Clinical evaluation of defibrillation efficacy with a new single-capacitor biphasic waveform in patients undergoing implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

A framework of current based defibrillation improves defibrillation efficacy of biphasic truncated exponential waveform in rabbits

Defibrillation is accomplished by the passage of sufficient current through the heart to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF). Although current-based defibrillation has been shown to be superior to energy-based defibrillation with monophasic waveforms, defibrillators with biphasic waveforms still use energy as a therapeutic dosage. In the present study, we propose a novel framework of current-based, biphasic defibrillation grounded in transthoracic impedance (TTI) measurements: adjusting the charging voltage to deliver the desired current based on the energy setting and measured pre-shock TTI; and adjusting the pulse duration to deliver the desired energy based on the output current and intra-shock TTI. The defibrillation efficacy of current-based defibrillation was compared with that of energy-based defibrillation in a simulated high impedance rabbit model of VF. Cardiac arrest was induced by pacing the right ventricle for 60 s in 24 New Zealand rabbits (10 males). A defibrillatory shock was applied with one of the two defibrillators after 90 s of VF. The defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) at different pathway impedances were determined utilizing a 5-step up-and-down protocol. The procedure was repeated after an interval of 5 min. A total of 30 fibrillation events and defibrillation attempts were investigated for each animal. The pulse duration was significantly shorter, and the waveform tilt was much lower for the current-based defibrillator. Compared with energy-based defibrillation, the energy, peak voltage, and peak current DFT were markedly lower when the pathway impedance was > 120 Ω, but there were no differences in DFT values when the pathway impedance was between 80 and 120 Ω for current-based defibrillation. Additionally, peak voltage and the peak current DFT were significantly lower for current-based defibrillation when the pathway impedance was < 80 Ω. In sum, a framework of adjusting the charging voltage and shock duration to deliver constant energy for low impedance and constant current for high impedance via pre-shock and intra-shock impedance measurements, greatly improved the defibrillation efficacy of high impedance by lowering the energy DFT.

Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cardiac pacemakers: era of "MR Conditional" designs

Advances in cardiac device technology have led to the first generation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) conditional devices, providing more diagnostic imaging options for patients with these devices, but also new controversies. Prior studies of pacemakers in patients undergoing MRI procedures have provided groundwork for design improvements. Factors related to magnetic field interactions and transfer of electromagnetic energy led to specific design changes. Ferromagnetic content was minimized. Reed switches were modified. Leads were redesigned to reduce induced currents/heating. Circuitry filters and shielding were implemented to impede or limit the transfer of certain unwanted electromagnetic effects. Prospective multicenter clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of the first generation of MR conditional cardiac pacemakers demonstrated no significant alterations in pacing parameters compared to controls. There were no reported complications through the one month visit including no arrhythmias, electrical reset, inhibition of generator output, or adverse sensations. The safe implementation of these new technologies requires an understanding of the well-defined patient and MR system conditions. Although scanning a patient with an MR conditional device following the strictly defined patient and MR system conditions appears straightforward, issues related to patients with pre-existing devices remain complex. Until MR conditional devices are the routine platform for all of these devices, there will still be challenging decisions regarding imaging patients with pre-existing devices where MRI is required to diagnose and manage a potentially life threatening or serious scenario. A range of other devices including ICDs, biventricular devices, and implantable physiologic monitors as well as guidance of medical procedures using MRI technology will require further biomedical device design changes and testing. The development and implementation of cardiac MR conditional devices will continue to require the expertise and collaboration of multiple disciplines and will need to prove safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness in patient care.

Comparison between two defibrillation waveforms

Two defibrillation waveforms, the chopped biphasic pulses and the constant current pulses, were assessed and compared. Two indices are introduced. The first one is the ratio between the delivered energy W and the energy W(0) of a rectangular pulse with the same duration and electric charge. The second index η(C) = W(0)/W(C0) stands for the level of utilizing the initially loaded capacitor energy W(C0). Some design considerations are also discussed. Another aspect of the study is the choice of appropriate capacitor for pulse generation. The results obtained show that there is no outstanding optimal waveform. The W/W(0) ratio is higher for the known constant current shapes but specifically with a patient resistance lower than 80 Ω. On the other hand, the implementation of these shapes would face several difficulties. The chopped biphasic waveforms are obtained by relatively simple technical solutions leading to very small in size and weight portable instruments.

Defibrillation efficacy and pain perception of two biphasic waveforms for internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

Efficacy and Pain Perception of Two Biphasic Waveforms.

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the influence of the peak voltage of waveforms used for internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation on defibrillation efficacy and pain perception. A low peak voltage biphasic waveform generated by a 500-microF capacitor with 40% tilt was compared to a standard biphasic waveform generated by a 60-microF capacitor with 80% tilt.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 19 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (79% male, age 55 +/- 11 years, 21% with heart disease), the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) was determined during deep sedation with midazolam for both waveforms in a randomized fashion using a step-up protocol. Internal cardioversion with a single lead (shock vector: coronary sinus to right atrium) was successful in 18 (95%) of 19 patients. ADFT energy and peak voltage were significantly lower for the low-voltage waveform (2.1 +/- 2.4 J vs 3.5 +/- 3.9 J, P < 0.01; 100 +/- 53 V vs 290 +/- 149 V, P < 0.01). Sedation then was reversed with flumazenil after ADFT testing. Two shocks at the ADFT (or a 3-J shock if ADFT >3 J) were administered to the patient using each waveform in random order. Pain perception was assessed using both a visual scale and a numerical score. ADFTs were above the pain threshold in 17 (94%) of 18 patients, even though the ADFT with the 500-microF waveform was <100 V in 63% of the patients. Pain perception was comparable for both waveforms (numerical score: 6.5 +/- 2.4 vs 6.3 +/- 2.6; visual scale: 5.4 +/- 2.6 vs 5.2 +/- 3.1; P = NS, 500-microF vs 60-microF). The second shock was perceived as more painful in 88% of the patients, independent of the waveform used.

CONCLUSION

Despite a 66% lower peak voltage and a 40% lower energy, the 40% tilt, 500-microF capacitor biphasic waveform did not change the pain perceived by the patient during delivery of internal cardioversion shocks. Pain perception for internal cardioversion probably is not influenced by peak voltage alone and increases with the number of applied shocks.