Prospective Evaluation of Defibrillation Threshold and Postshock Rhythm in Young ICD Recipients

Background: Adaptation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems to the needs of pediatric and congenital heart patients is problematic due to constraints of vascular and thoracic anatomy. An improved understanding of the defibrillation energy and postshock pacing requirements in such patients may help direct more tailored ICD therapy. We describe the first prospective evaluation of defibrillation threshold (DFT) and postshock rhythm in this population. Methods: We prospectively studied patients ≤60 kg at time of ICD intervention. DFTs were obtained using a binary search protocol with three VF inductions. Postshock pacing was programmed using a stepwise protocol, lowering the rate prior to each VF induction. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled: 11 had channelopathy, five congenital heart disease, and four cardiomyopathy. The median age was 16 years, median weight 48 kg. Twelve patients had a transvenous high‐voltage coil; eight had pericardial +/? subcutaneous coil(s). Median DFT was 7 J (range 3–31 J); 19/20 patients had DFT ≤15 J and all patients <25 kg had DFT ≤9 J (n = 6). There was no difference in DFT between patients with transvenous versus pericardial +/? subcutaneous coils (median 7 J vs 6 J, P = 0.59). No patient with normal atrioventricular conduction prior to defibrillation required postshock pacing (n = 16). There were no adverse events. Conclusions: These data suggest that many pediatric ICD patients have low DFTs and adequate postshock escape rhythm. This may help determine appropriate parameters for future design of pediatric‐specific ICDs. (PACE 2012;35:1487–1493)     

A biventricular ICD system with biventricular defibrillation

We describe the case of a 59-year-old gentleman with severe dilated cardiomyopathy requiring implantation of a dual-chamber biventricular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). High defibrillation thresholds (DFT) were encountered at implant with an inadequate defibrillation safety margin. Testing of all possible shock vectors/polarities with and without the SVC coil and optimization of the distal RV coil position all proved inadequate. A satisfactory defibrillation safety margin was achieved following placement of a second lead in the coronary sinus to enable biventricular defibrillation. This case highlights an additional strategy for combating high DFTs and is an option even in dual-chamber biventricular ICD systems.     

The Effect of Dofetilide on Ventricular Defibrillation Thresholds

Introduction: High defibrillation threshold (DFT) with an inadequate defibrillation safety margin remains an infrequent but troubling problem associated with defibrillator implantation. Dofetilide is a selective class III antiarrhythmic drug that reduces DFTs in a canine model. We hypothesized that dofetilide would reduce DFTs in humans, obviating the need for complex lead systems.
Methods and Results: Sixteen consecutive patients with DFTs ≥20 J delivered energy at implant-received dofetilide therapy and underwent follow-up DFT testing acutely following drug loading and/or chronically (128 ± 94 days). Amiodarone was discontinued in four patients at implantation. With dofetilide, DFTs decreased from 28 ± 4 J to 19 ± 7 J (P < 0.0001), resulting in a safety margin of 15 ± 8 J for the implanted devices. Five patients subsequently had spontaneous arrhythmias terminated successfully with shocks.
Conclusion: Dofetilide reduces DFTs sufficiently to prevent the need for more complex lead systems. This strategy should be considered when an inadequate defibrillation safety margin is present.     

Defibrillation Threshold Testing in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Introduction: Implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICDs) decrease sudden cardiac death in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). One of the vital aspects of ICD implantation is the demonstration that the myocardium can be reliably defibrillated, which is defined by the defibrillation threshold (DFT). We hypothesized that patients with HCM have higher DFTs than patients implanted for other standard indications. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients implanted with an ICD at the University of Maryland from 1996 to 2008. All patients with HCM who had DFTs determined were included. Data were compared to selected patients implanted for other standard indications over the same time period. All patients had a dual‐coil lead with an active pectoral can system and had full DFT testing using either a step‐down or binary search protocol. Results: The study group consisted of 23 HCM patients. The comparison group consisted of 294 patients. As expected, the HCM patients were younger (49 ± 18 years vs 63 ± 12 years; P < 0.00001) and had higher left ventricular ejection fractions (66% vs 32%; P < 0.000001). The average DFT in the HCM group was 13.9 ± 7.0 Joules (J) versus 9.8 ± 5.1 J in the comparison group (P = 0.0004). In the HCM group, five of the 23 patients (22%) had a DFT ≥ 20 J compared to 19 of 294 comparison patients (6%). There was a significant correlation between DFT and left ventricle wall thickness in the HCM group as measured by echocardiography (r = 0.44; P = 0.03); however, there was no correlation between DFT and QRS width in the HCM group (r = 0.1; P = NS). Conclusions: Our results suggest that patients with HCM have higher DFTs than patients implanted with ICDs for other indications. More importantly, a higher percentage of HCM patients have DFTs ≥ 20 J and the DFT increases with increasing left ventricle wall thickness. These data suggest that DFT testing should always be considered after implanting ICDs in HCM patients. (PACE 2010; 1342–1346)     

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.     

Coronary Sinus Shocking Lead As Salvage In Patients with Advanced CHF and High Defibrillation Thresholds

Background: We report a series of three patients whose implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators (ICD) implants were unsuccessful due to inability to achieve defibrillation thresholds (DFT) at maximum available energy after failure of standard modification and enhancement procedures. All patients had advanced cardiomyopathy. Methods: Use of the coronary sinus (CS) for left ventricular (LV) shocking electrode placement resulted in acceptable DFTs in each patient. The position of the shocking coil in all three patients was posterior, and in two patients alongside a left ventricular CS pacing lead. The best shocking configuration tested was LV (CS) + CAN (Anode) to RV (cathode) in each patient. The short‐ and long‐term outcomes of these patients is presented and discussed. Conclusion: This approach is suggested as a salvage option for those problematic patients who have unacceptable DFT results at implantation of an endovascular ICD system. (PACE 2010; 967–972)     

Human experience with transvenous biventricular defibrillation using an electrode in a left ventricular vein

This study investigated the safety and feasibility of transvenous biventricular defibrillation in ICD patients. Some patients may have high DFTs due to weak shock field intensity on the LV. Animal studies showed a LV shocking electrode dramatically lowered DFTs. This approach might benefit heart failure patients already receiving a LV lead or conventional ICD patients with high DFTs. A modified guidewire was used as a temporary left venous access defibrillation electrode (LVA lead). In 24 patients receiving an ICD, the LVA lead was advanced through a guide catheter in the coronary sinus (CS) and into a randomized LV vein (anterior or posterior) using a venogram for guidance. Paired DFT testing compared a standard right ventricular defibrillation system to a biventricular defibrillation system. There were no complications or adverse events. As randomized, LVA lead insertion success was 87% and 71% for anterior and posterior veins, respectively, and 100% after crossover. Total insertion process time included venogram time (32.5 +/- 26.9 minutes, range 5-115, mode 15 minutes) and LVA lead insertion time (15 +/- 14 minutes, range 1-51, mode 7 minutes). An apical LVA lead position was achieved in 11 (45%) of 24 patients and 7 (64 %) of these 11 displayed a DFT reduction; however, mean DFTs were not statistically different. Transvenous biventricular defibrillation is feasible and was safe under the conditions tested. Additional clinical studies are justified to determine if optimized LV lead designs, lead placement, and shock configurations can yield the same large DFT reductions as observed in animals.     

Impact of defibrillation test protocol and test repetition on the probability of meeting implant criteria

Background: Defibrillation testing is a common procedure at defibrillator implant, with the purpose to ensure that each patient receives a device‐lead system with a sufficient shock efficacy. The objective of this paper was to study the influence of defibrillation test protocols on the probability of passing implant testing. Methods: Defibrillation shock efficacy as a function of shock energy was modeled by a dose‐response relationship estimated from the clinical data of the PainFREE Rx II study on 564 patients. A Monte Carlo method was used to simulate the outcomes of 12 commonly used defibrillation efficacy test protocols: four safety margin tests and eight protocols estimating the defibrillation threshold (DFT). Results: The probabilities of failing 20‐J and 25‐J implant criteria for the different protocols ranged from 0.9% to 6.3% for 20 J and 0.3% to 3.4% for 25 J. Large variations in consecutively measured DFT values in the same patients were observed. Best results in the identification of “high risk” patients were obtained with the 2/2 safety margin protocol with an implant criterion of 20 J. The study also showed that the probability of patients inappropriately passing the implant criterion increased when the defibrillation test was repeated after initial failure. Conclusion: The defibrillation test protocol greatly influences the probability of meeting implant criterion. Therefore, these test protocols should be standardized. The model developed in this study, could be used to further understand their impact and to derive recommendations. (PACE 2011; 34:1515–1526)     

Hemiazygous Coil Placement for High‐Defibrillation Thresholds in a Patient with a Right‐Sided Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

A 41‐year‐old man underwent implantation of a right‐sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator after removal of an infected left‐sided system. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing on the right‐sided system failed to convert ventricular fibrillation at maximum device output (35 J) compared with a DFT of less than 15 J on the previous left‐sided system. A single‐coil lead was selectively placed into the hemiazygous vein, which courses leftward of the spine in a posterior‐anterior projection, resulting in an improved shocking vector and reduction in DFTs to less than 25 J. (PACE 2012; 35:e10–e12)     

Clinical Predictors of Defibrillation Thresholds with an Active Pectoral Pulse Generator Lead System

HODGSON, D.M., et al. : Clinical Predictors of Defibrillation Thresholds with an Active Pectoral Pulse Generator Lead System. Active pectoral pulse generators are used routinely for initial ICD placement because they reduce DFTs and simplify the implantation procedure. Despite the common use of these systems, little is known regarding the clinical predictors of defibrillation efficacy with active pulse generator lead configurations. Such predictors would be helpful to identify patients likely to require higher output devices or more complicated implantations. This was a prospective evaluation of DFT using a uniform testing protocol in 102 consecutive patients with an active pectoral can and dual coil transvenous lead. For each patient, the DFT was measured with a step-down protocol. In addition, 34 parameters were assessed including standard clinical echocardiographic and radiographic measures. Multivariate stepwise regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of the DFT. The mean DFT was  9.3 ± 4.6 J  and 93% (95/102) of patients had a  DFT ≤ 15 J  . The QRS duration, interventricular septum thickness, left ventricular mass, and mass index were significant but weak (  R < 0.3  ) univariate predictors of DFT. The left ventricular mass was the only independent predictor by multivariate analysis, but this parameter accounted for < 5% of the variability of DFT measured (  adjusted R²= 0.047, P = 0.017  ). The authors concluded that an acceptable DFT (  < 15 J  ) is observed in > 90% of patients with this dual coil and active pectoral can lead system. Clinical factors are of limited use for predicting DFTs and identifying those patients who will have high thresholds.     

A Prospective, Randomized, Comparison in Patients Between a Pectoral Unipolar Defibrillation System and That Using an Additional Inferior Vena Cava Electrode

The decrease of defibrillation energy requirement would render the currently available transvenous defibrillator more effective and favor the device miniaturization process and the increase of longevity. The unipolar defibrillation systems using a single RV electrode and the pectoral pulse generator titanium shell (CAN) proved to be very efficient. The addition of a third defibrillating electrode in the coronary sinus did not prove to offer advantages and in the superior vena cava showed only a slight reduction of the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The purpose of this study was to determine whether the defibrillation efficacy of the single lead unipolar transvenous system could be improved by adding an electrode in the inferior vena cava (IVC). In 17 patients, we prospectively and randomly compared the DFT obtained with a single lead unipolar system with the DFT obtained using an additional of an IVC lead. The RV electrode, Medtronic 6936, was used as anode (first phase of biphasic) in both configurations. A 108 cm2 surface CAN, Medtronic 7219/7220 C, was inserted in a left submuscular infraclavicular pocket and used as cathode, alone or in combination with IVC, Medtronic 6933. The superior edge of the IVC coil was positioned 2-3 cm below the right atrium-IVC junction. Thus, using biphasic 65% tilt pulses generated by a 120 microF external defibrillator, Medtronic D.I.S.D. 5358 CL, the RV-CAN DFT was compared with that obtained with the RV-CAN plus IVC configuration. Mean energy DFTs were 7.8 +/- 3.6 and 4.8 +/- 1.7 J (P < 0.0001) and mean impedance 65.8 +/- 13 O and 43.1 +/- 5.5 O (P < 0.0001) with the RV-CAN and the IVC configuration, respectively. The addition of IVC significantly reduces the DFT of a single lead active CAN pectoral pulse generator. The clinical use of this biphasic and dual pathway configuration may be considered in patients not meeting implant criteria with the single lead or the dual lead RV-superior vena cava systems. This configuration may also prove helpful in the use of very small, low output ICDs, where the clinical impact of ICD generator size, longevity, and related cost may offset the problems of dual lead systems.     

Comparison of a Unipolar Defibrillation System with a Dual Lead System Using an Enlarged Defibrillation Anode

The unipolar system for transvenous defibrillation, consisting of a single right ventricular lead as the cathode and the device shell as anode, has been shown to combine low de- fibrillation thresholds (DFTs) and simple implantation techniques. We compared the defibrillation efficacy of this system with the defibrillation efficacy of a dual lead system with a 12-cm long defibrillation anode placed in the left subclavian vein. The data of 38 consecutive patients were retrospectively analyzed. The implantation of an active can system was attempted in 20 patients (group 1), and of the dual lead system in 18 patients (group 2). Both groups had comparable demographic data, cardiac disease, ventricular function, or clinical arrhythmia. The criterion for successful implantation was a DFT of > 24 J. This criterion was met in all 18 patients of group 2, The active can system could not be inserted in 3 of the 20 group 1 patients because of a DFT > 24 J. In these patients, the implantation of one (n = 2) or two (n = 1) additional transvenous leads was necessary to achieve a DFT ≤ 24). The DFTs of the 17 successfully implanted group 1 patients were not significantly different from the 18 patients in group 2 (12.3 ± 5.7 f vs 10.8 ± 4.8 J). The defibrillation impedance was similar in both groups (50.1 ± 6.1 ± 48.9 ± 5.2 Ω). In group 1, both operation duration (66.8 ± 17 min vs 80.8 ± 11 min; P < 0.05) and fluoroscopy time (3.3 ± 2.1 min vs 5.7 ± 2.9 min; P < 0,05) were significantly shorter. Thus, the active can system allows reliable transvenous defibrillation and a marked reduction of operation duration and fluoroscopy time. The dual lead system, with an increased surface area defibrillation anode, seems to he a promising alternative for active can failures.     

The Subcutaneous Array: A New Lead Adjunct for the Transvenous ICD to Lower Defibrillation Thresholds

Despite the benefits of transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), concern exists that patients with high defibriliation thresholds (DFTs) have an inadequate safety margin between the DFT and the maximum defibrillator energy. A new transvenous ICD lead adjunct, a subcutaneous lead array (SQ Array), was developed to increase safety margins by lowering DFTs. Composed of three lead elements joined in a common yoke, the SQ Array is tunneled subcutaneously in the left lateral chest. Serving as their own controls, 20 patients were studied intraoperatively comparing transvenous lead-alone DFTs with lead-SQ Array DFTs. Seventeen males and three females were randomized to receive the SQ Array through the CPI Ventak PBx/Endotak 70 series protocol. Mean patient age was 63.7 ± 2.5 years and mean ejection fraction 0.34 ± 0.04. DFTs were determined using a precise protocol of step-down/step-up testing commencing at 20 joules. Lead-alone DFTs were tested using the proximal coil as the anode (+). For the lead-SQ Array, the proximal coil and the array were linked as a common anode. The icad-SQ Array resulted in a statistically significant reduction in mean monophasic DFT from 23.3 ± 2.3 joules (lead-alone) to 13.5 ± 1.9 joules (lead-SQ Array) (P < 0.001). Six patients had lead-alone DFTs > 25 joules but did not require thoracotomy because of adequate DFT reduction with the SQ Array. We conclude that the SQ Array adjunct to the transvenous ICD lead lowers monophasic DFTs an average of 9.8 joules (40.6%) obviating the need for a thoracotomy in selected patients .     

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.     

Efficacy of Tuned Waveforms Based on Different Membrane Time Constants on Defibrillation Thresholds: Primary Results from the POWER Trial

Background: The efficacy of tuned defibrillation waveforms versus the nominal fixed‐tilt waveform has been previously studied. However, the optimal membrane time constant for tuning was not known. The POWER (Pulsewidth Optimized Waveform Evaluation tRial) trial was designed to determine the optimal membrane time constant for programming “tuned” biphasic waveforms. Methods: This acute, multicenter study included 121 implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator patients who were randomized at implant to any two of the three membrane time constant waveforms (2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 ms). Fixed pulse widths were programmed using the measured high voltage shock impedance. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) estimates were obtained using a hybrid protocol starting with an upper limit of vulnerability estimate followed by a step‐up/step‐down ventricular fibrillation induction process. Results: DFT voltage was significantly lower using 3.5‐ and 4.5‐ms waveforms as compared to the 2.5‐ms waveform (P = 0.004 and 0.035, respectively). DFT voltage with both 3.5‐ and 4.5‐ms waveforms was ≤ that obtained with the 2.5‐ms waveform in 78.5% of the cases. The mean difference in DFT voltage using the 3.5‐ms waveform and the 4.5‐ms waveform was not significant (P = 0.4). However, the 3.5‐ms waveform gave a lower DFT than the 4.5‐ms waveform in 19 patients although the reverse was true in only nine (P = 0.02 not significant for multiple comparisons). Conclusions: The use of a 3.5‐ or 4.5‐ms time constant‐based waveforms had lower DFTs when compared to the 2.5‐ms waveform. This study suggests that the first defibrillation attempt at implantation should be with 3.5‐ or 4.5‐ms time constant‐based waveforms. The 3.5‐ms‐based waveform trended toward the best choice. (PACE 2012; 35:1253–1261)     

Improved Sensing Signals After Endocardial Defibrillation with a Redesigned Integrated Sense Pace Defibrillation Lead

Adequate sensing is a basic requirement for appropriate therapy with ICDs. Integrated sense pace defibrillation leads, which facilitate ICD implantation, show a close proximity of sensing and defibrillation electrodes that might affect the sensing signal amplitude by the high currents of internal defibrillation. In 99 patients, we retrospectively examined two integrated sense pace defibrillation leads, eitherboth with a distance of 6 mm between the tip of the lead (sensing cathode) and the right ventricular defibrillation electrode (sensing anode) or one with a distance of 12 mm. Three seconds after a shock of 20 J, mean sensing signal amplitude during sinus rhythm (SR) decreased from 10.5 ± 4.3 mVto 5.1 ± 3.7 mV (P < 0.001) for the 6-mm lead, but showed no significant decrease for the 12-mm lead. The degree of signal reduction was inversely related to the time passed since defibrillation. Significant differences in reduction of sensing signal amplitude concerning monophasic and biphasic shocks could not be observed. Mean sensing signal amplitude of VF after shocks that failed to terminate it decreased in the same order as during SR (from 8.3 ± 4.1 mV to 4.1 ± 3.2 mV), but resulted in no failure of redetection during ongoing VF. DFTs did not differ for the 6-mm and the 12-mm lead. In conclusion, close proximity of the right ventricular defibrillation coil to the sensing tip of an integrated sense pace defibrillation lead causes energy and time related reductions in sensing signal amplitude after defibrillation, and might cause undersensing in the postshock period. A new lead design with a more proximal position of the right ventricular defibrillation coil avoids these problems without impairing DFTs.     

Early Postoperative Increase in Defibrillation Threshold with Nonthoracotomy System in Humans

The stability of the defibrillation threshold (DFT) early after implantation of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator was evaluated in 15 patients. All but one patient had a three lead nonthoracotomy system using a subcutaneous patch, a right ventricular endocardial lead, and a lead in coronary sinus (n = 5) or superior vena cava (n = 9). Shocks were delivered using simultaneous in nine, sequential in three, and single pathway (coronary sinus not used) in one patient. DFTs were measured at implant (n = 15), 2–8 days postoperation (postop, n = 15), and 4–6 weeks later (n = 8). The DFT was defined as the lowest energy shock that resulted in successful defibrillation. The DFT was assessed with output beginning at 18 joules or 2–4 joules above the implant DFT. All shocks were delivered in 2- to 4-joule increments or decrements. DFTs were significantly higher postoperatively than DFTs at implant (22.7 ± 7.0 J vs 16.9 ± 3.9 J; P < 0.05), Eight of 15 patients had DFT determined at all three study periods. In these patients, DFT increased at postop (22.8 ± 8.3 J vs 16.4 ± 3.9 J at implant: P < 0.05) and returned to baseline at 4–6 weeks (16 ± 7.1) vs 16.4 ± 3.9 J at implant; P = N.S.). Thus, in patients with a multilead nonthoracotomy system, a DFT rise was observed early after implant. The DFT appears to return to baseline in 4–6 weeks. These results have important implications for programming energy output after implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation.     

Clinical Evaluation of the Safety of Repetitive Intraoperative Defibrillation Threshold Testing

One goal of the initial implantation procedure for a cardioverter defibrillator is determination of the configuration and patch location with the lowest defibrillation threshold (DFT). To determine the safety of multiple defibrillation tests, an analysis of the intraoperative defibrillation threshold tests (DFTT) in our patients was performed. In 84 patients, the mean number of DFT trials was 5.27; the mean number of joules received was 275.0. The maximum number of shocks in one implant procedure was 50 for a total of 4,895 joules without complications. Four patients received 30 or more DFT shocks without complication. There were two complications related directly to the DFTT: one patient with severe noninflammatory cardiomyopathy developed electromechanical dissociation and was subsequently resuscitated and survived; the second patient with severe triple vessel coronary artery disease suffered an intraoperative myocardial infarction during testing and eventually died 22 days postoperatively. All patients received an ICD unit; six patients had DFTs of greater than 20 joules. Based on our experience, we followed the clinical status (heart rate, blood pressure, ECG changes, fluid status, total anesthesia time) during the DFTT to determine the extent and duration of our testing protocol. Multiple shocks due to repositioning of the leads in a stable patient should not prohibit extensive testing as adverse consequences do not appear to be cumulative.     

Present understanding of shock polarity for internal defibrillation: the obvious and non-obvious clinical implications

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty about the best electrode configuration has combined with the programming flexibility in modern implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) to result in routine polarity reversal during an implant to deal with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT). We feel that this practice is not always supported by the clinical data and the present scientific understanding of defibrillation. METHOD: A meta-analysis of the clinical studies on ICD shock polarity was performed. Subgroup analyses were also performed to test the impact of high DFTs, various tilts, and the use of the hot can electrode. A review of the basic research surrounding the effects of polarity in defibrillation is also presented. RESULTS: A total of 224 patients were studied. The use of an anodal right ventricular (RV) coil lowers the mean DFT by 14.8% (P = 0.00001). It provides thresholds equal to or lower than cathodal defibrillation in 83% of patients. The fraction of patients with lower anodal DFTs was 94/224 versus 38/224 for cathodal polarity. This phenomenon may be explained by virtual electrode effects. In particular, anodal electrodes tend to produce collapsing wavefronts while cathodal electrodes tend to produce expanding proarrhythmic wavefronts. CONCLUSION: In an ICD implant, the RV coil should be the anode. Furthermore, DFT testing beginning with cathodal defibrillation is most likely unnecessary and needlessly extends the procedure's duration and increases the risks for the patient.     

Using the upper limit of vulnerability to assess defibrillation efficacy at implantation of ICDs

The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the weakest shock strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation (VF) is not induced when the shock is delivered during the vulnerable period. The ULV, a measurement made in regular rhythm, provides an estimate of the minimum shock strength required for reliable defibrillation that is as accurate or more accurate than the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV hypothesis of defibrillation postulates a mechanistic relationship between the ULV-measured during regular rhythm-and the minimum shock strength that defibrillates reliably. Vulnerability testing can be applied at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to confirm a clinically adequate defibrillation safety margin without inducing VF in 75%-95% of ICD recipients. Alternatively, the ULV provides an accurate patient-specific safety margin with a single fibrillation-defibrillation episode. Programming first ICD shocks based on patient-specific measurements of ULV rather than programming routinely to maximum output shortens charge time and may reduce the probability of syncope as ICDs age and charge times increase. Because the ULV is more reproducible than the DFT, it provides greater statistical power for clinical research with fewer episodes of VF. Limited evidence suggests that vulnerability testing is safer than conventional defibrillation testing.