waveforms on transvenous defibrillation thresholds in patients with coronary artery disease

This study is a prospective, randomized comparison of monophasic and biphasic defibrillation thresholds in 19 patients with a single transvenous lead. Despite using reverse polarity and optimal tilts for the monophasic waveform, the defibrillation threshold was reduced with biphasic shocks from 15.8 +/- 11.3 to 11.5 +/- 6.1 (p <0.05) with comparable reductions of leading edge voltage and current.

[The current status of implantable automatic defibrillators]

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator has become an important therapy for patients with sustained or life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Although the concept for the implantable cardioverter defibrillator originated in the late 1960s, the first device was implanted in humans in 1980. Since then, the technology has improved rapidly the design, function and reliability of the devices have been greatly modified. There are currently five companies dealing with defibrillators in Spain incorporating multiple options in defibrillation, pacing and sensing capabilities. New devices with atrioventricular pacing and atrial defibrillation possibilities will soon become available. The purpose of this article is to review the principal functions of implantable cardioverter defibrillators currently available.