Stepped defibrillation waveform is substantially more efficient than the 50/50% tilt biphasic

Ascending Defibrillation Waveform Significantly Reduces Myocardial Morphological Damage and Injury Current

OBJECTIVES

This study tested the hypothesis that a biphasic defibrillation waveform with an ascending first phase (ASC) causes less myocardial damage by pathology and injury current than a standard biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveform in a swine model.

BACKGROUND

Although lifesaving, defibrillation shocks have significant iatrogenic effects that reduce their benefit for patient survival.

METHODS

An ASC waveform with an 8-ms linear ramp followed by an additional positive 0.5-ms decaying portion with amplitudes of 20 J (ASC 20J) and 25 J (ASC 25J) was used. The control was a 25-J BTE conventional waveform (BTE 25J) RESULTS: The ASC 20J and ASC 25J shocks were both successful in 6 of 6 pigs, but the BTE 25J was successful in only 6 of 14 pigs (p < 0.05). Post-shock ST-segment elevation (injury current) in the right ventricular electrode was significantly greater with BTE 25J than with ASC 20J and ASC 25J. With a blinded pathology reading, hemorrhage, inflammation, thrombi, and necrosis 24 h post-shock were significantly greater with BTE 25J than with ASC 20J and ASC 25J. Troponin levels were also markedly lower at 3, 4, 5, and 6 h post-shock.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation shocks cause electrophysiological, histological, and biochemical signs of myocardial damage and necrosis. These signs of damage are markedly less for an ASC waveform than for a conventional BTE waveform.

Extended charge banking model of dual path shocks for implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Background

Single path defibrillation shock methods have been improved through the use of the Charge Banking Model of defibrillation, which predicts the response of the heart to shocks as a simple resistor-capacitor (RC) circuit. While dual path defibrillation configurations have significantly reduced defibrillation thresholds, improvements to dual path defibrillation techniques have been limited to experimental observations without a practical model to aid in improving dual path defibrillation techniques.

Methods

The Charge Banking Model has been extended into a new Extended Charge Banking Model of defibrillation that represents small sections of the heart as separate RC circuits, uses a weighting factor based on published defibrillation shock field gradient measures, and implements a critical mass criteria to predict the relative efficacy of single and dual path defibrillation shocks.

Results

The new model reproduced the results from several published experimental protocols that demonstrated the relative efficacy of dual path defibrillation shocks. The model predicts that time between phases or pulses of dual path defibrillation shock configurations should be minimized to maximize shock efficacy.

Discussion

Through this approach the Extended Charge Banking Model predictions may be used to improve dual path and multi-pulse defibrillation techniques, which have been shown experimentally to lower defibrillation thresholds substantially. The new model may be a useful tool to help in further improving dual path and multiple pulse defibrillation techniques by predicting optimal pulse durations and shock timing parameters.

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.