Transvenous defibrillation lead systems

Effectiveness of single- vs dual-coil implantable defibrillator leads: An observational analysis from the SIMPLE study

INTRODUCTION

Dual-coil leads (DC-leads) were the standard of choice since the first nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD). We used contemporary data to determine if DC-leads offer any advantage over single-coil leads (SC-leads), in terms of defibrillation efficacy, safety, clinical outcome, and complication rates.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Shockless IMPLant Evaluation study, 2500 patients received a first implanted ICD and were randomized to implantation with or without defibrillation testing. Two thousand and four hundred seventy-five patients received SC-coil or DC-coil leads (SC-leads in 1025/2475 patients; 41.4%). In patients who underwent defibrillation testing (n = 1204), patients with both lead types were equally likely to achieve an adequate defibrillation safety margin (88.8% vs 91.2%; P = 0.16). There was no overall effect of lead type on the primary study endpoint of "failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death" (adjusted HR 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.62; P = 0.300), and on all-cause mortality (SC-leads: 5.34%/year; DC-leads: 5.48%/year; adjusted HR 1.16; 95% CI, 0.94-1.43; P = 0.168). However, among patients without prior heart failure (HF), and SC-leads had a significantly higher risk of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death (adjusted HR 7.02; 95% CI, 2.41-20.5). There were no differences in complication rates.

CONCLUSION

In this nonrandomized evaluation, there was no overall difference in defibrillation efficacy, safety, outcome, and complication rates between SC-leads and DC-leads. However, DC-leads were associated with a reduction in the composite of failed appropriate shock or arrhythmic death in the subgroup of non-HF patients. Considering riskier future lead extraction with DC-leads, SC-leads appears to be preferable in the majority of patients.

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.

Effect of an active abdominal pulse generator on defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have older lead systems, which are usually not replaced at the time of pulse generator replacement unless a malfunction is noted. Therefore, optimization of defibrillation with these lead systems is clinically important. The objective of this prospective study was to determine if an active abdominal pulse generator (Can) affects chronic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population consisted of 39 patients who presented for routine abdominal pulse generator replacement. Each patient underwent two assessments of DFT using a step-down protocol, with the order of testing randomized. The distal right ventricular (RV) coil was the anode for the first phase of the biphasic shocks. The proximal superior vena cava (SVC) coil was the cathode for the Lead Alone configuration (RV --> SVC). For the Active Can configuration, the SVC coil and Can were connected electrically as the cathode (RV --> SVC + Can). The Active Can configuration was associated with a significant decrease in shock impedance (39.5 +/- 5.8 Omega vs. 50.0 +/- 7.6 Omega, P < 0.01) and a significant increase in peak current (8.3 +/- 2.6 A vs. 7.2 +/- 2.4 A, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in DFT energy (9.0 +/- 4.6 J vs. 9.8 +/- 5.2 J) or leading edge voltage (319 +/- 86 V vs. 315 +/- 83 V). An adequate safety margin for defibrillation (> or =10 J) was present in all patients with both shocking configurations.

CONCLUSION

DFTs are similar with the Active Can and Lead Alone configurations when a dual-coil, transvenous lead is used with a left abdominal pulse generator. Since most commercially available ICDs are only available with an active can, our data support the use of an active can device with this lead system for patients who present for routine pulse generator replacement.

Intraoperative testing of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: how much is enough?

INTRODUCTION

Defibrillation testing of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is considered a standard and required practice at the time of implantation. How much testing, if any in some cases, should be performed, however, remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Included in this retrospective analysis were 835 patients (77% men; age 65 +/- 13 years) who received transvenous ICDs between January 1996 and December 2003. One hundred twenty-nine (15.5%) had intraoperative defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, 503 (60.2%) had limited defibrillation safety margin testing, and 203 (24.3%) had no defibrillation testing. We compared the outcome (success of ICD therapies against spontaneous VT/VF events and survival) of the three groups of patients, who in some respects had important clinical differences. The success of the first delivered shocks against VT/VF was similar for DFT (91%), safety margin testing (91%), and no-testing (92%) groups; and the second shocks terminated the remaining episodes in all three groups. Sudden-death-free survival rates were similar in the three groups, however, the overall long-term survival rate was significantly lower in the no-testing group (58%) than in the DFT (74%) and safety margin testing (69%) groups (P < 0.0005). Multivariate analysis found no strong predictors of sudden death, but there were several independent predictors of overall mortality including lack of ICD testing (HR: 2.031, CI: 1.253-3.290, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

In this select patient cohort, success of ICD therapies and sudden-death-free survival were similar in patients who had DFT, safety margin testing, and no testing, but overall survival was significantly lower in the no-testing group. Thus in the absence of prospective mortality data, a minimum of safety margin ICD testing should remain standard practice.

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.

Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation?

The assessment of defibrillation (DFT) efficacy has long been the standard of care during defibrillator implantation. To ensure an acceptable DFT safety margin, early defibrillator systems frequently required that the shock polarity and the location, type, or number of electrodes had to be altered. Advances in defibrillator and lead technology have resulted in lower and more consistent DFT thresholds in the range of 10 J, with an infrequent requirement to modify the DFT system. Yet, one can make an argument for and against continuation of DFT testing at the time of defibrillator implantation. The goal of this paper is to address both the data that do support and the data that do not support continuation of DFT testing at the time of device implantation. Scientifically, DFT testing should be abandoned only when prospective evidence demonstrates that defibrillator implantation without testing is as safe and has the same mortality benefits as implantation with testing. The most attractive aspect of eliminating DFT efficacy testing is that more patients may have the opportunity to be treated with this life-saving therapy. Perhaps there are alternative strategies to improve accessibility to defibrillator therapy without possibly eroding its effectiveness. In the end, will lives be saved or lost if we discontinue DFT efficacy testing and lower the barriers to implantable defibrillator therapy?

A randomized prospective study of single coil versus dual coil defibrillation in patients with ventricular arrhythmias undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy

ICD implantation is standard therapy for malignant ventricular arrhythmias. The advantage of dual and single coil defibrillator leads in the successful conversion of arrhythmias is unclear. This study compared the effectiveness of dual versus single coil defibrillation leads. The study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized study comparing a dual with a single coil defibrillation system as part of an ICD using an active pectoral electrode. Seventy-six patients (64 men, 12 women; age 61 +/- 11 years) were implanted with a dual (group 1, n = 38) or single coil lead system (group 2,n = 38). The patients represented a typical ICD cohort: 60% presented with ischemic cardiomyopathy as their primary cardiac disease, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.406 +/- 0.158. The primary tachyarrhythmia was monomorphic ventricular tachyarrhythmia in 52.6% patients and ventricular fibrillation in 38.4%. There was no significant difference in terms of P and R wave amplitudes, pacing thresholds, and lead impedance at implantation and follow-up in the two groups. There was similarly no difference in terms of defibrillation thresholds (DFT) at implantation. Patients in group 1 had an average DFT of 10.2 +/- 5.2 J compared to 10.3 +/- 4.1 J in Group 2, P = NS. This study demonstrates no significant advantage of a dual coil lead system over a single coil system in terms of lead values and defibrillation thresholds. This may have important bearing on the choice of lead systems when implanting ICDs.

Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Ventricular fibrillation, a loss of synchronous electrical activity in the heart which leads to hemodynamic collapse, is a leading cause of death. Because of the devastating personal and societal effects of this phenomenon, the automatic cardioverter-defibrillator has been developed for automatic detection and termination of the arrhythmia and is in widespread clinical use. Advances in circuits, leads, waveforms, and signal processing along with increased knowledge of the mechanisms of fibrillation have led to continuing improvements in this device, extending its use to many patients. A device has also been developed for the automatic or semiautomatic treatment of atrial fibrillation, an arrhythmia less life-threatening than ventricular fibrillation, but still a serious health problem. Continued improvement of these devices and the development of qualitatively new approaches hold great promise for exciting therapeutic advances in this area.

Effect of second-phase duration on the strength-duration relation for human transvenous defibrillation

BACKGROUND

The mechanism by which biphasic waveforms improve defibrillation efficacy is unclear. In addition, the optimal shape of the biphasic waveforms remains controversial. Animal experiments suggest that prolonging the duration of the second phase longer than the first worsens defibrillation thresholds (DFT). The purpose of this study was to determine the strength-duration relation for the second phase of a biphasic defibrillation waveform in humans.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective, randomized study of biphasic DFT in 36 patients; a uniform dual-coil transvenous lead system was used. In each patient, 3 DFTs were determined with the pulse duration for the second phase of the defibrillation waveform varying between 1 and 18 ms. The duration of the first phase was fixed at 6 ms and the capacitance was 150 microF. There was a significant increase in the leading edge voltage at DFT only when the second-phase pulse duration was decreased to 1 ms. There was no increase in DFT voltage even when the second-phase pulse duration was increased from 2 to 18 ms. Similar relations were observed for stored energy, leading edge current, or phase 2 energy. The normalized average current delivered during phase 2 decreased monotonically with increasing phase 2 duration.

CONCLUSIONS

In humans, the biphasic DFT voltage or energy is increased only when the second phase of the waveform is <2 ms. The DFT voltage is insensitive to increasing the second phase of the defibrillator waveform to as long as 18 ms, or 3 times the duration of the first phase of the waveform.

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.

Comparison of bipolar and integrated sensing for redetection of ventricular fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator function is critically dependent on reliable sensing of intracardiac signals. Lead systems that use integrated sensing, in which the distal shocking coil is part of both the sensing and shocking pathways, may be prone to undersensing of ventricular fibrillation, especially during redetection after a failed first shock. To assess the effect of endocardial lead system on redetection, we compared a dedicated rate-sensing lead and 2 generations of integrated sensing defibrillator leads with a uniform testing algorithm and pulse generator.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 72 patients after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Three transvenous rate-sensing leads were evaluated: a standard pacing lead, incorporating true bipolar sensing without ventricular coils, or an integrated shocking and sensing lead (Endotak C) with either 6-mm (60 series) or 12-mm (70 series) spacing between the sensing tip and shocking coil. Redetection was assessed from a failed first shock just below defibrillation threshold.

RESULTS

Compared with the dedicated bipolar lead, redetection was prolonged with the 60 series lead (8.3 +/- 3.6 vs 6.6 +/- 2.3 seconds, P =.04). Moreover, prolonged redetection (>8 seconds) was observed in 41% of patients with 60 series leads compared with only 11% with dedicated bipolar leads (P <.01). No significant effects on redetection were noted with an integrated lead with greater spacing between the tip and coil (70 series).

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed redetection is frequently noted with an integrated lead with close spacing between the tip and coil. Detailed evaluation of detection and redetection of these leads should be performed at the time of pulse generator replacement.

A comparison of pectoral and abdominal transvenous defibrillator implantation: analysis of costs and outcomes

Traditionally cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed by surgeons under general anesthesia. However, with advances in lead and pulse generator technology, the surgical implantation technique has been simplified and routine pectoral pulse generator placement without general anesthesia is now possible. To assess the economic benefit of pectoral implantation, we analyzed 43 consecutive initial transvenous defibrillator implantations. The patients were grouped according to whether the implant was abdominal by a surgeon in the operating room (n = 23) or pectoral by an electrophysiologist in a laboratory (n = 20). The duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the operating room than in the laboratory group (8.1 +/- 3.4 vs 5.8 +/- 2.4 days, p = 0.01), which was due primarily to the postoperative stay which averaged 1.9 days longer. Total costs were $40,274 +/- 6,861 for the operating room cohort and $32,546 +/- 3,634 for the lab group (p < 0.001). This reduction was due to a 32% lowering of professional costs and an 18% lowering of facility costs. We conclude that pectoral defibrillator implantation is cost effective and results in significant reductions of hospital stay.

Clinical experience with downsized lower energy output implantable cardioverter defibrillators. Ventak Mini II Clinical Investigators

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVE

Technical improvements in cardioverter defibrillators technology has resulted in decrease in can size coupled with improved electrodes technology. A decrease in maximum energy output allows further decrease in device size. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a single lead transvenous implant employing a downsized cardioverter-defibrillator (volume 59 cm3), with a related decrease in maximum energy output (29-31 joules as stored energy and 25-27 joules as delivered energy).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty-five patients with ventricular tachyarrhythmias were enrolled in 17 European institutions for implantation. At implantation step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) was determined and the device was implanted only if a safety margin > or =10 joules was maintained between DFT and maximum programmable output. Implantation was performed in 54 of the 55 referred patients (98%) in a single electrode-device configuration. Step-down DFT testing was performed in 44 patients (43 finally implanted) and DFT was 7.77+/-4.41 joules (range 3-20). In 20 of the tested patients (45%) DFT was < or =5 joules, in 26 patients (59%) was < or =8 joules and in 34 patients (77%) it was < or =10 joules. No differences were found in DFT comparing patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = or >40% or patients treated or not with antiarrhythmic drugs or beta-blockers. Mean implant duration was 85+/-34 min.

CONCLUSIONS

Employing a downsized cardioverter defibrillator, successful transvenous implantation can be achieved in 98% of the patients, with maintenance of adequate defibrillation safety margins despite a reduction in stored energy to 29 joules.

The effect of delivered energy on defibrillation shock impedance

The impedance of internal defibrillator shocks is an important determinant of defibrillation efficacy. To assess the effect of delivered energy on impedance, we studied 97 patients with 4 different lead systems. The lead systems evaluated were two epicardial patches, a hybrid system of a patch and right atrial coil, a dual coil transvenous lead and a transvenous lead with a subcutaneous patch. Impedances were measured for 6 shock energies between 0.1 and 30 J. Shock impedance increased at low energies for all lead systems (p < 0.001), although the rate of increase varied markedly between systems. The energy factor (FE), which is the ratio of impedances for the 0.1 and 10 J shocks, was least for the platinum transvenous lead (1.2 +/- 0.02) and greatest for the titanium hybrid lead (4.2 +/- 0.2). Reversing the polarity of the hybrid lead markedly attenuated the impedance rise. These findings indicate that there is at least a modest rise (20%) of shock impedance at very low delivered energies. The largest increases noted with titanium lead systems are primarily due to polarization. Titanium transvenous leads should be avoided when low energy shocks are utilized such as for the cardioversion of ventricular tachycardia or atrial fibrillation.

Effects of respiration phase on ventricular defibrillation threshold in a hot can electrode system

The impedance of defibrillation pathways is an important determinant of ventricular defibrillation efficacy. The hypothesis in this study was that the respiration phase (end-inspiration versus end-expiration) may alter impedance and/or defibrillation efficacy in a "hot can" electrode system. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) parameters were evaluated at end-expiration and at end-inspiration phases in random order by a biphasic waveform in ten anesthetized pigs (body weight: 19.1 +/- 2.4 kg; heart weight: 97 +/- 10 g). Pigs were intubated with a cuffed endotracheal tube and ventilated through a Drager SAV respirator with tidal volume of 400-500 mL. A transvenous defibrillation lead (6 cm long, 6.5 Fr) was inserted into the right ventricular apex. A titanium can electrode (92-cm2 surface area) was placed in the left pectoral area. The right ventricular lead was the anode for the first phase and the cathode for the second phase. The DFT was determined by a "down-up down-up" protocol. Statistical analysis was performed with a Wilcoxon matched pair test. The median impedance at DFT for expiration and inspiration phases were 37.8 +/- 3.1 omega, and 39.3 +/- 3.6 omega, respectively (P = 0.02). The stored energy at DFT for expiration and inspiration phases were 5.7 +/- 1.9 J and 6.0 +/- 1.0 J, respectively (P = 0.594). Shocks delivered at end-inspiration exhibited a statistically significant increase in electrode impedance in a " hot can" electrode system. The finding that DFT energy was not significantly different at both respiration phases indicates that respiration phase does not significantly affect defibrillation energy requirements.

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.

Body surface potentials during discharge of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about the hazard for persons in contact with patients experiencing a high-voltage discharge of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Compared to epicardial systems, this risk may be increased with transvenous electrode systems and particularly in active can configurations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 23 patients with a transvenous active can ICD system, body surface potentials Vs and current through an external resistance were measured during 35 discharges. Vs was detected using skin electrodes positioned over the left subpectorally implanted pulse generator [C], apex of the heart [A], and the right pectoral region [RP]. Mean Vs during discharges without an external shunt resistance ranged between 13 and 63.8 V [C to A] and 12.5 to 47.3 V [C to RP] (ICD peak stored/output voltage Vcap = 183 to 606 V, n = 20). Mean current flow [C to A] was 8.2 to 46.8 mA (Vcap = 288 to 633 V, n = 10) and 42 to 120.7 mA (Vcap = 447 to 579 V, n = 5) across a resistance of 1,696 and 797 omega, respectively.

CONCLUSION

During high-output shocks, a considerable potential difference is present on the body surface of ICD patients that, according to the literature, may induce a single cardiac response in a bystander. Analogous to spontaneous extrasystoles, there is only a minimal chance of triggering a tachyarrhythmia by this stimulated extra beat. Direct induction of ventricular fibrillation is unlikely, since reported fibrillation threshold values are much higher than the observed magnitudes of current and voltage.

Effect of shock polarity on biphasic defibrillation thresholds using an active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION

The downsizing of implantable defibrillator pulse generators has made pectoral placement routine. A further reduction of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) may simplify implantation defibrillation testing and allow for smaller, lower output pulse generators while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin. One factor that may affect defibrillation efficacy is shock polarity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty consecutive patients undergoing dual-coil, active left pectoral defibrillator implantation were evaluated. Paired, biphasic DFTs were measured in normal (RV apex = cathode) and reverse (RV apex = anode) polarity with order of testing randomized. Reverse polarity conferred a 15% reduction of mean DFTs (8.5 +/- 5.0 J normal, 7.2 +/- 4.6 J reverse polarity, P = 0.02). The effect of polarity appeared most pronounced among the patients with a high DFT (> or = 15 J) resulting in a 31% reduction with reverse polarity (16.7 +/- 2.5 J normal, 11.5 +/- 5.9 J reverse, P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Reversing shock polarity results in significantly lower biphasic DFTs with an active pectoral lead system, particularly in the subgroup of patients with a high normal polarity threshold. Reversing polarity in these patients may simplify acute defibrillation testing and allow for lower output devices.

Temporal stability of defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION

Monophasic defibrillation thresholds rise over time with a variety of lead systems. These chronic changes are attenuated or eliminated by biphasic waveforms, although the effect appears dependent upon the lead system. With the downsizing of pulse generator size to allow for routine pectoral implantation, active can lead systems have now become standard. However, the temporal stability of such lead systems has not been evaluated previously.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This study was a prospective assessment of the changes of active pectoral defibrillation thresholds over time. Thresholds were measured at implant, predischarge, and at a mean follow-up of 50 days in 46 patients with a uniform testing protocol and shock polarity. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak DSP lead with an active pectoral pulse generator. Defibrillation thresholds were 9.9+/-5.5 J at implantation, 8.5+/-6.0 J predischarge, and 7.6+/-5.5 J at follow-up (ANOVA, P = 0.007). Moreover, only two patients developed an increased threshold > 5 J, and no patient had an inadequate safety margin at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that active pectoral defibrillation thresholds are stable over the first 2 months postimplantation and question the need for routine serial defibrillation threshold testing.

Simplified implantation of single-lead pectoral cardioverter defibrillators using device-based testing

Device-based testing of single-lead pectoral defibrillators (defibrillation efficacy testing without an external defibrillation system after complete implantation of the device) resulted in an adequate defibrillation threshold (< or = 20 J) in 45 of 50 study patients (90%). Mean surgical implantation time (skin to skin) was 62 +/- 29 minutes without perioperative mortality and without implantable cardioverter defibrillator infection during follow-up. Thus, device-based testing appears to be a simple and safe method to test defibrillation efficacy of single-lead pectoral defibrillators.

Additional lead improves defibrillation efficacy with an abdominal 'hot can' electrode system

BACKGROUND

Although the left prepectoral site is preferred for "hot can" placement, this site is unavailable in some patients. We evaluated the influence of electrode location on defibrillation thresholds with alternative hot can and transvenous lead configurations.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three interrelated studies were performed. In group 1, the importance of hot can location was investigated by pairing a right ventricular lead to five different hot can placement sites in seven pigs. The defibrillation energies for right pectoral, left pectoral, left subaxillary, and right and left abdominal hot can sites were 20.3+/-2.7,* 15.9+/-3.8, 14.9+/-2.5, 32.0+/-3.4,* and 30.0+/-3.4 J,* respectively (*P<.005 versus left pectoral and left subaxillary sites). In group 2, the value of a three-electrode configuration with an abdominal hot can placement was investigated by adding a subclavian vein lead to the pectoral or abdominal hot can configurations in seven pigs. The defibrillation energies for left pectoral and abdominal sites were 18.6+/-4.2 and 29.0+/-5.8 J (P=.0001), respectively. The addition of a right or left subclavian vein lead with an abdominal hot can reduced the threshold to 19.3+/-4.2* or 18.8+/-3.2,* respectively (*P=.0001 versus abdominal site). In group 3, the contribution of the abdominal hot can electrode to the three-electrode configuration was tested by a comparison with two purely transvenous two-electrode configurations in six pigs. The defibrillation energy (19.9+/-3.2 J) for the abdominal hot can with a subclavian vein lead was lower than the transvenous lead configurations with a subclavian vein (29.0+/-2.5 J, P=.0001) or a superior vena cava lead (30.7+/-3.7 J, P=.0001). The right ventricular lead was the sole cathode during the first phase of the biphasic shock in all experiments.

CONCLUSIONS

Defibrillation energy depends on the hot can placement site. The addition of a subclavian vein lead with an abdominal hot can improves defibrillation efficacy to the level of the pectoral placement and is better than a purely transvenous lead configuration.

Strength-duration relationship for human transvenous defibrillation

BACKGROUND

One of the basic characteristics of electrical defibrillation is the strength-duration relationship, or the effect of pulse width on defibrillation efficacy. This relationship is important for understanding the mechanism of defibrillation and for the design of optimal waveforms. However, a detailed evaluation of the strength-duration relationship for human transvenous defibrillation has not been performed previously.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective study of 29 patients undergoing initial defibrillator implantation with a uniform dual coil, transvenous lead. In each patient defibrillation thresholds were measured for either short (2, 3, 4, 6 ms) or long (6, 12, 18 ms) pulse durations, with the order of testing randomized. The shock waveform was a truncated monophasic pulse from a capacitor of 150 microF. The leading edge voltage at defibrillation threshold was 566+/-100 V for 2-ms pulses. Voltages declined exponentially with increasing pulse width reaching an asymptote by 6 ms (451+/-68 V, P<.05). Defibrillation threshold voltage was insensitive to longer pulse widths. Stored energy at defibrillation threshold showed a similar relationship with pulse width. In contrast, mean current decreased monotonically over the full range of pulse durations evaluated, and there was no evidence of a rheobase.

CONCLUSIONS

The shape of the strength-duration curve and the lack of rheobase current indicate a fundamental difference between cardiac stimulation and defibrillation. The relationship between pulse duration and defibrillation threshold voltage or stored energy is well modeled by a parallel capacitor resistor circuit with a time constant of 5.3 ms.

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.

Effect of biphasic waveforms on transvenous defibrillation thresholds in patients with coronary artery disease

This study is a prospective, randomized comparison of monophasic and biphasic defibrillation thresholds in 19 patients with a single transvenous lead. Despite using reverse polarity and optimal tilts for the monophasic waveform, the defibrillation threshold was reduced with biphasic shocks from 15.8 +/- 11.3 to 11.5 +/- 6.1 (p <0.05) with comparable reductions of leading edge voltage and current.

Induction of atrial fibrillation with low-energy defibrillator shocks in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

In a population of 151 consecutive patients who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, we found that atrial fibrillation was induced by low-energy shocks in 19% and was most common in patients with lead systems that included a right atrial electrode. Our finding that there was a fixed relation between the energy required to fibrillate (< or = 3 J) and defibrillate (> 3 J) suggests the presence of an upper limit of vulnerability in the human atrium.

Inappropriate discharge of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator during atrial flutter and intermittent ventricular antibradycardia pacing

INTRODUCTION

Inappropriate discharges of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) are troublesome to the patient and sometimes a difficult task for the physician trying to identify and treat the cause.

METHODS AND RESULTS

For the first time, we report a mechanism of inappropriate ICD discharges during episodes of atrial flutter with a slow ventricular response and intermittent antibradycardia pacing. The episodes occurred in two patients and were triggered by the unique sensing algorithm of the Ventritex Cadence V-100 in combination with the tripolar CPI Endotak 072 transvenous defibrillation lead, which provides integrated bipolar sensing.

CONCLUSION

Besides treatment of the underlying arrhythmia, reprogramming of the device, an electrode position far away from the atria, and true bipolar sensing will enhance the performance of ICD systems with respect to the episodes described here. In addition, more flexible sensing algorithms may, in the future, prevent this overall rare complication.

Biphasic waveforms prevent the chronic rise of defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare chronic changes in monophasic and biphasic defibrillation thresholds using a uniform transvenous lead system and testing protocol.

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation thresholds increase over time in patients with nonthoracotomy lead systems. This increase can result in an inadequate chronic defibrillation safety margin and could limit the safety of smaller pulse generators, which have a reduced maximal output. However, previous studies of the temporal changes of defibrillation thresholds evaluated complex lead systems or monophasic shock waveforms, neither of which are used with current technology.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of the effects of shock waveforms on the changes of transvenous defibrillation thresholds over time. Paired monophasic and biphasic thresholds were measured both at implantation and at follow-up (250 +/- 105 days) in 24 consecutive patients who were not receiving antiarrhythmic drugs. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak C lead, and reverse polarity shocks (distal coil = anode) were delivered.

RESULTS

Monophasic defibrillation thresholds increased from (mean +/- SD) 13.7 +/- 6.0 J to 16.8 +/- 6.7 J (p = 0.02), whereas biphasic thresholds were unchanged (10.4 +/- 4.3 J to 10.2 +/- 4.8 J, p = 0.86) in the same patients. Shock impedance chronically increased (47.0 omega to 50.5 omega, p = 0.02) and was unaffected by waveform.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that biphasic shocks prevent the chronic increase in defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system.

Clinical predictors of transvenous biphasic defibrillation thresholds

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator placement. However, previous studies of clinical predictors of an adequate nonthoracotomy defibrillation threshold (DFT) evaluated monophasic waveforms or more complex lead systems, including subcutaneous patches. Accordingly, this study is a prospective evaluation of the predictors of an adequate biphasic DFT in 114 consecutive patients undergoing cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a single transvenous lead. For each subject, 38 parameters were assessed, including standard demographic, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and radiographic measurements. An adequate DFT (< or =20 J) was achieved in 92% of patients. Multivariable analysis revealed 2 independent factors predictive of a high threshold: echocardiographic measurements of left ventricular dilation (odds ratio = 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.53, p = 0.003) and body size (odds ratio = 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.73; p = 0.005). No patient with a normal left ventricular end-diastolic dimension had a high DFT, whereas 14% (9 of 66) of those with left ventricular dilation had elevated thresholds. When the DFT cutoff was lowered to 15 J, as is necessary with some downsized pulse generators, an adequate threshold was observed in 84% of patients and the same 2 independent predictors of high thresholds were found. These results indicate that an adequate transvenous DFT can be predicted from simple clinical parameters.

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.

Chronic rise in monophasic defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead system

This study was a prospective evaluation of chronic changes of defibrillation thresholds in 31 clinically stable patients with a single transvenous lead, optimal shock polarity, and uniform testing protocol. At a mean follow-up of 273 +/- 146 days, defibrillation thresholds increased 26%, from 13.2 +/- 5.6 J to 17.1 +/- 6:0 J (p < 0.001), and shock impedance increased from 46.2 +/- 7.0 omega to 51.2 +/- 6.2 omega (p < 0.001).

Unipolar pectoral defibrillation systems

Over the past 15 years, the implantation of automatic defibrillations has evolved from an obscure, impractical, and often morbid procedure to nearly a routine therapy. Initial large abdominally implanted generators with multiple epicardial leads have given way to much smaller, pectorally implanted systems utilizing only a single lead. These systems are better accepted by physicians and patients and rival recent-generation pacemakers in their implantation simplicity. Outcomes with single lead defibrillator implantation have been excellent. They are 99% effective at eliminating sudden death in large cohorts of patients, with overall survival of 94.4% at 18 months. Previously significant perioperative complications and mortality associated with epicardial systems have been virtually eliminated. Transvenous single lead systems now provide defibrillation efficacy at a level that makes epicardial leads unnecessary in most patients. Although inappropriate shocks are not a morbid complication, they still occur in approximately 15%-30% of patients. This is an area for improvement in defibrillator therapy, which, though invisible in total mortality statistics, is significant in terms of patient comfort and acceptance. Incremental improvements in pulse generator design and defibrillator lead technology are being made. Perhaps the most interesting new development will be the dual chamber device, incorporating and atrial electrode for sensing, pacing, and perhaps, atrial defibrillation. Such improvements will continue to make device therapy of all arrhythmias more versatile and improve patient comfort both in terms of device size and inappropriate shocks. It is unlikely, however, that further technological advances can further diminish the already small complication rate or improve the already excellent efficacy of current single lead systems. Defibrillator technology has already reached a maturity where technological improvements are less significant than efforts to better define the patient population who will benefit from the therapy.

Clinical predictors of transvenous defibrillation energy requirements

Nonthoracotomy and, more recently, transvenous lead systems have become routine for initial implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement. Previous studies of clinical predictors of nonthoracotomy defibrillation energy requirements evaluated multiple complex lead systems that included subcutaneous patches. However, the predictors of an adequate transvenous defibrillation threshold (DFT) have not been assessed previously. Accordingly, the present study is a prospective evaluation of DFT using a uniform testing protocol in 119 consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation with a single transvenous lead. For each patient, 38 parameters were assessed including standard clinical, echocardiographic, and radiographic measures. An adequate monophasic DFT (< or =20 J) was achieved in 76% of patients. Multivariable analysis revealed 3 independent factors predictive of a high threshold: preoperative amiodarone use (odds ratio = 5.8, p < or =0.002), echocardiographic measures of left ventricular dilation (odds ratio = 0.47, p < or =0.005) and body size (odds ratio = 0.51, p < or =0.006). Patients receiving amiodarone who also had left ventricular dilation constitute a group at considerable (69%) risk for having a high DFT. In contrast, patients with neither of these risk factors have only an 11% chance of having a high threshold. We conclude that an adequate transvenous DFT can be predicted from simple clinical parameters.

Complications associated with pectoral implantation of cardioverter defibrillators. World-Wide Jewel Investigators

Pectoral placement of ICD pulse generators is now routine after downsizing of these devices. However, the safety of this approach is not well documented. The aim of this study was to evaluate complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing initial pectoral ICD implantation. The subjects for this study were 1,000 consecutive patients receiving a Medtronic Jewel ICD at 93 centers worldwide. Cumulative follow-up for all patients was 634 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed for 6 months or longer. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture, and dislodgment. In this series, 1.8% of patients experienced a pocket complication with only 3 (0.3%) erosions and 2 (0.2%) infections. Lead complications were observed in 2.1% of subjects, most commonly early dislodgment of the RV lead. We conclude that pectoral implantation of a downsized ICD system can be performed with a low rate of complications. However, careful attention to anchoring techniques and close early monitoring is important given the 1.7% rate of lead dislodgment that occurred primarily during the first month following implantation.

Complications associated with pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: comparison of subcutaneous and submuscular approaches. Worldwide Jewel Investigators

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare complications in a large cohort of patients undergoing pectoral cardioverter-defibrillator implantation with a subcutaneous or submuscular approach.

BACKGROUND

Pectoral placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) pulse generators is now routine because of downsizing of these devices. subcutaneous implantation has been advocated by some because it is a simple surgical procedure comparable to pacemaker insertion. Others have favored submuscular insertion to avoid wound complications. These surgical approaches have not been compared previously.

METHODS

The subjects for this study were 1,000 consecutive patients receiving a Medtronic Jewel ICD at 93 centers worldwide. Cumulative follow-up for all patients was 633.7 patient-years, with 64.9% of patients followed up for > or = 6 months. The complications evaluated were erosion, pocket hematoma, seroma, wound infection, dehiscence, device migration, lead fracture and dislodgment.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous implantation was performed in 604 patients and submuscular implantation in the remaining 396. The median procedural times were shorter for subcutaneous implantation (p = 0.014). In addition, the cumulative percentage of patients free from erosion was greater for subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.03, 100% vs. 99.1% at 6 months). However, lead dislodgment was more common with subcutaneous implantations (p = 0.019, 2.3% vs. 0.5% at 6 months) and occurred primarily during the first month postoperatively. Overall, there were no significant differences in cumulative freedom from complications between groups (4.1% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.1836).

CONCLUSIONS

Subcutaneous pectoral implantation of this ICD can be performed safely and has a low complication rate. This approach requires a simple surgical procedure and, compared with the submuscular approach, is associated with shorter procedure times and comparable overall complication rates. However, early follow-up is important in view of the increased lead dislodgment rate.

Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator implantation. A reduction of pulse generator size has made pectoral placement possible and enabled the pulse generator shell to become an active part of the defibrillation pathway. To directly assess the effect of the addition of an active generator on defibrillation thresholds to a transvenous lead system, we prospectively measured paired, randomized defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) in 21 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. A dual coil lead (Endotak C, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Corp., St. Paul, Minnesota) was used with the distal coil as the cathode for all shocks. The DFT was 8.4 +/- 3.2 J with the active shell, compared with 13.1 +/- 6.9 J with the lead alone (p < 0.01). This reduction was greatest in those patients with higher thresholds with the lead-alone configuration and resulted in DFT < or = 15 J with the active shell configuration in all patients. Shock impedance was reduced from 49 +/- 5 to 42 +/- 4 ohms (p < .001), but peak current at defibrillation threshold was unaffected by the addition of the active pectoral shell. We conclude that the addition of an active pectoral shell to a 2-coil transvenous lead system resulted in a marked reduction of defibrillation energy requirements. The uniformly low DFT ( < or = 15 J) observed suggests that an active pulse generator with a 25 J maximum output could be implanted in most patients while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin.

Chronic rise in defibrillation threshold with a hybrid lead system

Nonthoracotomy leads have become standard for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) because of low perioperative morbidity, mortality, and expense. Reported increases in defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with these lead systems, however, have raised the possibility of an eventual loss of defibrillation efficacy. The mechanism of this increase is unknown. In contrast, defibrillation efficacy of traditional epicardial lead systems has been demonstrated to remain relatively stable. In the present study, we examined the implantation and chronic DFTs in 45 patients with a hybrid system (a high right atrial coil and an extrapericardial patch) that combines elements from both the thoracotomy and nonthoracotomy approach. The mean threshold increased from 11.7 +/- 3.0 to 15.8 +/- 10.0 J (p < 0.001) and mean impedance increased from 37.0 +/- 7.7 to 48.8 +/- 9.0 ohms (p < 0.0001). There was a marked (> or = 10 J) increase in DFT in 11 patients (24%) including 4 who required reoperation to obtain an adequate safety margin. The increase in DFT was unrelated to any of the analyzed variables. We conclude that the presence of an extrapericardial patch does not prevent the increase in DFT reported with nonthoracotomy lead systems. This increase is unpredictable and occurs in almost 25% of patients.