Submuscular versus subcutaneous pectoral implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators: effect on high voltage pathway impedance and defibrillation efficacy

Patients with a high defibrillation threshold: Approaches to management

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the prognosis for patients at elevated risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. For safety, defibrillation should be effective with a minimum of 10 J below the device's maximum energy. While modern ICDs rarely deliver ineffective shocks in primary prevention, the surge in managing severe heart failure patients has led to an increased number of patients with high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). This article elucidates the potential causes of high DFT, including clinical factors, lead and device placement, the presence of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD), prolonged ventricular arrhythmias, shock vectors, waveform tilt, medications, and manufacturer-specific options. We also detail management strategies, highlighting alternative shock coil placements, practical recommendations, and case studies from our institution. Our management algorithm suggests addressing preventable causes, re-evaluating coil positions, considering non-invasive system modifications, upgrading to a higher-capacity device, and adding extra coil(s).

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.

Intraoperative Comparison of a Subthreshold Test Pulse with the Standard High-Energy Shock Approach for the Measurement of Defibrillation Lead Impedance

There are two methods to measure shocking lead impedance: delivery of high-energy shocks that require patient sedation, and the painless measurement of impedance from subthreshold test pulses. The aim of this study was to compare the two methods.

METHODS

The study included 131 patients implanted with a standard DR (n = 71) or VR (n = 60) ICD connected to either single-coil (n = 39) or dual-coil (n = 92) defibrillation leads. The noninvasive high-energy impedance test was done using a 17 J shock after induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias and compared to a 0.4 microJ test pulse used by the ICD for the subthreshold measurements.

RESULTS

Defibrillation lead impedance measurements were not significantly different between patients with the same shocking vector configuration. In patients with a single-coil defibrillation lead the impedance was 62 +/- 9 Omega with the high-energy shock and 62 +/- 8 Omega with the subthreshold test pulses (P = 0.13). Patients with a dual-coil configuration recorded average impedances of 40 +/- 5 Omega from both tests (P = 0.44). While there was no difference in values recorded within each lead configuration, there was a significant difference in impedance between the single-coil and the dual-coil patient groups (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between shocking lead impedances measured with the high-energy shock or the subthreshold test pulses. This offers the possibility of noninvasive, low-energy serial measurements of shocking lead impedance at follow-up visits and removing the need for sedation.