Optimization of Atrial Defibrillation with a Dual-Coil, Active Pectoral Lead System

Internal Versus External Electrical Cardioversion of Atrial Arrhythmia in Patients With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Atrial arrhythmias are common in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). External shocks and internal cardioversion through commanded ICD shock for electrical cardioversion are used for rhythm-control. However, there is a paucity of data on efficacy of external versus internal cardioversion and on the risk of lead and device malfunction. We hypothesized that external cardioversion is noninferior to internal cardioversion for safety, and superior for successful restoration of sinus rhythm.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with ICD undergoing elective cardioversion for atrial arrhythmias at 13 centers were randomized in 1:1 fashion to either internal or external cardioversion. The primary safety end point was a composite of surrogate events of lead or device malfunction. Conversion of atrial arrhythmia to sinus rhythm was the primary efficacy end point. Myocardial damage was studied by measuring troponin release in both groups.

RESULTS

N=230 patients were randomized. Shock efficacy was 93% in the external cardioversion group and 65% in the internal cardioversion group (P<0.001). Clinically relevant adverse events caused by external or internal cardioversion were not observed. Three cases of pre-existing silent lead malfunction were unmasked by internal shock, resulting in lead failure. Troponin release did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomized trial on external vs internal cardioversion in patients with ICDs. External cardioversion was superior for the restoration of sinus rhythm. The unmasking of silent lead malfunction in the internal cardioversion group suggests that an internal shock attempt may be reasonable in selected ICD patients presenting for electrical cardioversion.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03247738.

Low efficacy of cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation with the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure are conditions that often coexist. Consequently, many patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) present with AF. We evaluated the effectiveness of internal cardioversion of AF in patients with an ICD.

METHODS

Retrospectively, we included 27 consecutive ICD patients with persistent AF who underwent internal cardioversion using the ICD. When ICD cardioversion failed, external cardioversion was performed.

RESULTS

Patients were predominantly male (89 %) with a mean (SD) age of 65 ± 9 years and left ventricular ejection fraction of 36 ± 17 %. Only nine (33 %) patients had successful internal cardioversion after one, two or three shocks. The remaining 18 patients underwent external cardioversion after they failed internal cardioversion, which resulted in sinus rhythm in all. A smaller left atrial volume (99 ± 36 ml vs. 146 ± 44 ml; p = 0.019), a longer right atrial cycle length (227 (186-255) vs. 169 (152-183) ms, p = 0.030), a shorter total AF history (2 (0-17) months vs. 40 (5-75) months, p = 0.025) and dual-coil ICD shock (75 % vs. 26 %, p = 0.093) were associated with successful ICD cardioversion.

CONCLUSION

Internal cardioversion of AF in ICD patients has a low success rate but may be attempted in those with small atria, a long right atrial fibrillatory cycle length and a short total AF history, especially when a dual-coil ICD is present. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to prefer external over internal cardioversion when it comes to termination of persistent AF.

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.

When, how, and why should sinus rhythm be restored in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?

The results of the AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management) trial indicate that the rate control strategy is preferred for the majority of patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). If the patient remains symptomatic despite adequate rate control or if rate control cannot be achieved, then rhythm control therapies are indicated. The most likely explanation for the disappointing results of the AFFIRM trial is the poor efficacy and excessive toxicity of rhythm control medications, because the presence of sinus rhythm was associated with a favorable prognosis in AFFIRM. As a result, there is currently great interest in nonpharmacologic therapies such as AF ablation and development of new drugs for AF with a more favorable efficacy and toxicity profile. AF ablation should be reserved for patients who fail an initial trial of a rhythm control medication until additional clinical trial information is available to justify the use of AF ablation as first-line therapy. When rhythm control therapy is indicated, the choice of antiarrhythmic medication should be dictated by the presence or absence of structural heart disease, congestive heart failure, renal dysfunction, or other comorbidities in order to maximize efficacy and minimize the chance of proarrhythmia or extracardiac toxicity.

Coronary sinus electrode does not reduce atrial defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with a conventional dual-coil, active pectoral implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead system. Shocking vectors that incorporate an additional electrode in the CS have been used, but it is unclear if they improve atrial DFTs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this prospective, randomized study was to determine if a coronary sinus (CS) electrode reduces atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs).

METHODS

This was a prospective study of 36 patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. A defibrillation lead with superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular (RV) shocking coils was implanted in the RV. An active can emulator (Can) was placed in a pre-pectoral pocket. A lead with a 4 cm long shocking coil was placed in the CS. Atrial DFTs were determined in the following 3 shocking configurations in each patient, with the order of testing randomized: RV --> SVC + Can (Ventricular Triad), distal CS --> SVC + Can (Distal Atrial Triad), and proximal CS --> SVC + Can (Proximal Atrial Triad).

RESULTS

The Proximal and Distal Atrial Triad configurations were both associated with significant reductions in peak current (p < 0.01), but this effect was offset by significant increases in shock impedance (p < 0.01), resulting in no net change in the peak voltage or DFT energy in comparison to the Ventricular Triad configuration (Ventricular Triad: 4.9 +/- 6.6 J, Proximal Atrial Triad: 3.3 +/- 4.1J, Distal Atrial Triad: 4.4 +/- 6.7 J, p > 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Shocking vectors that incorporate a CS coil do not significantly improve atrial defibrillation efficacy. Since the Ventricular Triad shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.