Transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads: effect of transvenous electrode polarity on defibrillation threshold

Ventricular defibrillation with triphasic waveforms

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that triphasic defibrillation waveforms cause less myocardial injury than biphasic waveforms. This study compared the defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) of triphasic and biphasic waveforms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

++DFTs were determined for a transvenous lead system and a 300-microF-capacitor defibrillator. In 8 pigs (group 1), DFTs were determined for 5 triphasic waveforms with tilts of 80%, 83%, and 86% and for 1 biphasic waveform. DFTs were determined in another 8 pigs (group 2) for 2 triphasic and 4 biphasic waveforms with tilts of 43%, 49%, and 56%. In both groups, a biphasic waveform from a 140-microF-capacitor defibrillator was also evaluated, and both shock polarities were tested for each waveform. In group 1, with the 300-microF-capacitor defibrillator, the leading-edge voltage and energy stored at DFT were significantly lower for triphasic waveforms with phase-duration ratios of 50/33/17 and an anode at the right ventricular electrode for phase 1 than for biphasic waveforms (P<0.001). In group 2, the stored energy of triphasic waveforms with 56% and 49% tilt was significantly lower than that of biphasic waveforms with the same tilts for anodal but not cathodal phase 1 at the right ventricular electrode. Electrode polarity significantly affected the DFT of triphasic waveforms for both studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Some 80% tilt triphasic waveforms defibrillate more efficiently than biphasic waveforms with a 300-microF-capacitor defibrillator. The triphasic waveforms for both groups were not superior to 140-microF-capacitor biphasic waveforms. The efficacy of triphasic waveforms depends on phase durations and electrode polarity.

Improved efficacy of anodal biphasic defibrillation shocks following a failed defibrillation attempt

Although it is generally assumed that defibrillation becomes more difficult when the duration of VF is prolonged, after a failed defibrillation attempt, there is little information on the defibrillation efficacy of multiple shocks delivered at the same energy. The purpose of this study was to systematically examine the efficacy of a second shock delivered at the same or reversed polarity after a failed first shock. Defibrillation was attempted after 10 seconds of VF in 12 pigs (30-56 kg) using biphasic waveforms and a nonthoracotomy lead system. Shock energy was held constant for the first and second shocks at 50%-90% of the DFT. The second shock was delivered 10 seconds after a failed first shock. First and second shock polarity (first phase) was randomized to (+, +), (+, -), (-, -), (-, +). The incidence of successful defibrillation (for all polarities) was 12.3% for first and 49.1% for second shocks (P < 0.0001). Anodal first shocks had a 17.2% incidence of success as opposed to a 7.4% incidence of success with cathodal first shocks (P = 0.001). Anodal second shocks had a 55.5% incidence of success compared to a 42.7% incidence of success with cathodal second shocks (P = 0.008). There was no significant benefit from polarity reversal after a failed first shock (P = 0.29). In conclusion, less energy is required for successful defibrillation by a second shock after a failed first. The optimal configuration for first and second shocks is with the RV as anode. Polarity reversal of a second shock after a failed first does not affect the probability of second shock success.

Effects of polarity on defibrillation thresholds using a biphasic waveform in a hot can electrode system

The polarity of a monophasic and biphasic shocks have been reported to influence DFTs in some studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the first phase polarity on the DFT of a biphasic shock utilizing a nonthoracotomy "hot can" electrode configuration which had a 90-microF capacitance. We tested the hypothesis that anodal first phase was more effective than cathodal ones for defibrillation using biphasic shocks in ten anesthetized pigs weighing 38.9 +/- 3.9 kg. The lead system consisted of a right ventricular catheter electrode with a surface area of 2.7 cm2 and a left pectoral "hot can" electrode with 92.9 cm2 surface area. DFT was determined using a repeated "down-up" technique. A shock was tested 10 seconds after initiation of ventricular fibrillation. The mean delivered energy at DFT was 11.2 +/- 1.7 J when using the right ventricular apex electrode as the cathode and 11.3 +/- 1.2 J (P = NS) when using it as the anode. The peak voltage at DFT was also not significantly different (529.0 +/- 41.3 and 531.8 +/- 28.6 V, respectively). We concluded that the first phase polarity of a biphasic shock used with a nonthroracotomy "hot can" electrode configuration did not affect DFT.

Transvenous defibrillation leads: is there an ideal position of the defibrillation anode?

A potential benefit of two-lead transvenous defibrillation systems is the ability to independently position the defibrillation electrodes, changing the vector field and possibly decreasing the DFT. Using the new two-lead transvenous TVL lead system, we studied whether DFT is influenced by SVC lead position and whether there is an optimal position. TVL leads and Cadence pulse generators were implanted in 24 patients. No intraoperative or perioperative complications were observed. In each patient, the DFTs were determined for three SVC electrode positions, which were tested in random order: the brachiocephalic vein, the mid-RA, and the RA-SVC junction. The mean DFTs in the three positions were not statistically different, nor was any single lead position consistently associated with lower DFTs. However, an optimal electrode position was identified in 83% of patients, and the DFT from the best lead position for each patient was significantly lower than for any one of the electrode positions (P < 0.01). The mean safety margin for the best SVC lead position was approximately 27 J. These results demonstrate the advantage of a two-lead system, as well as the importance of testing multiple SVC lead positions when the patient's condition permits. Both of these factors can decrease the DFT and maximize the defibrillation safety margin. This will become increasingly important as pulse generator capacitors become smaller (as part of the effort to decrease generator size) and the energy output of the generators consequently decreases.

[Influence of waveform and configuration of electrodes on the defibrillation threshold of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators]

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) is no threshold in the true sense. Between energy levels which defibrillate in all cases and energy levels which never defibrillate, a broad range of energies exists which might or might not defibrillate. Thus, the value of the DFT is dependant on the protocol used for its determination. Usually the DFT presents an energy at which the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) will defibrillate successfully at a rate of approximately 75%. To achieve a 100% success rate the energy has to be programmed 15 J above the DFT or twice the DFT.Using DFT measurements the energy needed for internal defibrillation could be gradually reduced in the last years. Major break throughs have been the introduction of the biphasic defibrillation waveform and the use of pectorally implanted ICD shells as defibrillation electrodes. The shortening of the defibrillation impulse by the use of lower capacitances could not improve DFTs but allowed to construct ICDs of smaller volume. Addition of a superior vena cava electrode or a subcutaneous array electrode at the left lateral chest to the standard bipolar electrode system (right ventricle, pectoral ICD can) allowed for tri- and quadripolar lead configurations which reduced DFTs on average only slightly but reduced the standard deviation of DFTs significantly and thus helped to avoid high DFTs. Besides building smaller ICDs, reduction of DFTs and thus programming of lower defibrillation ICD energies allows for improved battery longevities and reduced capacitor charging times and thus a lower incidence of syncopes.

Effect of electrode polarity on internal defibrillation with monophasic and biphasic waveforms using an endocardial lead system

INTRODUCTION

To test the hypothesis that the effect of shock polarity on defibrillation depends on waveform duration, this study determined strength-duration defibrillation curves of monophasic and biphasic truncated exponential waveforms for both polarities.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were obtained in 32 pigs for catheter electrodes in the right ventricle (RV) and superior vena cava (SVC) using a modified Purdue technique. Both electrode polarities were tested in five different protocols. In part 1, DFTs were determined with 1- to 14-msec monophasic waveforms. In parts 2, 3, and 4, DFTs were determined with two different sizes of SVC electrodes for biphasic waveforms with a phase 1 of 4 or 6 msec and a phase 2 ranging from 1 to 10 msec. In part 5, DFTs were tested for monophasic waveforms ranging from 2 to 11 msec and for biphasic waveforms with a phase 1 duration corresponding to each monophasic waveform and a phase 2 held constant at 1 msec. Mean DFTs for monophasic waveforms were significantly lower when the RV electrode was an anode than when it was a cathode for waveform durations > or = 3 msec. For biphasic waveforms in which phase 2 was < or = phase 1 in duration, no significant difference in mean DFT was observed when polarity was reversed. Even a phase 2 as short as 1 msec could eliminate the DFT difference between polarities observed with monophasic shocks. When phase 2 was > or = 2 msec longer than phase 1, polarity did affect the DFT of biphasic waveforms; it affected the DFT similarly to a monophasic waveform of the same polarity as phase 2. Phase 1 duration and electrode size also affected the difference in DFT produced by changing the electrode polarity.

CONCLUSIONS

For phase durations most commonly used clinically because of their low DFTs, reversing polarity changed defibrillation efficacy for monophasic but not biphasic shocks. For inefficient biphasic waveforms with phase 2 > or = 2 msec longer than phase 1, the DFT was lower when the RV electrode was an anode during phase 2, similar to the polarity difference for monophasic waveforms, suggesting that a long second phase of biphasic waveforms defibrillates in a similar fashion to monophasic waveforms.

Effects of electrode polarity on defibrillation thresholds in biphasic endocardial defibrillation

The defibrillation thresholds of both first-phase polarities of a biphasic waveform were tested using an endocardial defibrillation electrode system. Despite differences in defibrillation thresholds in the individual patient, both tested electrode polarities lead to a comparable overall defibrillation efficacy.

Optimizing defibrillation through improved waveforms

Defibrillation of the heart is achieved if an electrical current depolarizes the majority of the unsynchronized fibrillating myocardial cells. The applied current or the corresponding voltage described as a function of time is called the waveform. In pacing, to stimulate myocardial cells close to the electrode, a relatively low voltage is needed for a relatively brief duration. However, in defibrillation, approximately a 100-fold higher voltage is needed and achieved by the use of capacitors. The exponential voltage decay of a capacitor during its discharge determines the basic waveform for defibrillation. In an attempt to lower the energy needed for defibrillation, the steepness of the decay (different capacitances), the duration (fixed duration waveforms) or tilt (fixed tilt waveforms), or the initial polarity can be changed. Additionally, the polarity of the electrodes can be reversed during the discharge of the capacitor once (biphasic waveform) or twice (triphasic waveform). If two capacitors and defibrillation pathways are available, bidirectional defibrillation pulses can be delivered sequentially. In humans, the original standard waveform used with endocardial leads was a single monophasic pulse delivered by a 125-microF capacitor using the endocardial right ventricular electrode as cathode. It is now known that a reversal of the initial polarity and a reversal of polarity during capacitor discharge may significantly lower the energy needed for defibrillation, thereby preventing formerly frequent failures of defibrillation with endocardial lead systems. The use of sequential pulses showed no or only slight reductions of energy requirements and was abandoned due to the additional electrode needed. The use of a smaller capacitance (60-90 microF reduced maximum energy output but generally did not reduce energy requirements for defibrillation. However, with more efficient electrodes, smaller capacitances that will help to reduce the size of the defibrillator might be used. Thus, today defibrillation is optimized with respect to energy, capacitor size, and ease of implantation if an approximately 90-microF capacitor is used to deliver a biphasic pulse via a bipolar lead system using the right ventricular electrode as anode.