Optimization of superior vena cava coil position and usage for transvenous defibrillation

Coronary vein defibrillator coil placement in patients with high defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Elevated defibrillation threshold (DFT) occurs in 2%-6% of patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation. Adding a defibrillation coil in the coronary sinus (CS) or its branches can result in substantial reductions in the mean DFT. However, data regarding acute success and long-term stability remain lacking. We report our experience with this bailout strategy.

METHODS

Patients with elevated DFT at implantation (safety margin at implantation <10 J) and those with failed ICD shocks for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) referred for high DFT underwent placement of an additional defibrillation coil in the CS. DFT testing was performed at the completion of the implantation procedure. External potentially reversible factors were excluded. High-output devices were systematically used.

RESULTS

Four patients with high DFT at implantation and two with several failed shock attempts underwent placement of a defibrillation coil in the CS. Mean age was 41.8 (23-78). They presented a mean LVEF of 21% (15-30), QRS-complex duration of 109.8 milliseconds (87-168), body surface area of 1.96 m2 (1.45-2.58), and a mean R wave of 16.3 mV (8-27). Defibrillation coil implantation in the CS (final shocking configuration of right ventricle as anode and left ventricle (LV) plus can as cathode) was associated with successful DFT testing in all. Three patients had a concomitant LV lead for biventricular pacing. During a mean follow-up of 54.67 months (10-118), two patients experienced successful ICD shocks for VA (one of them also presented inappropriate shocks because of the fast conducting atrial fibrillation).

CONCLUSIONS

Positioning of a defibrillation coil in the CS can result in a substantial reduction in mean DFT and associates with optimal long-term stability.

Should Single-Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads Be Used in all Patients?

The historical preference for dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads stems from high defibrillation thresholds associated with old device platforms. The high safety margins generated by contemporary devices have rendered the modest difference in defibrillation efficacy between single- and dual-coil leads clinically insignificant. Cohort data demonstrating worse lead extraction outcomes and higher all-cause mortality have brought the incremental utility of an superior vena cava coil into question. This article summarizes the current literature and re-evaluates the utility of dual-coil leads in the context of modern device technology.

Higher defibrillation threshold in methamphetamine cardiomyopathy patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Identification of patients with an increased risk of high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) is important in planning implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) procedures. Clinical observations have suggested that patients with methamphetamine cardiomyopathy (MACMP) have significantly elevated defibrillation thresholds. We hypothesized that MACMP patients would have higher DFT thresholds than controls and would require procedural changes during ICD implantation to accommodate higher thresholds.

METHODS

We identified consecutive patients with MACMP undergoing ICD implantation at the academic center from 2003 to 2007. We then compared DFTs against age-and sex-matched controls.

RESULTS

The MACMP (n = 10) group showed significantly increased DFT thresholds (23.7 ± 6.7 J) compared with age and sex-matched controls (14.5 ± 4.6 J, p < 0.005). Additionally, patients with MACMP had evidence of more severe congestive heart failure, with increased B-type natrieutic protein (BNP) levels (1173 ± 784 vs 260 ± 349, p = 0.02) and decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (17.8 ± 9.4 vs 35.9 ± 15.2, p = 0.02). MACMP patients required high output devices than controls (50% versus 0%, p = 0.03). Differences between groups remained significant despite adjusting for LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Planning for ICD implantation should take into consideration a history of methamphetamine abuse, mandating DFT testing and empiric consideration of high output devices for such patients.

Clinical impact, safety, and efficacy of single- versus dual-coil ICD leads in MADIT-CRT

BACKGROUND

Current data on efficacy, safety and impact on clinical outcome of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are limited and contradictory.

METHODS

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) at implantation and first shock efficacy were compared in patients implanted with single- versus dual-coil ICD leads in MADIT-CRT. The risk for atrial tachyarrhythmias and all-cause mortality were evaluated. Short- (< 30 days after the implantation) and long-term (throughout the entire study duration) complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients with dual-coil ICD leads had significantly lower DFTs compared to patients with single-coil ICD leads (17.6 ± 5.8 J vs 19.4 ± 6.1 J, P < 0.001). First shock efficacy was similar among patients with dual and single-coil ICD leads (89.6% vs 92.3%, P = 1.00). When comparing patients with dual versus single-coil ICD leads, there was no difference in the risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias (HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 0.81-3.02, P = 0.18), or in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.58-2.07, P = 0.77). Patients implanted with single- or dual-coil ICD lead had similar short and long-term complication rates (short-term HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.56-1.65, P = 0.88, long-term procedure-related HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.62-1.59, P = 1.00, long-term ICD lead related: HR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.5-2.9, P = 0.68) during the mean follow-up of 3.3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with single-coil ICD leads have slightly higher DFTs compared to those with dual-coil leads, but the efficacy, safety, and clinical impact on atrial tachyarrhythmias, and mortality is similar. Implantation of single-coil ICD leads may be favorable in most patients.

ICD implantation without intraoperative testing does not increase the rate of system modifications and does not impair defibrillation efficacy tested in follow-up

AIM

The need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) defibrillation testing (DT) and subsequent intraoperative system modifications is discussed controversially. The study's goal was to prove that consequent abdication of intraoperative DT does not impair defibrillation efficacy and does not increase the rate of postoperative system revisions.

METHODS

In a prospective single-center observational study, 609 out of 648 consecutive patients underwent transvenous ICD implantation (left-sided, active can, dual coil lead, and biphasic shock waveform) waiving intraoperative DT. Defibrillation efficacy was validated prior to hospital discharge (PHD) by applying two 10 J safety margin (SM) shocks.

RESULTS

Following "schockless" implantation 580 out of 609 patients (95.2 %) met a 10 J SM with default programming. Shock path reversal provided 10 J SM in 13 out of 29 cases with initially failed DT. In four patients (0.7 %) maximum energy shocks were ineffective. There was no morbidity or mortality related to DT. The total rate of surgical ICD revisions was 1.8 %.

CONCLUSION

Routine ICD implantation without intraoperative DT does not lead to an increased rate of postoperative system modifications and does not decrease defibrillation efficacy as tested PHD.

Switchable Faraday shielding with application to reducing the pain of internal cardiac defibrillation while permitting external defibrillation

Switchable Faraday shielding is desirable in situations where electric field shielding is required at certain times and undesirable at other times. In this study, electrostatic finite element modeling was used to assess the effect of different shield geometries on the leakage of an internally applied field and penetration of an externally applied field. "Switching OFF" the shield by electrically disconnecting shield faces from each other was shown to significantly increase external field penetration. Applying this model to defibrillation, we looked at the effect of spacing and size of shield panels to maximize the ability to deliver an external defibrillation shock to the heart when shield panels are disconnected while providing acceptably low leakage of internal defibrillation shocks to avoid painful skeletal muscle capture when shield panels are connected. This analysis may be useful for designing internal defibrillator electrodes that preserve the efficacy of internal and external defibrillation while avoiding the significant morbidity associated with painful defibrillator shocks. Similar analysis could also guide optimizing the switchable Faraday shielding concept for other applications.

Device therapy for the management of cardiac tachyarrhythmias

Implantation of devices that can terminate cardiac arrhythmias has increased rapidly over recent years. This article looks at the evidence base for using such devices in the primary and secondary prevention of sudden arrhythmic death, discusses who should have a device and examines the issues surrounding implantation. Recent advances in technology and the future direction of therapy are also reviewed.

Novel intravascular defibrillator: defibrillation thresholds of intravascular cardioverter-defibrillator compared to conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in a canine model

BACKGROUND

An intravascular, percutaneously placed implantable defibrillator (InnerPulse percutaneous intravascular cardioverter-defibrillator [PICD]) with a right ventricular (RV) single-coil lead and titanium electrodes in the superior vena cava (SVC) and the inferior vena cava (IVC) has been developed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) of the PICD to those of a conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) in canines.

METHODS

Eight Bluetick hounds were randomized to initial placement of either a PICD or a conventional ICD. For PICD DFTs, a single-coil RV defibrillator lead was placed in the RV apex, and the device was positioned in the venous vasculature with electrodes in the SVC and IVC. With the conventional ICD, an RV lead was placed in the RV apex and an SVC coil was appropriately positioned. The ICD active can (AC) was implanted in a subcutaneous pocket formed in the left anterior chest wall and connected to the lead system. DFT was determined by a three-reversal, step up-down method to estimate the 80% success level. Two configurations were tested for the conventional ICD (#1: RV to SVC+AC; #2: RV to AC). A single configuration (RV to SVC+IVC) was evaluated for the PICD.

RESULTS

Mean PICD DFT was 14.8 ± 1.53 (SE) J. Conventional #1 configuration demonstrated mean DFT of 20.2 ± 2.45 J and #2 of 27.5 ± 1.95 J. The PICD had a significantly lower DFT than the better conventional ICD configuration (#1; mean difference 5.4 ± 2.1 J, P <.05, paired t-test, N = 8).

CONCLUSION

The new intravascular defibrillator had a significantly lower DFT than the conventional ICD in this canine model.

Does defibrillation threshold increase as left ventricular ejection fraction decreases?

Aims

Advanced cardiac disease, entailing more hypertrophy, fibrosis, scarring, dilatation and conduction delays, poses the question of whether defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) increase as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decreases. This question has been approached indirectly or insufficiently in previous studies. In this study we add and expand on our previous work, stratifying DFT for various LVEF ranges.

Methods and results

This retrospective analysis included DFT data from three acute, multicentre, randomized studies that included 230 ICD/CRT-D patients. All DFTs were obtained with the SVC coil turned ON and with pulse-width optimized waveforms based on a 3.5 ms membrane time constant. As the LVEF decreased, DFT estimates increased from 395.2 ± 115 V for LVEF ≥ 46% to 425.8 ± 117.6 V for LVEF ≤ 25%. However, these changes in DFT estimates were very minor and not statistically significant. Only 3% of the patients in this population had an elevated DFT of >20 J.

Conclusion

This analysis shows that over a very broad range of LVEF, DFT changes minimally (approximately 1 J), if at all. Our results are consistent with previous studies that demonstrated no difference in the DFT estimates: (a) between patient groups receiving ICD (typically higher LVEF) vs. CRT-D (typically lower LVEF) and (b) between patient groups receiving a device for primary prevention indications (typically lower LVEF) vs. secondary prevention indications (typically higher LVEF).

ICD Lead Design and the Management of Patients with Lead Failure

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead is critical to the function of the ICD system. The mortality reduction associated with ICDs implanted for primary prevention indications has been made possible by the development of effective and reliable transvenous ICD leads. Mortality rates for implantation of transvenous ICD lead systems are currently less than 0.5%. The reliability and functional characteristics of a lead are often not known until it has been in widespread use. An understanding of the mechanism of lead failure is essential for proper patient management. This article describes the design and construction of ICD leads, discusses lead failure, and reviews subsequent management of patients.