ICD-antiarrhythmic drug and ICD-pacemaker interactions

Safety and Performance of the Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Detection Algorithm INSIGHTTM in Pacemaker Patients

BACKGROUND

The use of the S-ICD is limited by its inability to provide backup pacing. Combined use of the S-ICD with a pacemaker may be a good choice in certain situations, yet current experience concerning the compatibility is limited. The goal of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the S-ICD in patients with a pacemaker.

METHODS

A total of 74 consecutive patients with a bipolar pacemaker were prospectively enrolled. First, surface rhythm strips were recorded in all possible pacemaker stimulation modes, to screen for T-wave oversensing (TWOS). Second, a S-ICD functional dummy was placed epicutaneously on the patient in the typical implant position. The same standardized pacing protocol was used as mentioned above, and every stimulation mode was recorded via S-ECG in all vectors.

RESULTS

In 16 patients (21.6%), programmed stimulation would have led to VT/VF detection. Triggered episodes were due to counting of the pacing spike(s), QRS complex, premature ventricular contractions, and/or additional TWOS. Three cases triggered in the bipolar stimulation mode. Oversensing was associated with lung emphysema and a reduced QRS amplitude in the S-ECG.

CONCLUSION

The combination of an S-ICD and a pacemaker may lead to inadequate shock delivery due to oversensing, even under programmed bipolar stimulation. Oversensing cannot be sufficiently predicted by the screening tool in pacemaker patients. Testing with an epicutaneous S-ICD dummy in all vectors and stimulation settings is recommended in patients with pre-existing pacemakers.

[Device-device interaction]

With a continuous increase in the approval of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), not only pacemakers (PM) and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) but especially devices for treating chronic heart failure, more and more possibilities of device-device interactions arise, which in isolated cases can lead to death of the patient. Because of the still low numbers of patients overall, there are very few scientific studies and only isolated case reports on this topic. Devices which are at risk of interaction with a previously implanted PM are wearable cardioverter defibrillators (WCD) and subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD). These two devices both use the surface electrocardiogram (ECG) in their algorithm for detecting ventricular arrhythmia. These surface ECGs seem to be prone to unipolar pacemaker stimulation artefacts. By correct programming of implanted pacemakers in the bipolar stimulation mode it is possible to avoid ECG artefacts and inadequate treatment. In baroreceptor activation therapy (BAT) there seem to be no device interactions so far, even though this device shows substantial highly frequent artefacts in the ECG. The cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) system has also until now not shown interactions with transvenous or subcutaneous ICD devices, even though randomized trials are missing.

Amiodarone Versus Lidocaine for Pediatric Cardiac Arrest Due to Ventricular Arrhythmias: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review as part of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation process to create a consensus on science statement regarding amiodarone or lidocaine during pediatric cardiac arrest for the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified from comprehensive searches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies eligible for inclusion were randomized controlled and observational studies on the relative clinical effect of amiodarone or lidocaine in cardiac arrest.

DATA EXTRACTION

Studies addressing the clinical effect of amiodarone versus lidocaine were extracted and reviewed for inclusion and exclusion criteria by the reviewers. Studies were rigorously analyzed thereafter.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified three articles addressing lidocaine versus amiodarone in cardiac arrest: 1) a prospective study assessing lidocaine versus amiodarone for refractory ventricular fibrillation in out-of-hospital adults; 2) an observational retrospective cohort study of inpatient pediatric patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who received lidocaine, amiodarone, neither or both; and 3) a prospective study of ventricular tachycardia with a pulse in adults. The first study showed a statistically significant improvement in survival to hospital admission with amiodarone (22.8% vs 12.0%; p = 0.009) and a lack of statistical difference for survival at discharge (p = 0.34). The second article demonstrated 44% return of spontaneous circulation for amiodarone and 64% for lidocaine (odds ratio, 2.02; 1.36-3.03) with no statistical difference for survival at hospital discharge. The third article demonstrated 48.3% arrhythmia termination for amiodarone versus 10.3% for lidocaine (p < 0.05). All were classified as lower quality studies without preference for one agent.

CONCLUSIONS

The confidence in effect estimates is so low that International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation felt that a recommendation to use of amiodarone over lidocaine is too speculative; we suggest that amiodarone or lidocaine can be used in the setting of pulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in infants and children.

Safety of the Wearable Cardioverter Defibrillator (WCD) in Patients with Implanted Pacemakers

BACKGROUND

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an important approach for better risk stratification, applied to patients considered to be at high risk of sudden arrhythmic death. Patients with implanted pacemakers may also become candidates for use of the WCD. However, there is a potential risk that pacemaker signals may mislead the WCD detection algorithm and cause inappropriate WCD shock delivery. The aim of the study was to test the impact of different types of pacing, various right ventricular (RV) lead positions, and pacing modes for potential misleading of the WCD detection algorithm.

METHODS

Sixty patients with implanted pacemakers received the WCD for a short time and each pacing mode (AAI, VVI, and DDD) was tested for at least 30 seconds in unipolar and bipolar pacing configuration. In case of triggering the WCD detection algorithm and starting the sequence of arrhythmia alarms, shock delivery was prevented by pushing of the response buttons.

RESULTS

In six of 60 patients (10%), continuous unipolar pacing in DDD mode triggered the WCD detection algorithm. In no patient, triggering occurred with bipolar DDD pacing, unipolar and bipolar AAI, and VVI pacing. Triggering was independent of pacing amplitude, RV pacing lead position, and pulse generator implantation site.

CONCLUSION

Unipolar DDD pacing bears a high risk of false triggering of the WCD detection algorithm. Other types of unipolar pacing and all bipolar pacing modes do not seem to mislead the WCD detection algorithm. Therefore, patients with no reprogrammable unipolar DDD pacing should not become candidates for the WCD.

Anesthetic Implications for Patients With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators have become one of the preferred methods for treating many life- threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Many tens of thou sands of these devices have been implanted and this, together with the ease of worldwide travel, has made it more likely that anesthesiologists everywhere may come into contact with these patients either for elective or emergency surgery. These patients present unique anesthetic challenges because of the combination of the device and severe underlying cardiac disease. This article presents an overview of the implantable defibril lator as it affects the anesthesiologist, including device function, device assessment, electromagnetic interfer ence, and perioperative management.

Ventricular arrhythmias in patients with heart failure secondary to reduced ejection fraction: a current perspective

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the management of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with heart failure secondary to reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

RECENT FINDINGS

Recurrent ventricular arrhythmias and automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator (AICD) shocks are responsible for significant mortality and morbidity in patients with HFrEF. Antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation are the main treatment options. Frequent premature ventricular contractions (PVCs; >10,000-20,000/24-h period) are being recognized as a cause of cardiomyopathy and suboptimal response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs) have frequent ventricular tachyarrhythmias resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Such patients may need continuation of active ICD therapy and adjunctive catheter ablation.

SUMMARY

There is a pressing need to develop new antiarrhythmic drugs to treat patients with recurrent AICD shocks. The effectiveness of catheter ablation as first-line therapy for preventing ventricular arrhythmias and recurrent AICD shocks needs to be directly compared with amiodarone. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias are common in CRT patients and patients with VADs. Frequent PVCs may result in a reversible form of HFrEF.

Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators--general and anesthetic considerations

A pacemaking system consists of an impulse generator and lead or leads to carry the electrical impulse to the patient's heart. Pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator codes were made to describe the type of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator implanted. Indications for pacing and implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation were given by the American College of Cardiologists. Certain pacemakers have magnet-operated reed switches incorporated; however, magnet application can have serious adverse effects; hence, devices should be considered programmable unless known otherwise. When a device patient undergoes any procedure (with or without anesthesia), special precautions have to be observed including a focused history/physical examination, interrogation of pacemaker before and after the procedure, emergency drugs/temporary pacing and defibrillation, reprogramming of pacemaker and disabling certain pacemaker functions if required, monitoring of electrolyte and metabolic disturbance and avoiding certain drugs and equipments that can interfere with pacemaker function. If unanticipated device interactions are found, consider discontinuation of the procedure until the source of interference can be eliminated or managed and all corrective measures should be taken to ensure proper pacemaker function should be done. Post procedure, the cardiac rate and rhythm should be monitored continuously and emergency drugs and equipments should be kept ready and consultation with a cardiologist or a pacemaker-implantable cardioverter defibrillator service may be necessary.

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.

The dilemma of ICD implant testing

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been induced at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation. Despite its risks, the value was self-evident for early ICDs: failure of defibrillation was common, recipients had a high risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF, and the only therapy for rapid VT or VF was a shock. Today, failure of defibrillation is rare, the risk of VT/VF is lower in some recipients, antitachycardia pacing is applied for fast VT, and vulnerability testing permits assessment of defibrillation efficacy without inducing VF in most patients. This review reappraises ICD implant testing. At implant, defibrillation success is influenced by both predictable and unpredictable factors, including those related to the patient, ICD system, drugs, and complications. For left pectoral implants of high-output ICDs, the probability of passing a 10 J safety margin is approximately 95%, the probability that a maximum output shock will defibrillate is approximately 99%, and the incidence of system revision based on testing is < or = 5%. Bayes' Theorem predicts that implant testing identifies < or = 50% of patients at high risk for unsuccessful defibrillation. Most patients who fail implant criteria have false negative tests and may undergo unnecessary revision of their ICD systems. The first-shock success rate for spontaneous VT/VF ranges from 83% to 93%, lower than that for induced VF. Thus, shocks for spontaneous VT/VF fail for reasons that are not evaluated at implant. Whether system revision based on implant testing improves this success rate is unknown. The risks of implant testing include those related to VF and those related to shocks alone. The former may be due to circulatory arrest alone or the combination of circulatory arrest and shocks. Vulnerability testing reduces risks related to VF, but not those related to shocks. Mortality from implant testing probably is 0.1-0.2%. Overall, VF should be induced to assess sensing in approximately 5% of ICD recipients. Defibrillation or vulnerability testing is indicated in 20-40% of recipients who can be identified as having a higher-than-usual probability of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin based on patient-specific factors. However, implant testing is too risky in approximately 5% of recipients and may not be worth the risks in 10-30%. In 25-50% of ICD recipients, testing cannot be identified as either critical or contraindicated.

The pharmacology of electrical stimulation in the heart: Where devices meet drugs

Both cardiac electrical stimulation and cardiac pharmacological agents exert effects by acting upon ion channels, secondary messengers and autonomic nerve terminals. Defining the common substrates between devices and drugs provides the evaluation tools to warn of unsafe interactions with pacemakers, defibrillators or detection of cardiac arrhythmias. This review describes substrates of drug-device interaction, reviews research on drug-like effects of devices, and provides a framework for how the physiology of interaction translates to streamlined clinical trials.:

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.

Advances in ablation therapy for complex arrhythmias: atrial fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia

Catheter ablation has evolved over the past two decades to become first-line therapy for many cardiac arrhythmias. Multiple advances in the technology and understanding of radiofrequency ablation have allowed this technique to blossom into one of the most powerful therapeutic tools available to the electrophysiologist, and have opened a new chapter in the diagnosis and management of clinical arrhythmias. Catheter ablation often eliminates the need for chronic drug therapy and can result in significant long-term cost savings. As catheter technology continues to improve, and newer, more effective energy delivery systems are developed, the applicability of catheter-based therapy will continue to expand. This review addresses some of the more commonly encountered clinical arrhythmias and the recent developments in the treatment of these arrhythmias from a catheter-based standpoint.

Defibrillation energy requirements and electrical heterogeneity during total body hypothermia

OBJECTIVE

Determine the effects of hypothermia on defibrillation energy requirements and cardiac electrophysiology.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized acute intervention trial.

SETTING

Medical center animal laboratory.

SUBJECTS

Fifteen domestic farm swine.

INTERVENTIONS

Swine were randomized to a hypothermia group (n = 8) or a control group (n = 7). All animals were instrumented with a transvenous defibrillation system connected to a defibrillator that delivers a biphasic-truncated waveform. Values for defibrillation energy requirements were measured at baseline (normothermia, 38-40 degrees C) and during treatment with total body hypothermia (30 degrees C) or no temperature change (sham). Hypothermia was induced by circulating ice-water through anterior and posterior surgical thermal blankets.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Defibrillation energy requirement values at 20%, 50%, and 80% were determined by using an up/down method. In the hypothermia group, defibrillation energy requirement values at baseline did not significantly change during hypothermia (defibrillation energy requirements 50% = 14 +/- 2 J vs. 15 +/- 2 J, respectively). Similarly, the defibrillation energy requirement values in the control group did not change from baseline to sham phase (defibrillation energy requirements 50% = 12 +/- 1 J vs. 13 +/- 1 J, respectively). Hypothermia profoundly affected cardiac electrophysiology, decreasing ventricular fibrillation threshold by 72%, conduction velocity by 25% (p < .01), and tissue excitability, while it prolonged ventricular repolarization and refractoriness by 7.5% to 15%, respectively (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Total body cooling to 30 degrees C was highly arrhythmogenic, although this unstable electrophysiological state did not alter ventricular defibrillation energy requirements. These data suggest that hypothermia may be used to slow metabolic processes without concern over the ability to successfully defibrillate and treat hypothermia-induced arrhythmias.

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have evolved from the treatment of last resort to the gold standard therapy for patients at high risk for ventricular tachyarrhythmias. High-risk patients include those who have survived life-threatening arrhythmias, and individuals with cardiac diseases who are at risk for such arrhythmias, but are symptomless. Use of an ICD will affect the patient's quality of life. Some drugs can substantially affect defibrillator function and efficacy, and possible drug-device interactions should be considered. Patients with ICDs may encounter cell phones, antitheft detectors, and many other sources of potential electromagnetic Interference. In addition to treating ventricular tachyarrhythmias, new defibrillators provide full featured dual chamber pacing, and could treat atrial arrhythmias, and congestive heart failure by means of biventricular pacing.

Current status of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

Clinical trials have established the superiority of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) over antiarrhythmic drug therapy in survivors of sudden cardiac death and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. The ICD has evolved to overcome the limitation of earlier devices that required thoracotomy for implantation and were fraught with inappropriate shock delivery. Current ICDs are implanted in a similar manner to cardiac pacemakers and incorporate sophisticated rhythm-discrimination algorithms to prevent inappropriate therapy. Managing the patient with an ICD requires an understanding of the multiprogrammable features of modern devices. Drug interactions and potential sources of electromagnetic interference may adversely affect ICD function. Driving restrictions may be necessary under certain conditions. The cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy appears favorable, given the marked survival benefit seen in randomized trials relative to antiarrhythmic drug treatment. The growing number of ICD recipients necessitates an understanding of the specialized features of the modern ICD and the role of device therapy in clinical practice.

Emergencies related to implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have become the dominant therapeutic modality for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. ICDs are implanted using techniques similar to standard pacemaker implantation. They not only provide high-energy shocks for ventricular fibrillation and rapid ventricular tachycardia, but also provide antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia and antibradycardia pacing. Devices incorporating an atrial lead allow dual-chamber pacing and better discrimination between ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Intensivists are increasingly likely to encounter patients with ICDs. Electrosurgery can be safely performed in ICD patients as long as the device is deactivated before the procedure and reactivated and reassessed immediately afterward. Prompt and skilled intervention can prove to be life-saving in patients presenting with ICD-related emergencies, including lack of response to ventricular tachyarrhythmias, pacing failure, and multiple shocks. Recognition and treatment of tachyarrhythmia can be temporarily disabled by placing a magnet on top of an ICD. The presence of an ICD should not deter standard resuscitation techniques. Multiple ICD discharges in a short period of time constitute a serious situation. Causes include ventricular electrical storm, inefficient defibrillation, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, and inappropriate shocks caused by supraventricular tachyarrhythmias or oversensing of signals. ICD system infection requires hardware removal and intravenous antibiotic therapy. Deactivation of an ICD with the consent of the patient or relatives is reasonable and ethical in terminally ill patients.

A prospective randomized-controlled trial of ventricular fibrillation detection time in a DDDR ventricular defibrillator. Ventak AV II DR Study Investigators

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) with dual chamber and dual chamber rate responsive pacing may offer hemodynamic advantages for some ICD patients. Separate ICDs and DDDR pacemakers can result in device to device interactions, inappropriate shocks, and underdetection of ventricular fibrillation (VF). The objectives of this study were to compare the VF detection times between the Ventak AV II DR and the Ventak AV during high rate DDDR and DDD pacing and to test the safety of dynamic ventricular refractory period shortening. Patients receiving an ICD were randomized in a paired comparison to pacing at 150 beats/min (DDD pacing) or 175 beats/min (DDDR pacing) during ICD threshold testing to create a "worst case scenario" for VF detection. The VF detection rate was set to 180 beats/min, and VF was induced during high rate pacing with alternating current. The device was then allowed to detect and treat VF. The induction was repeated for each patient at each programmed setting so that all patients were tested at both programmed settings. Paired analysis was performed. Patient characteristics were a mean age of 69 +/- 11 years, 78% were men, coronary artery disease was present in 85%, and a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 0.34 +/- 0.11. Fifty-two episodes of VF were induced in 26 patients. Despite the high pacing rate, all VF episodes were appropriately detected. The mean VF detection time was 2.4 +/- 1.0 seconds during DDD pacing and 2.9 +/- 1.9 seconds during DDDR pacing (P = NS). DDD and DDDR programming resulted in appropriate detection of all episodes of VF with similar detection times despite the "worst case scenario" tested. Delays in detection may be seen with long programmed ventricular refractory periods which shorten the VF sensing window and may be avoided with dynamic ventricular refractory period shortening.

Intravenous sotalol decreases transthoracic cardioversion energy requirement for chronic atrial fibrillation in humans: assessment of the electrophysiological effects by biatrial basket electrodes

OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to assess the effects of sotalol on the transthoracic cardioversion energy requirement for chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) and on the atrial electrograms during AF recorded by two basket electrodes.

BACKGROUND

The effects of sotalol infusion on transthoracic electrical cardioversion for chronic atrial fibrillation in humans have not been well investigated.

METHODS

We included 18 patients with persistent AF for more than three months. Atrial electrograms were recorded by two basket electrodes positioned in each atrium respectively. Transthoracic cardioversion was performed before and after sotalol 1.5 mg/kg i.v. infusion.

RESULTS

In the 14 patients whose AF could be terminated by cardioversion before sotalol infusion, the atrial defibrillation energy was significantly reduced after sotalol infusion (236 +/- 74 jules [J] vs. 186 +/- 77 J; p < 0.01). Atrial fibrillation was refractory to cardioversion in four patients at baseline and was converted to sinus rhythm by cardioversion after sotalol infusion in two of them. We further divided the patients into two groups. Group A consisted of 10 patients in whom the energy requirement was decreased by sotalol while group B consisted of eight patients in whom the energy requirement was not decreased. The mean A-A (atrial local electrogram) intervals during AF were significantly increased after sotalol infusion in both groups, but the increment of A-A interval was significantly larger in group A than it was in group B patients (36 +/- 13 ms vs. 22 +/- 8 ms for the right atrium; 19 +/- 7 ms vs. 9 +/- 7 ms for the left atrium; both p < 0.05). The spatial and temporal dispersions of A-A intervals were not significantly changed after sotalol infusion in both atria in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Sotalol decreases the atrial defibrillation energy requirement by increasing atrial refractoriness but not by decreasing the dispersion of refractoriness.

Concomitant device and drug therapy: current trends, potential benefits, and adverse interactions

Antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) has decreased over the last 10 years. This trend, primarily seen with class I agents, has occurred mainly in patients with a cardiac arrest. However, despite this overall decrease, antiarrhythmic drug therapy remains an important adjuvant to ICD therapy. In addition to primary prevention of ventricular tachycardia and supraventricular tachycardia, antiarrhythmic drug therapy may potentiate tachycardia rate slowing and make ventricular tachycardia more tolerated hemodynamically and possibly more amendable to pacing therapy. Some of the class III antiarrhythmic drugs may actually lower defibrillation threshold. Unfortunately, these drugs may have adverse interactions with ICDs. An increase in defibrillation threshold or rate-dependent increase in pacing threshold may interfere with the effectiveness of device therapy. Proarrhythmic effects of antiarrhythmic drugs may enhance the frequency of device use. The bradycardic effects of antiarrhythmic drug therapy may similarly enhance the requirements for persistent bradycardia pacing and lead to early battery depletion and other adverse consequences. An awareness of potential benefits and adverse effects of antiarrhythmic drug therapy along with careful electrophysiologic assessment are necessary for optimum combination drug and device therapy.

Technologic advances in implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Multiple technologic advances in the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) have resulted in smaller size, easier implantation, and improved detection, therapy, and stored diagnostic information. Advanced dual-chamber ICDs are currently available that allow dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing with mode switching, enhanced detection algorithms, antitachycardia pacing, low-energy cardioversion, high-energy shocks, and extensive diagnostics. Based on improvements in lead systems and improved energy waveforms, almost all devices are being implanted with nonthoracotomy leads in the pectoralis area. The results of recent clinical trials have expanded indications for the ICD for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. With advances in capacitor and battery technology coupled with improved lead systems and waveform resulting in lower defibrillation thresholds, it is likely that lower-output, smaller devices will be developed. In the future, ICDs may have expanded indications and may incorporate physiologic sensors to access hemodynamic significance of arrhythmias and algorithms for prediction and prevention of cardiac arrhythmias.

Lidocaine's effect on defibrillation threshold are dependent on the defibrillation electrode system: epicardial versus endocardial

INTRODUCTION

Epicardial and endocardial defibrillation electrode systems affect myocardial electrophysiology and sympathetic function differently. Thus, we postulate that antiarrhythmic drugs will interact with these electrode systems differently.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Defibrillation energy requirements (DER) at 20% (ED20), 50% (ED50), and 80% (ED80) success were measured at baseline and during lidocaine (10 mg/kg per hour) or D5W treatment for epicardial and endocardial electrodes. Pigs were randomized to treatment (lidocaine or D5W) and electrode system, which resulted in four experimental groups: (1) epicardial electrode + D5W; (2) epicardial electrode + lidocaine; (3) endocardial electrode + D5W; and (4) endocardial electrode + lidocaine. ED50 DER (mean +/- SEM) values at baseline for groups 1-4 were 10.6+/-1, 8.5+/-1, 12.6+/-1, and 12.3+/-1 J, respectively. DER values for groups 1 and 3 during D5W were similar to baseline. Conversely, lidocaine increased ED50 DER values from 8.5+/-1 to 13.5+/-2 J (P < 0.05) in group 2 animals (epicardial electrodes). When lidocaine was administered to group 4 animals (endocardial electrodes), however, ED50 DER values remained similar to baseline values (12.3+/-1 to 14.3+/-2 J, P = NS). Lidocaine increased ED50 DER values by 59% with the epicardial electrode system, which was significantly greater than the 16% increase with the endocardial electrode system (P < 0.05). Electrophysiologic response and electrode impedance were similar between electrode systems.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine increases DER values to a greater extent when using epicardial versus endocardial electrode system. Thus, drug-device interactions are dependent on the electrode system. These data suggest that the electrophysiologic milieu created by endocardial defibrillation mitigates the effects that lidocaine has on DER values.