Kinetics of defibrillation shock-induced response: design implications for the optimal defibrillation waveform

Electrocution Risk of Capacitive Discharge Shocks: Application to Electric Vehicle Charging

It is difficult to electrocute (induce ventricular fibrillation) with capacitive discharge shocks. With small capacitance values, the high voltages required for the necessary charge are rarely seen in industrial situations (e.g. electric vehicle charging stations). On the other hand, with large capacitance values, the discharge time is so great that the shock couples inefficiently with the cardiac cells. The update to IEC 60479-2 sets the C1 "mostly-safe" charge limit of 3 mC for a short "impulse function" pulse. We calculated the equivalent capacitor stored charge for an arbitrary capacitance value using the simple single membrane time constant model for the cardiac response. The peak membrane response was set equal to that of the 3 mC impulse function response to calculate the safe values for stored charge, voltage, and energy. The total stored charge, per se, cannot be used simplistically to estimate the danger of a capacitive discharge shock. A capacitive-discharge shock cannot be accurately compared to a rectangular shock with a duration equal to the shock time constant. The greater the capacitance, the larger the fraction of wasted charge in coupling to the heart and thus the shorter equivalent duration compared to the shock time constant. For a capacitive discharge shock this translates to a stored charge of 3 mC increasing up to 9 mC for a 10 capacitor using the assumed 575 load for an electric-vehicle (EV) charging station. In the area of interest for 1 - 10 the safe voltage ranges from 1300 to 4700 V, which includes the 1500-V_DCscope of EV charger standard IEC 61851-23. For C > 100 the voltage asymptote is 700 V.

Using Nanosecond Shocks for Cardiac Defibrillation

The purpose of this review article is to summarize our current understanding of the efficacy and safety of cardiac defibrillation with nanosecond shocks. Experiments in isolated hearts, using optical mapping of the electrical activity, have demonstrated that nanosecond shocks can defibrillate with lower energies than conventional millisecond shocks. Single defibrillation strength nanosecond shocks do not cause obvious damage, but repeated stimulation leads to deterioration of the hearts. In isolated myocytes, nanosecond pulses can also stimulate at lower energies than at longer pulses and cause less electroporation (propidium uptake). The mechanism is likely electroporation of the plasma membrane. Repeated stimulation leads to distorted calcium gradients.

Low-energy defibrillation with nanosecond electric shocks

Aims

Reliable defibrillation with reduced energy deposition has long been the focus of defibrillation research. We studied the efficacy of single shocks of 300 ns duration in defibrillating rabbit hearts as well as the tissue damage they may cause.

Methods and results

New Zealand white rabbit hearts were Langendorff-perfused and two planar electrodes were placed on either side of the heart. Shocks of 300 ns duration and 0.3-3 kV amplitude were generated with a transmission line generator. Single nanosecond shocks consistently induced waves of electrical activation, with a stimulation threshold of 0.9 kV (over 3 cm) and consistent activation for shock amplitudes of 1.2 kV or higher (9/9 successful attempts). We induced fibrillation (35 episodes in 12 hearts) and found that single shock nanosecond-defibrillation could consistently be achieved, with a defibrillation threshold of 2.3-2.4 kV (over 3 cm), and consistent success at 3 kV (11/11 successful attempts). Shocks uniformly depolarized the tissue, and the threshold energy needed for nanosecond defibrillation was almost an order of magnitude lower than the energy needed for defibrillation with a monophasic 10 ms shock delivered with the same electrode configuration. For the parameters studied here, nanosecond defibrillation caused no baseline shift of the transmembrane potential (that could be indicative of electroporative damage), no changes in action potential duration, and only a brief change of diastolic interval, for one beat after the shock was delivered. Histological staining with tetrazolium chloride and propidium iodide showed that effective defibrillation was not associated with tissue death or with detectable electroporation anywhere in the heart (six hearts).

Conclusion

Nanosecond-defibrillation is a promising technology that may allow clinical defibrillation with profoundly reduced energies.

A shocking past: a walk through generations of defibrillation development

Defibrillation is one of the most successful and widely recognized applications of electrotherapy. Yet the historical road to its first successful application in a patient and the innovative adaptation to an implantable device is marred with unexpected turns, political and personal setbacks, and public and scientific condemnation at each new idea. Driven by dedicated scientists and ever-advancing creative applications of new technologies, from electrocardiography to high density mapping and computational simulations, the field of defibrillation persevered and continued to evolve to the life-saving tool it is today. In addition to critical technological advances, the history of defibrillation is also marked by the plasticity of the theory of defibrillation. The advancing theories of success have propelled the campaign for reducing the defibrillation energy requirement, instilling hope in the development of a painless and harmless electrical defibrillation strategy.

Membrane time constant during internal defibrillation strength shocks in intact heart: effects of Na+ and Ca2+ channel blockers

INTRODUCTION

We assessed defibrillation strength shock-induced changes of the membrane time constant (tau) and membrane potential (DeltaVm) in intact rabbit hearts after administration of lidocaine, a sodium (Na(+)) channel blocker, or nifedipine, a L-type calcium (Ca(2+)) channel blocker.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We optically mapped anterior, epicardial, electrical activity during monophasic shocks (+/-100, +/-130, +/-160, +/-190, and +/-220 V; 150 microF; 8 ms) applied at 25%, 50%, and 75% of the action potential duration via a shock lead system in Langendorff-perfused hearts. The protocol was run twice for each heart under control and after lidocaine (15 microM, n = 6) or nifedipine (2 microM, n = 6) addition. tau in the virtual electrode area away from the shock lead was approximated with single-exponential fits from a total of 121,125 recordings. The same data set was used to calculate DeltaVm. We found (1) Under all conditions, there is inverse relationship between tau and DeltaVm with respect to changes of shock strength, regardless of shock polarity and phase of application: a stronger shock resulted in a larger DeltaVm, which corresponded to a smaller tau (faster cellular response); (2) Lidocaine did not cause appreciable changes in either tau or DeltaVm versus control, and (3) Nifedipine significantly increased both tau and DeltaVm in the virtual cathode area; in contrast, in the virtual anode area, this effect depended on the phase of shock application.

CONCLUSION

tau and DeltaVm are inversely related. Na(+) channel blocker has minimal impact on either tau or DeltaVm. Ca(2+) blocker caused polarity and phase-dependent significant changes in tau and DeltaVm.

A comparison of chronaxies for ventricular fibrillation induction, defibrillation, and cardiac stimulation: unexpected findings and their implications

INTRODUCTION

A low-energy (<or= 4 J) cardioversion shock (LEC) either terminates reentrant ventricular tachycardia (VT) or accelerates it to ventricular fibrillation (VF). Optimization of the duration and amplitude of LEC shocks could improve the success rate of VT termination without VF induction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In order to learn how LEC shocks may be optimized, we used an animal model to compare the strength-duration curve for VF induction and the strength-duration curve for cardiac stimulation via the shock coil. Conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads were implanted in 12 narcotized pigs from 20 kg to 25 kg in weight. Stimulation, VF induction, and defibrillation pulses were delivered by custom-designed stimulators at preset pulse durations and amplitudes. The corresponding hyperbolic strength-duration curves were constructed using the least-squares fit method and averaged for all the animals. The mean chronaxie for stimulation via the shock coil of 0.23 ms was significantly shorter than both defibrillation (4.8 ms) and VF induction (3.1 ms) chronaxie values. At a shock duration of 0.3 ms or less, the mean VF-induction threshold amplitude exceeded 300 V.

CONCLUSION

It may be reasonable to study whether LEC pulses from 0.25 ms to 0.30 ms in duration and up to 250 V in amplitude would increase therapeutic yield in VT termination without VF induction in humans. Contrary to the current belief, the discrepancy between defibrillation and stimulation chronaxie is not caused by different electrode size. We postulate that the time constant of the fast sodium channel reactivation may be the underlying reason.

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.

Achieving Sufficient Safety Margins with Fixed Duration Waveforms and the Use of Multiple Time Constants

INTRODUCTION

There are several options to achieve a sufficient safety margin in a patient with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT), with varying and typically modest success. Programming fixed (millisecond) durations of both phases of a biphasic waveform in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has demonstrated utility.

METHODS

We established an informal multisite registry of ICD implanting facilities. Each facility agreed to attempt the use of fixed duration waveforms whenever there was an inadequate safety margin with tilt-based waveforms. A 3.5-ms-based fixed duration shock was tried first. If that failed to achieve a 10-J safety margin then a 2-ms-based shock was used. We also tabulated an HEDFT (high estimate DFT) as precise DFTs were not determined.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (15 M, 1 F) were entered into the registry (age 58.2 +/- 17.9 years) with ejection fractions of .30 +/-.11. Superior vena cava coils were used in 7 patients according to physician preference. The tilt-based HEDFTs were 35.4 +/- 3.2 J delivered and 35.8 +/- 3.3 J stored energy. The 3.5-ms based shocks were evaluated on 14 patients and the HEDFT fell to 23.4 +/- 6.3 J delivered (P < 0.0001) and 26.2 +/- 6.9 J stored energy (P < 0.0001). The 2-ms-based fixed duration shocks were then evaluated on 6 patients and the delivered energy HEDFT was 22.2 +/- 5.8 J (P = 0.001 vs. tilt-based shocks) while the stored energy HEDFT was 27.9 +/- 6.4 J (P = 0.01 vs. tilt-based shocks). Using the better of the two fixed duration waveforms, the mean safety margin was improved from -1.2 +/- 1.9 J to 9.5 +/- 5.9 J (P < 0.00001). Multivariate predictors of the safety margin improvement were the absence of the Superior Vena Cava (SVC) coil and absence of Ventricular fibrillation (VF) presentation. Four patients still required lead repositioning after the use of the fixed duration waveforms. No additional leads were implanted.

CONCLUSION

The use of a selection of directly programmed fixed duration biphasic shocks had a striking impact on the HEDFT for these difficult patients. Adequate safety margins were obtained for 12 of 16 patients with no lead manipulation or other approaches.

Development of device therapy for ventricular arrhythmias

The past 25 years have seen the implantable cardioverter defibrillator emerge as the treatment of choice for ventricular arrhythmias with reduction in size but increased therapeutic options. Understanding the complex mechanisms of ventricular arrhythmias and defibrillation in normal and diseased hearts has been the focus of many research teams including that of John Uther at the Westmead Hospital Department of Cardiology. Marked improvements in capacitor and battery technologies, arrhythmia discrimination, pacing algorithms, shock waveforms and monitoring capabilities enable wider use and patient acceptance. Emergence of cardiac resynchronisation therapy and the implantable defibrillator for treatment of chronic heart failure is not only giving quality of life and extended survival for heart failure patients but has also cast new light on the evolution of heart failure.

Present Understanding of Shock Polarity for Internal Defibrillation: The Obvious and Non-Obvious Clinical Implications

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty about the best electrode configuration has combined with the programming flexibility in modern implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) to result in routine polarity reversal during an implant to deal with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT). We feel that this practice is not always supported by the clinical data and the present scientific understanding of defibrillation.

METHOD

A meta-analysis of the clinical studies on ICD shock polarity was performed. Subgroup analyses were also performed to test the impact of high DFTs, various tilts, and the use of the hot can electrode. A review of the basic research surrounding the effects of polarity in defibrillation is also presented.

RESULTS

A total of 224 patients were studied. The use of an anodal right ventricular (RV) coil lowers the mean DFT by 14.8% (P = 0.00001). It provides thresholds equal to or lower than cathodal defibrillation in 83% of patients. The fraction of patients with lower anodal DFTs was 94/224 versus 38/224 for cathodal polarity. This phenomenon may be explained by virtual electrode effects. In particular, anodal electrodes tend to produce collapsing wavefronts while cathodal electrodes tend to produce expanding proarrhythmic wavefronts.

CONCLUSION

In an ICD implant, the RV coil should be the anode. Furthermore, DFT testing beginning with cathodal defibrillation is most likely unnecessary and needlessly extends the procedure's duration and increases the risks for the patient.

Benefit of millisecond waveform durations for patients with high defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND

Patients with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) present an atypical but vexing problem with regard to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Their implant procedures are lengthy and involve more risk of complications. These patients often sustain a reduced safety margin that may compromise their survival.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of fixed millisecond duration model-optimized biphasic waveforms compared with conventional tilt-based waveforms in patients having a high DFT.

METHODS

We compared a 65%/65% tilt biphasic waveform to a millisecond duration biphasic waveform based on the biphasic burping theory using a 90-microF shock capacitor.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were evaluated. Mean DFT with tilt was reduced from 11.0 +/- 5.5 J to 8.8 +/- 4.1 J, for a mean reduction of 20% (P < .0001). For the 13 patients with tilt-based DFTs > or = 15 J, DFT was reduced from 18.7 +/- 4.1 J to 13.4 +/- 3.5 J, for a mean DFT reduction of 28% (P = .009). The population peak DFT was reduced from 29.0 J to 17.5 J, for a 41% reduction (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Use of simple millisecond biphasic waveforms instead of conventional tilt-based waveforms can lead to substantial reductions in DFT, especially in patients with high DFT.

The Gurvich waveform has lower defibrillation threshold than the rectilinear waveform and the truncated exponential waveform in the rabbit heart

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator studies have established the superiority of biphasic waveforms over monophasic waveforms. However, external defibrillator studies of biphasic waveforms are not as widespread. Our objective was to compare the defibrillation efficacy of clinically used biphasic waveforms, i.e., truncated exponential, rectilinear, and quasi-sinusoidal (Gurvich) waveforms in a fibrillating heart model. Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts (n = 10) were stained with a voltage-sensitive fluorescent dye, Di-4-ANEPPS. Transmembrane action potentials were optically mapped from the anterior epicardium. We found that the Gurvich waveform was significantly superior (p < 0.05) to the rectilinear and truncated exponential waveforms. The defibrillation thresholds (mean +/- SE) were as follows: Gurvich, 0.25 +/- 0.01 J; rectilinear-1, 0.34 +/- 0.01 J; rectilinear-2, 0.33 +/- 0.01 J; and truncated exponential, 0.32 +/- 0.02 J. Using optically recorded transmembrane responses, we determined the shock-response transfer function, which allowed us to predict the cellular response to waveforms at high accuracy. The passive parallel resistor-capacitor model (RC-model) predicted polarization superiority of the Gurvich waveform in the myocardium with a membrane time constant (taum) of less than 2 ms. The finding of a lower defibrillation threshold with the Gurvich waveform in an in vitro model of external defibrillation suggests that the Gurvich waveform may be important for future external defibrillator designs.

Improved defibrillation efficacy with an ascending ramp waveform in humans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare an ascending ramp waveform (RAMP) with a standard, clinically available biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) for defibrillation in humans.

BACKGROUND

In animal studies, RAMP had a lower defibrillation threshold (DFT) than BTE.

METHODS

We studied 63 patients at implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement using a dual-coil lead and left pectoral active can. The subjects were divided into two groups, one with a 12-ms ascending first phase and one with a 7-ms ascending first phase. Phase 2 of RAMP for both groups was a truncated exponential decay with 65% tilt and reversed polarity. The BTE had a 50% tilt in each phase. DFT and upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) were measured for both waveforms using a binary search protocol.

RESULTS

The patient population was 77% male, with a mean age of 63 +/- 10 years and ejection fraction of 33 +/- 13%. Delivered energy at DFT was lower with the 7-ms RAMP vs BTE (5.4 +/- 2.6 J vs 6.5 +/- 3.4 J; P < .01) but unchanged with the 12-ms RAMP (7.4 +/- 4.5 J vs 7.1 +/- 4.9 J). Maximal voltage at DFT was significantly lower with either RAMP compared to BTE (P < .01). There was a strong correlation between ULV and DFT for both RAMP and BTE (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 7-ms ascending ramp waveform significantly reduced delivered energy (18%) and voltage (24%) at DFT, whereas the 12-ms RAMP reduced only DFT voltage. This is the first report of a waveform that is superior to a BTE for defibrillation in humans. ULV correlates with DFT for RAMP, supporting the use of ULV testing for implantation of devices.

Mechanisms of superiority of ascending ramp waveforms: new insights into mechanisms of shock-induced vulnerability and defibrillation

Monophasic ascending ramp (AR) and descending ramp (DR) waveforms are known to have significantly different defibrillation thresholds. We hypothesized that this difference arises due to differences in mechanisms of arrhythmia induction for the two waveforms. Rabbit hearts (n = 10) were Langendorff perfused, and AR and DR waveforms (7, 20, and 40 ms) were randomly delivered from two line electrodes placed 10 mm apart on the anterior ventricular epicardium. We optically mapped cellular responses to shocks of various strengths (5, 10, and 20 V/cm) and coupling intervals (CIs; 120, 180, and 300 ms). Optical mapping revealed that maximum virtual electrode polarization (VEP) was reached at significantly different times for AR and DR of the same duration (P < 0.05) for all tested CIs. As a result, VEP for AR were stronger than for DR at the end of the shock. Postshock break excitation resulting from AR generated faster propagation and typically could not form reentry. In contrast, partially dissipated VEP resulting from DR generated slower propagation; the wavefront was able to propagate into deexcited tissue and thus formed a shock-induced reentry circuit. Therefore, for the same delivered energy, AR was less proarrhythmic compared with DR. An active bidomain model was used to confirm the electrophysiological results. The VEP hypothesis explains differences in vulnerability associated with monophasic AR and DR waveforms and, by extension, the superior defibrillation efficacy of the AR waveform compared with the DR waveform.