Increased pacing threshold after an automatic defibrillator shock in dogs: effects of class I and class II antiarrhythmic drugs

Effects of Rhythm and Rate-Controlling Drugs in Patients With Permanent His-Bundle Pacing

Introduction: Antiarrhythmic drug therapy can affect pacemaker parameters in both the atrial and ventricular myocardium. It is not known whether antiarrhythmic drugs impact His bundle pacing/sensing parameters and His to ventricle (H-V) intervals following permanent His bundle pacing (HBP). The aims of the study were to prospectively determine the influence of rhythm and rate-controlling drugs on pacing parameters and H-V conduction after His bundle lead implantation and to assess the impact of rhythm and rate-controlling drugs on the safety of HBP.

Materials and Methods: Patients (N = 140) with QRS duration < 120 ms who met permanent pacing indications were prospectively enrolled. Propafenone, lidocaine, and adenosine were injected intravenously after implantation of 3,830 lead during the procedure. Metoprolol succinate, amiodarone, and digoxin were taken orally for 1 month. Pacing parameters before and after drug intervention was measured, including His capture threshold, sensing and impedance, H-V interval, and conduction.

Results: There were no statistically significant differences in His bundle pacing thresholds, impedance, and sensing after drug intervention at implantation or during a 2-month follow-up (P > 0.05). The HV interval was not affected except in the large-dose propafenone group where HV interval prolonged (P = 0.001). All patients maintained 1:1 H-V conduction following drug administration.

Conclusion: There was no adverse impact on the HBP parameters or H-V conduction after the administration of commonly used dosage of rhythm and rate-controlling drugs. The drugs were safe in patients with permanent His bundle pacing.

New Progress in Understanding the Cellular Mechanisms of Anti-arrhythmic Drugs

Antiarrhythmic drugs are widely used, however, their efficacy is moderate and they can have serious side effects. Even if catheter ablation is effective for the treatment of atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia, antiarrhythmic drugs are still important tools for the treatment of arrhythmia. Despite efforts, the development of antiarrhythmic drugs is still slow due to the limited understanding of the role of various ionic currents. This review summarizes the new targets and mechanisms of antiarrhythmic drugs.

Effects of external electrical and magnetic fields on pacemakers and defibrillators: from engineering principles to clinical practice

The overall risk of clinically significant adverse events related to EMI in recipients of CIEDs is very low. Therefore, no special precautions are needed when household appliances are used. Environmental and industrial sources of EMI are relatively safe when the exposure time is limited and distance from the CIEDs is maximized. The risk of EMI-induced events is highest within the hospital environment. Physician awareness of the possible interactions and methods to minimize them is warranted.

Combining antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable devices therapy: benefits and outcome

At least 50% of patients who received an ICD have been treated with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). The potential indications for combining antiarrhythmic drugs and ICD are generally the following: reduction of the number of episodes of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and therefore of the number of shocks, improving patient's quality of life and extending the battery life of the ICD, prevention of supraventricular arrhythmias and/or control of their rate, lengthening of the tachycardia cycle length to allow ventricular tachycardia conversion by antitachycardia pacing and reduction of the number of episodes of syncope. Although previous papers reported conflicting results about pharmacologic therapy in reducing the frequency of iCD shocks, some recent randomized prospective studies showed the efficacy of pharmacologic therapy in reducing the frequency of ICD shocks. The use of antiarrhythmic drugs can have also adverse effect: an increase in the defibrillation threshold, an increase in the pacing threshold and an increase in the VT cycle length leading to detection failure. We have also to consider that some advantages derived from antiarrhythmic drugs can be reached by the new devices with atrial sensing and pacing and/or the possibility of atrial defibrillation or by using catheter ablation as adjunctive therapy to ICD. For these reasons, the concomitant use of antiarrhythmic drugs and ICD should be evaluated in each patient in relation to specific clinical and electrophysiologic features including: the frequency, the rate and the clinical presentation of the ventricular arrhythmia, the effect of the selected drug on the defibrillation threshold, the defibrillation threshold at the implant, the effect of the selected drug on the ventricular function and the likelihood of proarrhythmic events.

The effect of biphasic defibrillation on the immediate pacing threshold of a dedicated bipolar, steroid-eluting lead

It is apparent that pacing threshold increases following an ICD shock, although the degree of change observed is dependent on the method used to assess pacing and the lead design used. We previously demonstrated a rise in postshock pacing threshold using a lead with integrated bipolar pacing in which the distal shocking coil also serves as the pacing anode. In this study, we sought to investigate whether the postshock pacing threshold increased significantly in an endocardial, steroid-eluting lead with dedicated bipolar pacing electrodes. Twenty patients (16 men, 4 women; median age 73, ejection fraction [EF] 0.17-0.58) were studied during pectoral ICD implantation (Medtronic active can model 7221Cx or 7223Cx with model 6932-65 lead). The diastolic pulse width pacing threshold at 1 or 2 V was determined. Pacing rate was set > or = 100/min at twice diastolic threshold output to assess pacing immediately following the first DFT test shock. For subsequent shocks, the output was adjusted to establish postshock thresholds as 1, 2, 3, or 4 times the diastolic threshold. The postshock threshold was defined as the output yielding 100% capture > or = 2.5 seconds following a shock. In 8 of 20 patients (ratio 0.40 +/- 0.11), a rise in the post-shock threshold was shown by failure of consistent capture when pacing at 2 times diastolic threshold > or = 2.5 seconds after a DFT test shock. Two of these patients failed at 3 times threshold, but none failed at 4 x threshold. Five of 12 patients with successful capture of 2 times threshold failed to capture at threshold. The postshock threshold increased by a mean factor of 2.83 +/- 0.83 in the group of patients with a threshold rise. Following ICD shock in an active can, steroid-eluting lead system with dedicated bipolar pacing, the post-shock threshold increases significantly. Our studies suggest a need for postshock pacing to be set at least 4 x threshold regardless of the lead design.

Prospective evaluation of the effect of biphasic waveform defibrillation on ventricular pacing thresholds

INTRODUCTION

Significant increases in ventricular pacing threshold have been observed following monophasic waveform ventricular defibrillation shocks. High-output pacing is recommended to ensure consistent capture, particularly in pacemaker-dependent patients who are likely to be defibrillated. Whether biphasic waveform defibrillation compounds this problem is not known. The purpose of this prospective study was to examine serial changes in ventricular pacing thresholds following single, multiple, low- and high-energy biphasic defibrillation shocks from an implanted defibrillator.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Bipolar pacing thresholds before and after defibrillation, and the adequacy of pacing capture at three times preshock threshold in the immediate aftermath of ventricular defibrillation, were prospectively evaluated in 67 consecutively tested recipients of a biphasic implanted cardioverter defibrillator. Overall, serial pacing thresholds following successful defibrillation were completely unchanged after 141 of 177 (80%) ventricular fibrillation inductions. In no case did the threshold pulse width increment > 0.06 msec from its baseline value after shock, nor did pacing at a pulse width of three times preshock threshold from dedicated bipolar pacing electrodes fail to result in successful ventricular capture. Changes in threshold were not related to when measured from the time of shock, defibrillation energy, number of shocks, electrode system, chronicity of leads, shock orientation, or to clinical factors.

CONCLUSIONS

No clinically important changes in pacing threshold were observed after biphasic waveform defibrillation. Bradycardia pacing at conventional pacemaker outputs of three times baseline pulse width threshold from bipolar electrodes dedicated exclusively to pacing or sensing (but not defibrillation) consistently allowed for an adequate safety margin following defibrillation.

Effects of oral propafenone on defibrillation and pacing thresholds in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Propafenone Defibrillation Threshold Investigators

OBJECTIVES

The effects of propafenone, a predominantly class IC antiarrhythmic drug, on defibrillation and pacing thresholds were evaluated in patients undergoing cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that the class IC agents encainide and flecainide may increase the energy requirements for pacing and defibrillation. Animal studies with propafenone have shown inconsistent results regarding its effect on defibrillation energy requirements. This report investigated the effects of propafenone on defibrillation and pacing thresholds in humans.

METHODS

After cardioverter-defibrillator implantation, 47 patients were enrolled in a double-blind, three-way parallel, randomized trial of 450 mg/day (Group 1) or 675 mg/day (Group 2) of oral propafenone or placebo (Group 3) for 3 to 7 days. Predischarge defibrillation and pacing thresholds after treatment were compared with baseline thresholds obtained at implantation.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between implantation and predischarge defibrillation thresholds in the three groups (Group 1: [mean +/- SE] 11.0 +/- 1.3 vs. 12.1 +/- 1.5 J; Group 2: 11.5 +/- 1.1 vs. 13.6 +/- 1.3 J; Group 3: 12.5 +/- 1.2 vs. 13.3 +/- 1.6 J), and no significant difference between treatment groups was found with a 0.86 power to detect a 5-J difference between groups. Paired pulse width pacing thresholds at 2.8 V were compared in 14 patients. A small increase of 0.02 ms was noted at predischarge testing in patients treated with propafenone and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term oral propafenone (450 and 675 mg/day) does not significantly affect defibrillation or pacing thresholds. Concomitant use of propafenone in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators with recurrent ventricular or atrial tachyarrhythmias should not interfere with proper device function.

Effect of biphasic endocardial countershock on pacing thresholds in humans

The use of non-thoracotomy endocardial implantable defibrillators with pacing capabilities has increased substantially over the past 2 years. This report demonstrates that the pacing threshold increases in some patients after endocardial defibrillation, and substantiates the practice of using maximal pacing output after endocardial defibrillation.

The proarrhythmic potential of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is remarkably effective in preventing sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients, but it also has the capacity to provoke or worsen cardiac arrhythmias. Tachyarrhythmias or bradyarrhythmias may result from the delivery of antitachycardia or antibradycardia therapies by tiered-therapy defibrillators. This proarrhythmia, although rarely fatal, increases the morbidity associated with defibrillator therapy. Proarrhythmia is related as much to suboptimal programming as to technical limitations of the device. The proarrhythmic potential of ICD therapy can be minimized by tailoring the "electrical prescription" according to characteristics of the clinical arrhythmia and individual ICD idiosyncrasies.

Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with high defibrillation thresholds. A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Successful defibrillation by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) depends on its ability to deliver shocks that exceed the defibrillation threshold. This study was designed to identify clinical characteristics that may predict the finding of an elevated defibrillation threshold and to describe the outcome of patients with high defibrillation thresholds.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The records of 1,946 patients from 12 centers were screened to identify 90 patients (4.6%) with a defibrillation threshold greater than or equal to 25 J. Excluding three patients who received ICDs that delivered greater than 30 J, there were 81 men and six women with a mean age of 59.5 +/- 10.1 years, a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.32 +/- 0.14, and a 76% prevalence of coronary artery disease. Sixty-one patients (70%) were receiving antiarrhythmic drugs, and 45 (52%) were receiving amiodarone. Seventy-one patients (82%) received an ICD. Death occurred in 27 patients--19 of the 71 (27%) with an ICD (eight arrhythmic), and eight of the 16 (50%) without an ICD (four arrhythmic). Actuarial survival for all patients at 5 years was 67%. Actuarial survival rates at 2 years for patients with and without an ICD were 81% and 36%, respectively (p = 0.0024). Actuarial survival at 5 years for the ICD patients was 73%; no patient without an ICD has lived longer than 32 months. Actuarial survival free of arrhythmic death in the ICD patients at 5 years was 84%. Although the only variable to predict survival was ICD implantation (p = 0.003), it is entirely possible that in this retrospective analysis, clinical selection decisions to implant or to not implant an ICD differentiated patients destined to have better or worse outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiarrhythmic drug use may be causally related to the finding of an elevated defibrillation threshold. When patients with high defibrillation thresholds receive an ICD, arrhythmic death remains an important risk (42% of deaths in these patients were arrhythmia related, with 16% actuarial incidence at 5 years). Vigorous testing to optimize patch location can potentially benefit patients by enhancing the margin of safety for effective defibrillation.

Ventricular pacing threshold and time to capture postdefibrillation in patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

To assess the effect of defibrillation and amiodarone on ventricular pacing threshold and time to capture in patients undergoing automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) implantation, 28 patients were prospectively evaluated. The patients were entered into one of two protocols: Ia--epicardial ventricular pacing threshold measured at baseline (preventricular fibrillation induction) and 10 and 60 seconds postdefibrillation with 20 J, or Ib--two fibrillation-defibrillation sequences were performed 3 minutes apart and ventricular pacing thresholds were measured for each sequence at baseline and at 10 and 60 seconds postdefibrillation with 20 J. Ten patients also underwent asynchronous pacing at 1.1 times baseline threshold during ventricular fibrillation with measurement of time to capture postdefibrillation. All patients were randomly assigned to receive either amiodarone or no antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with AC (applied for 1-2 seconds), and standard epicardial bipolar and epicardial patch electrodes of the AICD were used for pacing and defibrillation, respectively. Ventricular pacing threshold at baseline, 10 seconds, 60 seconds, and 3 minutes postdefibrillation did not differ significantly. There were no significant differences in patients with or without amiodarone therapy. Furthermore, there was no transient loss of ventricular capture postdefibrillation or significant difference in time to capture with amiodarone (less than or equal to 2 seconds). We conclude that following internal defibrillation with 20 J: (1) ventricular pacing threshold at 10 seconds, 60 seconds, and 3 minutes were not significantly different from baseline with one or two fibrillation-defibrillation sequences, (2) time to capture was short, and (3) there was no significant difference in no drug versus amiodarone. These findings have direct clinical importance in considering device therapy with both pacing and defibrillating capabilities.

Clinical interactions between pacemakers and automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Concomitant use of a pacemaker and an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) is common. Seventeen percent of patients receiving an AICD at The Johns Hopkins Hospital also had a permanent pacemaker implanted before (16 patients), at the same time as (2 patients) or after (12 patients) AICD implantation. Four types of interactions were noted: 1) transient failure to sense or capture immediately after AICD discharge (seven patients); 2) oversensing of the pacemaker stimulus by the AICD, leading to double counting (one patient); 3) AICD failure to sense ventricular fibrillation resulting from pacemaker stimulus oversensing (three patients, one only at high asynchronous output); and 4) pacemaker reprogramming caused by AICD discharge (three patients). No clinical sequelae of these interactions were noted during follow-up study. Thus, potentially adverse clinical interactions are common and routine screening is recommended. With proper attention to lead placements and programming of the devices, clinical consequences of these interactions can be avoided.