Probability of successful defibrillation at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement in patients with an implantable defibrillator

The “Defibrillation Testing, Why Not?” survey. Testing of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillators in the Italian clinical practice

Background

Defibrillation testing (DT) can be omitted in patients undergoing transvenous implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (T-ICD) implantation, but it is still recommended for patients at risk for a high defibrillation threshold and for ICD generator changes. Moreover, DT is still recommended on implantation of subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD). The aim of the present survey was to analyze the current practice of DT during T-ICD and S-ICD implantations.

Methods

In March 2021, an ad hoc questionnaire on the current performance of DT and the standard practice adopted during testing was completed at 72 Italian centers implanting S-ICD and T-ICD.

Results

48 (67%) operators reported never performing DT during de-novo T-ICD implantations, while no operators perform it systematically. The remaining respondents perform it for patients at risk for a high defibrillation threshold. DT is never performed at T-ICD generator change. At the time of de-novo S-ICD implantation, DT is never performed by 9 (13%) operators and performed systematically by 48 (66%). The remaining operators frequently omit DT in patients with more severe systolic dysfunction. DT is not performed at S-ICD generator change by 92% of operators. DT is conducted by delivering a first shock energy of 65 J by 60% of operators, while the remaining 40% test lower energy values.

Conclusions

In current clinical practice, most operators omit DT at T-ICD implantation, even when still recommended in the guidelines. DT is also frequently omitted at S-ICD implantation, and a wide variability exists among operators in the procedures followed during DT.

Electroporation induced by internal defibrillation shock with and without recovery in intact rabbit hearts

Defibrillation shocks from implantable cardioverter defibrillators can be lifesaving but can also damage cardiac tissues via electroporation. This study characterizes the spatial distribution and extent of defibrillation shock-induced electroporation with and without a 45-min postshock period for cell membranes to recover. Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts (n = 31) with and without a chronic left ventricular (LV) myocardial infarction (MI) were studied. Mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined to be 161.4 ± 17.1 V and 1.65 ± 0.44 J in MI hearts for internally delivered 8-ms monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) shocks during sustained ventricular fibrillation (>20 s, SVF). A single 300-V MTE shock (twice determined DFT voltage) was used to terminate SVF. Shock-induced electroporation was assessed by propidium iodide (PI) uptake. Ventricular PI staining was quantified by fluorescent imaging. Histological analysis was performed using Masson's Trichrome staining. Results showed PI staining concentrated near the shock electrode in all hearts. Without recovery, PI staining was similar between normal and MI groups around the shock electrode and over the whole ventricles. However, MI hearts had greater total PI uptake in anterior (P < 0.01) and posterior (P < 0.01) LV epicardial regions. Postrecovery, PI staining was reduced substantially, but residual staining remained significant with similar spacial distributions. PI staining under SVF was similar to previously studied paced hearts. In conclusion, electroporation was spatially correlated with the active region of the shock electrode. Additional electroporation occurred in the LV epicardium of MI hearts, in the infarct border zone. Recovery of membrane integrity postelectroporation is likely a prolonged process. Short periods of SVF did not affect electroporation injury.

Defibrillation testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in Italian current practice: the Assessment of Long-term Induction clinical ValuE (ALIVE) project

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice with regard to defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation varies considerably, even among experienced implanting centers. International guidelines do not as yet mandate DFT testing.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to assess current clinical decision making regarding DFT testing during ICD implantation.

METHODS

The ALIVE project collected data on DFT testing from a multicenter network of Italian clinicians sharing a common system for the collection, management, analysis, and reporting of clinical and diagnostic data from patients with Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN) implantable devices.

RESULTS

Data on 2,082 consecutive patients implanted with a Medtronic ICD in 111 Italian centers, over the period 2007 to 2010, were analyzed. Defibrillation threshold testing was performed in 33% of cases (678/2,082). The main reasons for performing the test were physician's clinical practice ("I always perform DFT") (80%) and secondary prevention implantation (12%). The main reasons for not performing DFT testing were centers' practice (44%), primary prevention (31%), and device replacement (15%). In 22 patients, ventricular fibrillation induction was not achieved; 656 patients completed DFT testing: 633 patients (96%) performed a single test, 19 patients (3%) performed a second induction test, and 4 patients (0.6%) underwent an additional induction test.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results of the ALIVE project show that a great number of implant procedures are performed without DFT testing in the common practice of the participating centers. We also measured an inhomogeneous, center-dependent DFT testing behavior, which suggests the importance of defining a common guideline for ICD implant testing. Follow-up data on our patients will provide more information on the clinical value of the test.

High-energy defibrillation increases the dispersion of regional ventricular repolarization

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the effects of shock energy on the dispersion of regional ventricular repolarization (DRVR), post-shock rhythm and sinus recovery time (SRT), and the relationship between DRVR and post-shock ventricular arrhythmias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten open-chest dogs were anesthetized. Ventricular fibrillation (VF) was electrically induced and recorded from a 6 × 6 unipolar electrode plaque (4 mm spacing) sutured on the left ventricular epicardium. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined after 20 s of VF. DRVR was measured before VF, during the earliest post-shock sinus rhythm, and during sinus rhythm 30 s following shocks. Post-shock rhythm and SRT were evaluated after energies of 100% DFT, 125% DFT, 175% DFT, and 250% DFT.

RESULTS

In the100% DFT group, the DRVR of the earliest sinus rhythm and 30 s after successful defibrillation was not significantly different than that before VF. But the DRVRs were significantly increased in 125% DFT, 175% DFT, and 250% DFT group. DRVR after defibrillation in the 250% DFT group was higher than those in the 100% DFT and 125% DFT groups. SRT in the 250% DFT group was significantly longer than that in the other groups .The incidence of post-shock ventricular tachycardia was increased when a high-shock energy was applied (P = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

DRVR was increased by application of high-energy defibrillation associated with SRT prolongation. The increased DRVR may play an important role in the onset of post-shock ventricular tachycardia.

Intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion: do we really need it?

BACKGROUND

The assessment of defibrillation efficacy using a safety margin of 10 J has long been the standard of care for insertion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), but physicians are concerned about complications related to induction test. Therefore, the need for testing has been recently questioned. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing of ICD on the efficacy of ICD therapy.

METHODS

We analyzed data obtained from follow-up visits of 122 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation at our institute from April 1996 to June 2008, with (n = 42) or without (n = 80) DFT testing. Patients in the DFT group were less likely to be men (83.3% vs 96.3%, P < .031) than those in the non-DFT group. Conversely, the 2 groups were similar in age, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, functional class, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Results during a 12-month follow-up, 13 (31.0%) and 30 (37.5%) ventricular tachyarrhythmic episodes were recorded in the DFT and non-DFT groups, respectively (P = .472). Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) terminated most of episodes, reducing the need of defibrillation at 7.7% in the DFT group and 3.3% in the non-DFT group (P = .533). Similar percentages of inappropriate ATP interventions (7.1% vs 3.8%, P = .413) and shock deliveries (2.4% vs 5.0%, P = .659) were recorded between DFT and non-DFT groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1-year follow-up, the performance of DFT testing does not seem to add any significant efficacy advantage in patients undergoing ICD implantation. Prospective randomized trials and long-term follow-up are warranted to clarify whether routine DFT testing may be safely abandoned leading to a revision of current guidelines.

[Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?]

Due to bulky generator size, abdominal pocket preparation and epicardial defibrillator lead placement, cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation was initially an extensive surgical intervention, which had to be performed in the operating room by cardiac surgeons under general anesthesia. The development of transvenously applicable endocardial defibrillator leads rendered thoracotomy unnecessary. The decrease in generator size enabled pectoral implantation. As a consequence of the simplified surgical procedure, implantation by cardiologists or electrophysiologists in the catheterization laboratory under local anesthesia and brief deep sedation with preserved spontaneous respiration was made possible. As a result, the implantation techniques of ICDs and pacemakers are converging. The present article illustrates the still existing significant differences between ICD and pacemaker treatment with regard to implantation and follow-up.

Problems with implantable cardiac device therapy

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Testing the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator After Implantation?Is It Necessary?

The results of intraoperative and postoperative predischarge implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) testing of 211 consecutive patients, starting at 15 J and requiring two successful terminations of induced VT/VF with a relative defibrillation safety margin (DSM) of >10 J, were reviewed. The aim was to define the type of intraoperative response that would make postoperative predischarge testing unnecessary. The intraoperative responses were divided into three types: A, a DSM > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of < or =20 J; B, a DSM of > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J; and C, a DSM <10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J. At operation, the responses to defibrillation were A, 88.6%; B, 7.1%; and C, 4.3%. Accepting an A response only would leave 11.4% of the patients for postoperative testing. The positive and negative predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative C response were 0.78 and 0.97, respectively. Similarly, the predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative B or C response were 0.71 and 0.97, respectively. The postoperative testing responses were A, 89.1%; B, 4.3%; and C, 6.6%. In summary, an intraoperative A response was sufficient to make a postoperative defibrillation testing unnecessary, while it was found that intraoperative B and C responders should undergo postoperative testing. Applying these criteria, approximately 90% of the patients could be discharged without any postoperative induction test.

Effect of an active abdominal pulse generator on defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have older lead systems, which are usually not replaced at the time of pulse generator replacement unless a malfunction is noted. Therefore, optimization of defibrillation with these lead systems is clinically important. The objective of this prospective study was to determine if an active abdominal pulse generator (Can) affects chronic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population consisted of 39 patients who presented for routine abdominal pulse generator replacement. Each patient underwent two assessments of DFT using a step-down protocol, with the order of testing randomized. The distal right ventricular (RV) coil was the anode for the first phase of the biphasic shocks. The proximal superior vena cava (SVC) coil was the cathode for the Lead Alone configuration (RV --> SVC). For the Active Can configuration, the SVC coil and Can were connected electrically as the cathode (RV --> SVC + Can). The Active Can configuration was associated with a significant decrease in shock impedance (39.5 +/- 5.8 Omega vs. 50.0 +/- 7.6 Omega, P < 0.01) and a significant increase in peak current (8.3 +/- 2.6 A vs. 7.2 +/- 2.4 A, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in DFT energy (9.0 +/- 4.6 J vs. 9.8 +/- 5.2 J) or leading edge voltage (319 +/- 86 V vs. 315 +/- 83 V). An adequate safety margin for defibrillation (> or =10 J) was present in all patients with both shocking configurations.

CONCLUSION

DFTs are similar with the Active Can and Lead Alone configurations when a dual-coil, transvenous lead is used with a left abdominal pulse generator. Since most commercially available ICDs are only available with an active can, our data support the use of an active can device with this lead system for patients who present for routine pulse generator replacement.

Defibrillation threshold testing: is it really necessary at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion?

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to (1) determine how often implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system modifications were needed to obtain an adequate safety margin for defibrillation, (2) identify how often and for what indications defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was not performed, and (3) identify factors predicting the need for modification.

BACKGROUND

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) typically is induced at the time of ICD insertion. Although DFT testing often is minimized, a safety margin of 10 J has been utilized as a standard of care. However, current devices offer technology such as biphasic waveforms and high outputs, and the need for testing has been questioned.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of the last 1,139 patients undergoing initial ICD placement, generator replacement, or revision.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients (6.2%) were identified as having an unacceptably high DFT (<10 J safety margin) requiring intervention, and some required >1 modification. Use of a high-output device alone was not enough to obtain an adequate DFT in 48% (34/71) of patients who required modifications (3% of the total population). No arrhythmia inductions were performed in 54 patients (4.7%) because of well-defined clinical conditions. Patients who required system modification had a lower ejection fraction, were younger, were less likely to have coronary artery disease, were more likely to be undergoing upgrade/generator replacement, and were more likely to be taking amiodarone. Long-term mortality was not different between the group of patients who required modification compared with those who did not (17% vs 20%, P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine VF induction and documentation of effective defibrillation still remains a reasonable part of ICD placement because an inadequate safety margin may occur in >6% of patients. The incidence of patients who were inappropriate for testing based on well-defined clinical conditions is small (<5%) in this unselected large series. Although some clinical features may predict the need for system modification, additional studies are needed to better define "acceptable efficacy" of ICDs in preventing sudden death prior to altering these standards in selected patients.

One conversion of ventricular fibrillation is adequate for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant: An analysis from the Low Energy Safety Study (LESS)

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to analyze defibrillation conversion data from the Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) to determine how implant criteria that use fewer inductions of ventricular fibrillation (VF) correlate with outcome and, in particular, to assess the reliability of using a single VF induction and test shock at 14 J.

BACKGROUND

A safety margin of 10 J has become standard for implantation of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), but the specifics and rigor of the implant test sequence are not standardized.

METHODS

In LESS, 611 ICD recipients completed a rigorous VF induction test scheme that began at 14 J and continued until the energy that succeeded three times without a failure was determined (DFT++). The data were analyzed to determine how well the outcome of the first 14-J shock and various other combinations of first and/or second shocks predicted a rigorous gold standard of DFT++ < or =21 J (i.e., three successes at < or =21 J).

RESULTS

The positive predictive accuracy for the 91% of patients in whom the first 14-J shock succeeded was virtually identical to the positive predictive accuracy for the commonly used criteria of two successes at < or =17 J (99.1% vs 99.0%, P = .69), and slightly higher than the positive predictive accuracy for two successes at < or =21 J (98.8%, P = .51). A single success at 17 J or 21 J had a somewhat lower positive predictive accuracy of 98.2% (P = .17). Eliminating VF induction testing would have resulted in a significantly lower positive predictive accuracy of 97.1% (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

A single conversion success at 14 J on the first VF induction provides similar positive predictive accuracy as two successes at 17 J or 21 J. Using this criterion, 91% of patients meet implant criteria with a single induction of ventricular fibrillation.

Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation?

The assessment of defibrillation (DFT) efficacy has long been the standard of care during defibrillator implantation. To ensure an acceptable DFT safety margin, early defibrillator systems frequently required that the shock polarity and the location, type, or number of electrodes had to be altered. Advances in defibrillator and lead technology have resulted in lower and more consistent DFT thresholds in the range of 10 J, with an infrequent requirement to modify the DFT system. Yet, one can make an argument for and against continuation of DFT testing at the time of defibrillator implantation. The goal of this paper is to address both the data that do support and the data that do not support continuation of DFT testing at the time of device implantation. Scientifically, DFT testing should be abandoned only when prospective evidence demonstrates that defibrillator implantation without testing is as safe and has the same mortality benefits as implantation with testing. The most attractive aspect of eliminating DFT efficacy testing is that more patients may have the opportunity to be treated with this life-saving therapy. Perhaps there are alternative strategies to improve accessibility to defibrillator therapy without possibly eroding its effectiveness. In the end, will lives be saved or lost if we discontinue DFT efficacy testing and lower the barriers to implantable defibrillator therapy?

Dose-response relationship for successful internal atrial defibrillation

The dose-response relationship for successful defibrillation has been determined in man for the ventricle but not for the atrium. The purpose of this study was to determine the dose-response relationship for internal atrial defibrillation in humans. Seventy-seven consecutive patients underwent internal atrial defibrillation for acute (n = 14) or chronic AF (n = 63). Shocks were delivered in 40-V increments between electrodes positioned in the coronary sinus and the right atrium until successful conversion or a maximum of 400 V was reached. The shock strength versus success of shock data were subjected to a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis combined with a nonparametric probability analysis to arrive at the dose-response relationship. Using this relationship, comparisons were made between acute and chronic AF and clinical relevant conversion percentages (20, 50, 80 and 95%) were estimated and were compared with the conventional mean threshold. There were significant dose-response relationships in both patients groups (P < 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier analysis comparing patients with chronic and acute AF showed significant differences in their dose-response relationships (P < 0.001). The estimated shock intensity for 95% conversion in patients with acute and chronic AF was 279 V (2.9 J) and 433 V (6.6 J), respectively (P < 0.001). The conventional mean defibrillation threshold in patients with acute (192 +/- 15 V. 1.4 +/- 0.2 J) and chronic AF (343 +/- 8 V, 4.4 +/- 0.2 J) predicted the 60% and 45% chance of successful conversion, respectively. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that single shock conversion data can be used to determine a dose-response relationship, which can be used to estimate the shock intensity required for specific successful atrial defibrillation efficacy and to compare different clinical factors that affect defibrillation efficacy.

Prospective randomized comparison of two defibrillation safety margins in unipolar, active pectoral defibrillator therapy

Various techniques are used to establish defibrillation efficacy and to evaluate defibrillation safety margins in patients with an ICD. In daily practice a safety margin of 10 J is generally accepted. However, this is based on old clinical data and there are no data on safety margins using current ICD technology with unipolar, active pectoral defibrillators. Therefore, a randomized study was performed to test if the likelihood of successful defibrillation at defibrillation energy requirement (DER) + 5 J and + 10 J is equivalent. Ninety-six patients (86 men; age 61.0 +/- 10.3 years; ejection fraction 0.341 +/- 0.132; coronary artery disease [n = 65], dilated cardiomyopathy [n = 18], other [n = 13]) underwent implantation of an active pectoral ICD system with unidirectional current pathway and a truncated, fixed tilt biphasic shock waveform. The defibrillation energy requirement (DER) was determined with the use of a step-down protocol (delivered energy 15, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2 J). The patients were then randomized to three inductions of ventricular fibrillation at implantation and three at predischarge testing with shock strengths programmed to DER + 5 J at implantation and + 10 J at predischarge testing or vice versa. The mean DER in the total study population was 7.88 +/- 2.96 J. The number of defibrillation attempts was 288 for + 5 J and 288 for + 10 J. The rate of successful defibrillation was 94.1% (DER + 5 J) and 98.9% (DER + 10 J; P < 0.01 for equivalence). Charge times for DER + 5 J were significantly shorter than for DER + 10 J (3.65 +/- 1.14 vs 5.45 +/- 1.47 s; P < 0.001). A defibrillation safety margin of DER + 5 J is associated with a defibrillation probability equal to the standard DER + 10 J. In patients in whom short charge times are critical for avoidance of syncope, a safety margin of DER + 5 J seems clinically safe for programming of the first shock energy.

Safety of a single successful conversion of ventricular fibrillation before the implantation of cardioverter defibrillators

Multiple successful conversions of ventricular fibrillation (VF) at 10 J below the maximum output of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have been recommended as a minimum device implantation criterion. This recommendation is based on the probabilistic properties of defibrillation that necessitates multiple shocks to establish an adequate safety margin for the conversion of subsequent spontaneous arrhythmias. We hypothesized that a single successful shock at a 14 J may suffice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) enrolled 720 patients undergoing initial ICD implantation with a dual-coil transvenous lead and active pulse generator. At implant, an enhanced defibrillation threshold (DFT++) was determined by a rigorous protocol beginning at 14 J, and requiring at least 4 shocks. Fifty percent of all patients were then randomized to full output shock energy and the conversion rates for spontaneous ventricular tachyarrhythmias at rates > 200 beats/min were measured. There were 318 patients randomized to 31 J, of whom 254 were successfully defibrillated by an initial 14 J shock. During a mean follow-up of 24 +/- 12 months, 112 spontaneous VF episodes occurred in 31 patients. The combined conversion success of the first and second shock (when needed) did not differ between the subgroup of patients who were successfully defibrillated by an initial 14 J shock, regardless of the results of additional testing, and the whole cohort who underwent more systematic testing (97% vs 97%). All spontaneous episodes of VF were successfully treated during long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A first successful shock of 14 J may be a sufficient endpoint to allow the implantation of ICDs with the Triad lead configuration, when programming all shocks to 31 J.

The Low Energy Safety Study (LESS): rationale, design, patient characteristics, and device utilization

BACKGROUND

A 10-J energy safety margin has traditionally been used in programming implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) tests the hypothesis that programming shocks to lower energy margins is safe and effective.

METHODS

Patients with standard ICD indications undergo defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) at the time of ICD implant, with reconfirmation of lowest successful energy twice (DFT++). Patients are randomized to 2 groups: the first has the initial 2 shocks for ventricular fibrillation conversion programmed at 2 energy steps above DFT++ (typically 4-6 J, maximum 10 J) with subsequent shocks at maximum energy, and the second has all shocks programmed at maximum energy. Patients are followed up every 3 months for 2 years to assess shock conversion efficacy of spontaneous arrhythmias. In a subgroup of patients, there is a second randomization to energy levels of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 steps above implant DFT++ for conversion testing of 3 induced ventricular fibrillation episodes at prehospital discharge, 3 months, and 12 months after implant.

RESULTS

Enrollment is complete (702 patients), but follow-up results are pending. There were no significant variations in implant indications and baseline antiarrhythmic drug use over the 3-year enrollment period, although an increase in the percentage of dual-chamber ICDs implanted occurred, with the majority (65%) of implanted ICDs being dual-chamber devices by the end of the enrollment period.

CONCLUSION

The results of LESS should facilitate the development of algorithms for programming ICD energy safety margins.

Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to characterize temporal changes in defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) after implantation with an active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous lead system.

BACKGROUND

Ventricular DFTs rise over time when monophasic waveforms are used with non-thoracotomy lead systems. This effect is attenuated when biphasic waveforms are used with transvenous lead systems; however, significant increases in DFT still occur in a minority of patients. The long-term stability of DFTs with contemporary active pectoral lead systems is unknown.

METHODS

This study was a prospective assessment of temporal changes in DFT using a uniform testing algorithm, shock polarity and dual-coil active pectoral lead system. Thresholds were measured at implantation, before discharge and at long-term follow-up (70 +/- 40 weeks) in 50 patients.

RESULTS

The DFTs were 9.2 +/- 5.4 J at implantation, 8.3 +/- 5.8 J before discharge and 6.9 +/- 3.6 J at long-term follow-up (p < 0.01 by analysis of variance; p < 0.05 for long-term follow-up vs. at implantation or before discharge). The effect was most marked in a prespecified subgroup with high implant DFTs (> or =15 J). No patient developed an inadequate safety margin (< 9 J) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The DFTs declined significantly after implantation with an active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous lead system, and no clinically significant increases in DFT were observed. Therefore, routine defibrillation testing may not be required during the first two years after implantation with this lead system, in the absence of a change in the cardiac substrate or treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs.

Improved efficacy of anodal biphasic defibrillation shocks following a failed defibrillation attempt

Although it is generally assumed that defibrillation becomes more difficult when the duration of VF is prolonged, after a failed defibrillation attempt, there is little information on the defibrillation efficacy of multiple shocks delivered at the same energy. The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the efficacy of a second shock delivered at the same or reversed polarity after a failed first shock. Defibrillation was attempted after 10 seconds of VF in 12 pigs (30-56 kg) using biphasic waveforms and a nonthoracotomy lead system. Shock energy was held constant for the first and second shocks at 50%-90% of the DFT. The second shock was delivered 10 seconds after a failed first shock. First and second shock polarity (first phase) was randomized to (+, +), (+, -), (-, -), (-, +). The incidence of successful defibrillation (for all polarities) was 12.3% for first and 49.1% for second shocks (P < 0.0001). Anodal first shocks had a 17.2% incidence of success as opposed to a 7.4% incidence of success with cathodal first shocks (P = 0.001). Anodal second shocks had a 55.5% incidence of success compared to a 42.7% incidence of success with cathodal second shocks (P = 0.008). There was no significant benefit from polarity reversal after a failed first shock (P = 0.29). In conclusion, less energy is required for successful defibrillation by a second shock after a failed first. The optimal configuration for first and second shocks is with the RV as anode. Polarity reversal of a second shock after a failed first does not affect the probability of second shock success.

Safety and efficacy of implantable defibrillator therapy with programmed shock energy at twice the augmented step-down defibrillation threshold: results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Low-Energy Endotak Trial

Whether the safety and efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy can be assured with lower output devices is an important question. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether programming the device output at twice the augmented defibrillation threshold was as safe and effective as using the maximum energy. Patients indicated for ICD therapy, but without slow monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (MVT), who achieved an augmented defibrillation threshold (DFT plus) < or = 15 joules (J) with a single endocardial lead system and a biphasic defibrillator were included in the study. Prior to ICD implantation, patients were randomized into 2 groups. The shock energies in test group patient were set as follows: first shock at twice DFT plus, the second to fifth shocks at maximum output (34 J). In control group patients, all shocks were programmed at 34 J. The study population consisted of 166 consecutive patients (mean age 57.4 +/- 12.1 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36.8 +/- 13.8%). Mean DFT plus was 9.6 +/- 3.2 J in test group patients and 10.1 +/- 3.5 J in control group patients (p = 0.36). During a mean follow-up of 24.2 +/- 9.6 months, 736 arrhythmia episodes were analyzed. The first shock efficacy was 98.3% in the test group patients versus 97.4% in the control group (p = 0.45). Total mortality was 6%, equally distributed in both study groups. The results of this study prove that the method of doubling the defibrillation energy at the DFT plus level provides an adequate safety margin in defibrillator therapy.

Energy levels for defibrillation: what is of real clinical importance?

Today, transthoracic and intracardiac defibrillation offer a well-accepted and widely used form of therapy for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Despite the wide clinical use of defibrillators, the mechanisms by which an electrical shock halts fibrillation are still not completely understood. During a shock, different amounts of current flow through the different parts of the heart and the current distribution is highly uneven. This current distribution is affected by changes in the shock potential gradient through the heart, changes in fiber orientation, and changes in myocardial conductivity caused by connective tissue barriers. It would be ideal if the potential gradient distribution throughout the ventricles could be measured directly for each individual patient during defibrillator implantation and follow-up and the shock strength could be programmed based on this measurement, but so far this is not possible. A more feasible approach is to determine, by trial and error, the magnitude of the shock strength delivered through the defibrillation electrodes for successful defibrillation. There is no distinct threshold value above which all shocks succeed and below which all shocks fail to defibrillate. Rather, increasing shock strength increases the likelihood the shock will succeed. Therefore, instead of a distinct defibrillation threshold, a probability of success curve exists. However, increasing the shock strength above an optimal range can actually decrease the success rate for defibrillation. One possible explanation is that the high voltage gradients caused by such large shocks damage cells and result in postshock arrhythmias that may reinitiate fibrillation. Another problem that can affect the probability of defibrillation success for a particular programmed energy setting is that the shock strength required for defibrillation may increase over time due to (1) the growth of fibrotic tissue around the defibrillation electrode; (2) migration of the lead; (3) acute ischemia; or (4) other changes in the underlying cardiac disease (e.g., worsening of heart failure). Such possible increases in the defibrillation shock strength requirement should be compensated for before they occur by adding a margin of safety to the shock strength needed for effective defibrillation. When programming an implantable defibrillator, it is important to keep in mind that the defibrillation shock should be (1) strong enough to defibrillate at least 98% of the time with the first shock; (2) weak enough not to cause severe post-shock arrhythmias or reinitiation of fibrillation; but (3) strong enough to compensate for changes of defibrillation energy requirements over time. This usually can be accomplished by setting the defibrillator 7-10 J higher than the defibrillation threshold determined by a standard step-down protocol.

Relationship between shock energy and postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias in patients with implantable defibrillators

BACKGROUND

The relationship between postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias and shock strength is poorly understood in patients with implantable defibrillators. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias and shock strength.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-three patients with an implanted defibrillator underwent six separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation (VF) after a step-down defibrillation energy requirement (7.3 +/- 4.6 J) was determined. For each of the first three inductions of VF, the first two shocks were low energy and equal to approximately 75% of the defibrillation energy requirement (5.4 +/- 3.3 J), or to the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J (17.5 +/- 4.3 J). After the first two shocks, subsequent shocks were programmed to the maximum available energy (29.0 +/- 2.5 J). The alternate technique was used for the subsequent three inductions of VF. Postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias were noted. Postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias with a cycle length < or = 300 msec were more frequent after a low-energy shock (19%), than after a high-energy shock (1.5%; P = 0.005). Postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias with a cycle length < or = 300 msec were more frequent after a high-energy shock (32%), than after a low-energy shock (7.1%; P = 0.002). A relationship between the cycle length of the postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias and the absolute defibrillation energy was observed (P < 0.001; r = 0.6), and ventricular arrhythmias with a cycle length > 300 msec were uncommon after shocks < or = 10 J (P = 0.001). The characteristics of ventricular arrhythmias after maximum-energy shocks were similar to those that occurred after high-energy shocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias with a cycle length < or = 300 msec are more common after shocks of strength associated with a low probability of successful defibrillation. Postdefibrillation ventricular arrhythmias with a cycle length of > 300 msec are more common after high- and maximum-energy shocks, and are directly related to the absolute defibrillation energy.

The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to prospectively investigate the influence of ventricular fibrillation (VF) durations of 5, 10 and 20 s on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

BACKGROUND

Although the DFT using monophasic waveforms has been shown to increase with VF duration in humans, the effect of VF duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans is not known.

METHODS

Thirty patients undergoing primary ICD implantation or pulse generator replacement were randomly assigned to have the DFT determined using biphasic shocks at two durations of VF each (5 and 10 s, 10 and 20 s or 5 and 20 s).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in the mean DFT comparing VF durations of 5 s (9.5+/-6.0 J) and 10 s (10.8+/-7.0 J) (p=0.4). The mean DFT significantly increased from 10.9+/-6.1 J at 10 s of VF to 12.6+/-5.6 J (p=0.03) at 20 s of VF, and from 7.0+/-3.5 J at 5 s of VF to 10.5+/-6.3 J (p=0.04) at 20 s of VF. An increase in the DFT was observed in 14 patients as VF duration increased. There were no clinical characteristics that differentiated patients with and without an increase in the DFT.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation efficacy decreases with increasing VF duration using biphasic waveforms in humans. Ventricular fibrillation durations greater than 10 s may negatively affect the effectiveness of ICD therapy.

Long-term evaluation of the ventricular defibrillation energy requirement

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation energy requirements in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillators may increase within several months after implantation. However, the stability of the defibrillation energy requirement beyond 1 year has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to characterize the defibrillation energy requirement during 2 years of clinical follow-up.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-one consecutive patients with a biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillation system underwent defibrillation energy requirement testing using a step-down technique (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 J) during defibrillator implantation, and then 24 hours, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years after implantation. The mean defibrillation energy requirement during these evaluations was 10.9+/-5.5 J, 12.3+/-7.3 J, 11.7+/-5.6 J, 10.2+/-4.0 J, and 11.7+/-7.4 J, respectively (P = 0.4). The defibrillation energy requirement was noted to have increased by 10 J or more after 2 years of follow-up in five patients. In one of these patients, the defibrillation energy requirement was no longer associated with an adequate safety margin, necessitating revision of the defibrillation system. There were no identifiable clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who did and did not develop a 10-J or more increase in the defibrillation energy requirement.

CONCLUSION

The mean defibrillation energy requirement does not change significantly after 2 years of biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillator system implantation. However, approximately 15% of patients develop a 10-J or greater elevation in the defibrillation energy requirement, and 3% may require a defibrillation system revision. Therefore, a yearly evaluation of the defibrillation energy requirement may be appropriate.

Effect of shock polarity on biphasic defibrillation thresholds using an active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION

The downsizing of implantable defibrillator pulse generators has made pectoral placement routine. A further reduction of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) may simplify implantation defibrillation testing and allow for smaller, lower output pulse generators while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin. One factor that may affect defibrillation efficacy is shock polarity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients undergoing dual-coil, active left pectoral defibrillator implantation were evaluated. Paired, biphasic DFTs were measured in normal (RV apex = cathode) and reverse (RV apex = anode) polarity with order of testing randomized. Reverse polarity conferred a 15% reduction of mean DFTs (8.5 +/- 5.0 J normal, 7.2 +/- 4.6 J reverse polarity, P = 0.02). The effect of polarity appeared most pronounced among the patients with a high DFT (> or = 15 J) resulting in a 31% reduction with reverse polarity (16.7 +/- 2.5 J normal, 11.5 +/- 5.9 J reverse, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Reversing shock polarity results in significantly lower biphasic DFTs with an active pectoral lead system, particularly in the subgroup of patients with a high normal polarity threshold. Reversing polarity in these patients may simplify acute defibrillation testing and allow for lower output devices.

Temporal stability of defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION

Monophasic defibrillation thresholds rise over time with a variety of lead systems. These chronic changes are attenuated or eliminated by biphasic waveforms, although the effect appears dependent upon the lead system. With the downsizing of pulse generator size to allow for routine pectoral implantation, active can lead systems have now become standard. However, the temporal stability of such lead systems has not been evaluated previously.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective assessment of the changes of active pectoral defibrillation thresholds over time. Thresholds were measured at implant, predischarge, and at a mean follow-up of 50 days in 46 patients with a uniform testing protocol and shock polarity. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak DSP lead with an active pectoral pulse generator. Defibrillation thresholds were 9.9+/-5.5 J at implantation, 8.5+/-6.0 J predischarge, and 7.6+/-5.5 J at follow-up (ANOVA, P = 0.007). Moreover, only two patients developed an increased threshold > 5 J, and no patient had an inadequate safety margin at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that active pectoral defibrillation thresholds are stable over the first 2 months postimplantation and question the need for routine serial defibrillation threshold testing.