A multicenter, randomized trial comparing an active can implantable defibrillator with a passive can system. Jewel Active Can Investigators

Successful reduction of a high defibrillation threshold by a combined implantation of a subcutaneous array and azygos vein lead

A 72-year-old man with nonischemic cardiomyopathy was referred because his implantable cardioverter defibrillator had failed to terminate spontaneous ventricular fibrillation (VF). Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing confirmed that 830-V shocks failed to defibrillate VF despite optimization of the biphasic waveform and reversal of shock polarity. The placement of a new right ventricular lead and the addition of a subcutaneous array failed to defibrillate VF at 830 V. The combination of a subcutaneous array and azygos vein coil successfully defibrillated VF. The mechanism for successful DFT reduction was likely greater current supplied to the posterior basal left ventricle by the azygos vein lead.

Comparison of defibrillation efficacy and survival associated with right versus left pectoral placement for implantable defibrillators

The preferred location for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) generator is the left pectoral region as a result of the shock vector formed by the active can and the lead system. However, a right pectoral site is necessary when left-sided implantation is contraindicated. The Low Energy Safety Study was a prospective, randomized trial conducted to assess chronic defibrillation efficacy in 627 patients, including 37 (5.9%) who received right pectoral implants and 590 (94.1%) who received left pectoral implants. Patients were followed for a mean of 24 +/- 13 months. There were no significant differences observed between patients who received left versus right pectoral implants in age, gender, indications, New York Heart Association classification, or ejection fraction. Patients who received a right pectoral implant had higher defibrillation thresholds at implantation (10.6 +/- 3.8 J) than those who received a left pectoral implant (8.9 +/- 4.2 J, p = 0.01) despite similar shock impedances. The conversion efficacy for spontaneous arrhythmia episodes among patients who received right and left pectoral implants were not significantly different (33 of 33 [100%] vs 255 of 263 [97%], respectively; p = 0.31). In addition, the conversion efficacy for induced ventricular fibrillation episodes were also similar (187 of 188 [99%] on the right vs 2429 of 2475 [98%] on the left, p = 0.18). However, the all-cause mortality rate was higher for patients who received right-sided implants (hazard ratio 1.93, p <0.004). In conclusion, defibrillation thresholds are higher with right pectoral implants compared with left-sided implants, but with a proper energy safety margin, there are no significant differences in spontaneous or induced shock conversion efficacy. However, the near doubling of the mortality rate among patients with right-sided implants needs to be considered when recommending such device therapy.

A comparison of the output characteristics of several implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are effective for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death due to ventricular arrhythmias. However, despite wide clinical use, there are no generally accepted standardized protocols to characterize and report the output capabilities of ICDs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to measure and compare the output characteristics of standard-output and high-output ICDs from several manufacturers under a common set of conditions.

METHODS

The output characteristics of ICDs randomly selected from hospital stock were measured. The energy delivered for each shock to a range of fixed loads (25-75 Omega) was computed from the voltage waveform and the corresponding load.

RESULTS

Delivered energy varied by approximately 4 J over the range of loads tested and varied between devices (high-output 33.8-35 J; standard-output 26.7-28.6 J, at 50 Omega). Leading-edge voltage varied by approximately 6% over the range of loads tested and varied between devices (high-output 738-792 V; standard-output 593-797 V, at 50 Omega). Pulse width varied by a factor of approximately 3 over the range of loads tested and varied between devices (high-output 10-14.5 ms; standard-output 9-12.2 ms, at 50 Omega). Observed variations between devices and with load were significant (P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Potentially important differences in output characteristics of different ICD systems exist and merit further clinical investigation. The reporting of ICD output characteristics should be standardized. Additionally, it is recommended that manufacturers report output characteristics as a function of load over the typical range of patient loads clinically encountered.

Azygos Vein Lead Implantation:. A Novel Adjunctive Technique for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Placement

High defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) occasionally are encountered during placement of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). There are multiple strategies to lower DFTs in such patients, including reassessment of right ventricular lead position, alteration of the shock waveform, and implantation of subcutaneous arrays. This article describes a novel technique of implanting a high-voltage lead in the azygos vein. This procedure may serve as an adjunctive approach to reduce DFTs. The anatomic location of the azygos vein posterior to the heart provides a suitable shocking vector between the right ventricular electrode, a high-voltage lead placed in the azygos vein, and the ICD can.

Distal Right Ventricular Coil Position Reduces Defibrillation Thresholds

Distal RV Coil Position Reduces DFTs.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the factors that affect defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) has important implications both for optimization of defibrillation efficacy and for the design of new transvenous leads. The aim of this prospective study was to test the hypothesis that defibrillation efficacy is improved with the right ventricular (RV) coil in a distal position compared with a more proximal RV coil position.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A novel defibrillation lead with three adjacent RV defibrillation coils (distal 0.8 cm, middle 3.7 cm, proximal 0.8 cm) was used for this study to permit comparison of DFTs with the proximal and distal RV coil positions without lead repositioning. In the distal RV configuration, the distal and middle RV coils were connected electrically as the anode for defibrillation. In the proximal RV configuration, the middle and proximal coils were the anode. A superior vena cava (SVC) coil and active can were connected electrically as the cathode (reversed polarity, RV-->Can+SVC). In each patient, the DFT was measured twice using a binary search protocol with the distal RV and proximal RV configurations, with the order of testing randomized. The study cohort consisted of 31 subjects (mean age 65 +/- 12 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30% +/- 16%, 81% male predominance). The mean delivered energy (8.2 +/- 5.3 J vs 11.2 +/- 6.1 J), leading-edge voltage (335 +/- 109 V vs 393 +/- 118 V), and peak current (11.6 +/- 5.2 A vs 14.9 +/- 7.3 A) at DFT all were significantly lower with the distal RV configuration compared to the proximal RV configuration (P < 0.01 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSION

DFTs are significantly reduced with the distal RV configuration compared to the proximal RV configuration. Defibrillation leads should be designed with the shortest tip to coil distance that can be achieved without compromising ventricular fibrillation sensing.

Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to characterize temporal changes in defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) after implantation with an active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous lead system.

BACKGROUND

Ventricular DFTs rise over time when monophasic waveforms are used with non-thoracotomy lead systems. This effect is attenuated when biphasic waveforms are used with transvenous lead systems; however, significant increases in DFT still occur in a minority of patients. The long-term stability of DFTs with contemporary active pectoral lead systems is unknown.

METHODS

This study was a prospective assessment of temporal changes in DFT using a uniform testing algorithm, shock polarity and dual-coil active pectoral lead system. Thresholds were measured at implantation, before discharge and at long-term follow-up (70 +/- 40 weeks) in 50 patients.

RESULTS

The DFTs were 9.2 +/- 5.4 J at implantation, 8.3 +/- 5.8 J before discharge and 6.9 +/- 3.6 J at long-term follow-up (p < 0.01 by analysis of variance; p < 0.05 for long-term follow-up vs. at implantation or before discharge). The effect was most marked in a prespecified subgroup with high implant DFTs (> or =15 J). No patient developed an inadequate safety margin (< 9 J) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The DFTs declined significantly after implantation with an active pectoral, dual-coil transvenous lead system, and no clinically significant increases in DFT were observed. Therefore, routine defibrillation testing may not be required during the first two years after implantation with this lead system, in the absence of a change in the cardiac substrate or treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs.

Comparison of the efficacy of a subcutaneous array electrode with a subcutaneous patch electrode, a prospective randomized study

The patch electrode and the array electrode are the two types of subcutaneous leads available as an adjunct to a transvenous lead system in patients with high defibrillation thresholds. A prospective randomized study was conducted in 30 consecutive patients comparing the efficacy and the long-term performance of a patch electrode with an array electrode. After determination of the defibrillation threshold for the transvenous lead alone, a subcutaneous patch or an array electrode was implanted in random order. Adding a patch electrode decreased the defibrillation threshold in seven out of 15 patients (47%) from 13.2+/-6.6 to 10.5+/-5.1 J (P<0.05). In 13 out of 15 patients (87%), the implantation of an array electrode caused a significant lowering of the defibrillation threshold from 15.4+/-6.6 to 8.2+/-5.0 J (P<0.0001). The array electrode was significantly more effective in lowering the defibrillation threshold than the patch electrode (P<0.01). Complications during follow-up associated with the subcutaneous patch electrode were observed in four patients whereas no complications were associated with the array electrode (P<0.01). The additional implantation of an array electrode is more effective and associated with fewer complications compared to a patch electrode.

Leakage of energy to the body surface during defibrillation shock by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) system--experimental evaluation during defibrillation shocks through the right ventricular lead and the subcutaneous active-can in canines

The leakage of electrical current to the body surface during defibrillation shock delivery by an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) device (the Medtronic Jewel Plus PCD system) was evaluated in 5 dogs. The defibrillation shocks were delivered between the active-can implanted in the left subclavicular region and the endocardial lead placed in the right ventricle at the energy levels of 1, 2, 8, 12, 24 and 34 J. During each delivery, the electrical current leakage from the body surface was measured by electrodes connected to a circuit at 4 recording positions: (A) parallel-subcutaneous (the electrodes were fixed in the subcutaneous tissue of the left shoulder and the right lower chest, and the direction of the electrode vector was parallel to the direction of the defibrillation energy flow); (B) cross-subcutaneous (the electrodes were fixed in the subcutaneous tissue of the right shoulder and the left lower chest, and the vector of the electrodes was roughly perpendicular to the direction of the energy flow); (C) parallel-surface (the electrodes were fixed with ECG paste on the shaved skin surface at the left shoulder and the right lower chest); and (D) surface grounded (the electrodes were fixed on the shaved skin surface at the left shoulder and the left foot, which was grounded). The circuit resistance was set at a variable level (100-5,000 ohms) in accordance with the resistance measured through each canine body. Leakage energies were measured in 750 defibrillation shocks with each circuit resistance in 5 dogs. The leakage energy increased in accordance with the increase of the delivered energy and the decrease of the circuit resistance in all 4 recording positions. When the circuit resistance was set at 1,000 ohms, the leakage energy during shock delivery at 34 J was 32+/-17 mJ at position A, 5+/-9 mJ at B, 10+/-9 mJ at C, and 4+/-3 mJ at D (p=0.042). The peak current was highest at position A and was 87+/-22 mA with a circuit resistance of 1,000 ohms. The power of the leakage energy depended on the delivered energy and the impedance between the electrodes. The angle between the alignment of the recording electrodes and the direction of the energy flow was another important factor in determining the leakage energy. Although the peak current of the leakage energy reached the level of macro shock, the highest leakage energy from the body surface was considerably less because of the short duration of the shock delivery.

ICD therapy in the new millennium

Remarkable progress has been made in the 15 years since ICD therapy was approved for human use. The early "shock boxes" had almost no diagnostic capabilities and required thoracotomy for epicardial patch implantation with typical duration of hospitalization of about a week. Pulse-generator longevity was less than 2 years. Modern devices provide detailed information about the morphology and rate of electrocardiographic signals before, during, and after arrhythmia therapy. The down-sizing of pulse generators and improvements in lead design and shock waveforms allow the simplicity of defibrillator implantation to approach that of pacemakers, with defibrillation thresholds comparable with those initially observed with epicardial patches. Despite the marked reduction in size and increase in diagnostic capabilities, device longevity is now longer than 6 years. Routine outpatient ICD implantation is presently feasible and will increase in frequency if ongoing primary prevention trials prove beneficial. Further advances in lead technology and arrhythmia discrimination should increase the efficacy and reliability of therapy. Finally, devices have the capabilities to treat multiple problems in addition to life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias including atrial arrhythmias and congestive heart failure.

Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator are now standard for initial defibrillator implantations. However, the optimal transvenous lead system and coil location for such active can configurations are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit and optimal position of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil on defibrillation thresholds with an active left pectoral pulse generator and right ventricular coil.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective, randomized study was performed on 27 patients. Each subject was evaluated with three lead configurations, with the order of testing randomized. Biphasic shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and an active can alone (unipolar), or an active can in common with the proximal coil positioned either at the right atrial/SVC junction (low SVC) or in the left subclavian vein (high SVC). Stored energies at defibrillation threshold were higher for the single-coil, unipolar configuration (11.2 +/- 6.6 J) than for the high (8.9 +/- 4.2 J) or low (8.5 +/- 4.2 J) SVC configurations (P < 0.01). Moreover, 96% of subjects had low (< or = 15 J) thresholds with the SVC coil in either position compared with 81% for the single-coil configuration. Shock impedance (P < 0.001) was increased with the unipolar configuration, whereas peak current was reduced (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The addition of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduces defibrillation energy requirements. The position of this coil has no significant effect on defibrillation thresholds.

Transvenous atrial cardioversion threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator: influence of active pectoral can

Recent studies have shown that transvenous atrial cardioversion is feasible with lead configurations primarily designed for implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of an active pectoral ICD can on the atrial cardioversion threshold (ADFT). Forty consecutive patients received a transvenous single lead system (Endotak DSP 0125, CPI, St. Paul, MN, USA) in combination with a left subpectoral ICD (Ventak Mini, CPI) for treatment of malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Patients were randomized into two groups: 21 received a Hot Can 1743 and 19 patients a Cold Can 1741. Step-down testing of the ventricular defibrillation threshold (VDFT) was performed intraoperatively and evaluation of the ADFT for induced atrial fibrillation (AF) at predischarge. After testing, each patient received a 2-J shock and was asked to quantify discomfort on a numerical scale ranging from 0 to 10. Both groups were comparable with regard to all clinical parameters studied. The mean VDFT in patients with a Hot Can device was significantly lower than in patients with a Cold Can (7.5 +/- 2.3 J vs 9.8 +/- 3.8 J; P < 0.03). The mean ADFT in the Hot Can group tended to be lower than in the group with Cold Cans (3.4 +/- 1.4 J vs 4.5 +/- 2.4 J; P = 0.07), and the proportion of patients in whom atrial cardioversion was accomplished at low energies (< or = 3 J) was higher in patients with active compared with patients with inactive pulse generators (57% vs 26%; P < 0.04). The mean discomfort reported after delivery of a 2-J shock was comparable in both groups (Hot Can 5.2 +/- 1.9; Cold Can: 5.3 +/- 2.1; P = NS). We conclude that the inclusion of an active left subpectoral can in the defibrillation vector of a ventricular ICD seems to reduce the energy requirements for atrial cardioversion without increasing the discomfort caused by low energy shocks.

Comparison of single- and dual-coil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with lead systems consisting of an active left pectoral electrode and either single or dual transvenous coils.

BACKGROUND

Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximal output.

METHODS

This prospective study was performed in 50 consecutive patients. Each patient was evaluated with two lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. Shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and either an active can alone (single coil) or an active can with the proximal atrial coil (dual coil). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform.

RESULTS

Delivered energy at the defibrillation threshold was 10.1+/-5.0 J for the single-coil configuration and 8.7+/-4.0 J for the dual-coil configuration (p < 0.02). Moreover, 98% of patients had low (<15 J) thresholds with the dual-coil lead system, compared with 88% of patients with the single-coil configuration (p=0.05). Leading edge voltage (p < 0.001) and shock impedance (p < 0.001) were also decreased with the dual-coil configuration, although peak current was increased (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A dual-coil, active pectoral lead system reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with a single-coil, unipolar configuration.

Implantation of active can implantable defibrillators in the right pectoral region

Routinely the active can ICD is placed in the left side pectoral position, which theoretically gives optimal conditions for a low defibrillation threshold. Some patients, however, demand a right pectoral position, which possibly could result in a higher defibrillation threshold. A right pectoral position was used in 3 of 85 active can ICDs implanted in our institution from 1994. The DFT was 12 J in two and 18 J in one patient. Thus, right pectoral implantation is feasible and offers an alternative approach in selected patients.

Lead system optimization for transvenous defibrillation

Lead systems that include an active pectoral shell reduce defibrillation thresholds and permit transvenous defibrillation in nearly all patients. A further improvement in defibrillation efficacy is desirable to allow for smaller pulse generators with a reduced maximum output. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation thresholds with multiple transvenous lead systems including those with an active pectoral shell to determine which system would optimize defibrillation energy requirements. This prospective study was performed on 21 consecutive patients. Each subject was evaluated with 3 lead configurations with the order of testing randomized. The configurations were a dual coil transvenous lead (lead), the distal right ventricular coil and pectoral pulse generator shell (unipolar), and all 3 components (triad). The right ventricular coil was the cathode for the first phase of the biphasic defibrillation waveform. Delivered energy at defibrillation threshold was 11.2 +/- 3.4 J for the lead configuration, 10.1 +/- 5.2 J for the unipolar configuration, and 7.8 +/- 3.6 J for the triad configuration (p <0.01). Leading edge voltage (p <0.01) and shock impedance (p <0.001) were also decreased for the triad configuration compared with the lead or unipolar configurations, whereas peak current was minimized with the unipolar configuration (p <0.01). We conclude that the combination of a dual coil, transvenous lead and an active pectoral shell reduces defibrillation energy requirements compared with either the lead alone or unipolar configuration. Moreover, the defibrillation thresholds were < or =15 J in all patients using the triad lead system.

Experience with unipolar pectoral defibrillation

With simple, single lead unipolar pectoral defibrillators, ICD technology has reached a level of ease and safety comparable to pacemaker implantation. It will be difficult to further decrease the morbidity associated with ICD implantation; just as it will be difficult to improve upon current device treatment of sudden cardiac death. Even as further incremental improvements in devices and leads will undoubtedly occur, at this point in ICD evolution, it is investigating the expanded use of this therapy as a prevention tool that is likely to have the largest overall impact on cardiac arrest survival.