Effect of Electrode Length on Atrial Defibrillation Thresholds

Electrode Length for Atrial Defibrillation. Introduction: Catheter-based electrodes have been used previously to terminate episodes of atrial fibrillation in animals and man. Typically, these electrodes span 6 to 7 cm, and lowest energy requirements are achieved when these electrodes are positioned in the distal coronary sinus and in the right atrium. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of longer electrode lengths for atrial defibrillation. Methods and Results: In 15 patients, two decapolar catheters were inserted, one into the distal coronary sinus and one in the right atrium. To provide longer electrodes lengths, a third catheter was inserted and alternated positioned in the right atrium or coronary sinus. A 6-cm electrode span was obtained by using the distal 8 rings on the coronary sinus catheter or 8 consecutive electrodes on the right atrial catheter and increased from 6 to 11 cm by connecting consecutive, nonoverlapping rings of the third catheter with the 10 rings of the initial right atrial or coronary sinus catheter. Atrial defibrillation thresholds were determined twice, in a randomized order, in each patient for each of the three combinations of electrode lengths. All 15 patients could he successfully converted to sinus rhythm without complications; however, one patient could be converted reproducibly with only 2 of the 3 electrode combinations. Mean thresholds were 306 ± 102 V, 5.9 ± 4.0 J for the 6 cm/6 cm electrode length combination with an impedance of 72 ± 18 ω. For the electrode combination using the 11-cm electrode in the right atrium, the defibrillation threshold was 296 ± 107 V, 5.8 ± 3.9 J with an impedance of 61 ± 17 ω and was 294 ± 91 V, 5.6 ± 3.6 J with an impedance of 55 ± 11 ω for the 11-cm electrode in the coronary sinus. There were no significant differences in defibrillation voltage or energy (P > 0.05) associated with the longer electrode lengths; however, the longer electrode lengths did significantly lower shock impedance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of longer electrodes, when using the right atrium to coronary sinus shock vector, does not lower the defibrillation requirements for restoration of sinus rhythm.     

Low-Energy Transvenous Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation Using a Single Atrial Lead System

Atrial Cardioversion Using a Single Atrial Lead System. Introduction: Clinical studies have shown that electrical conversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) is feasible with transvenous catheter electrodes at low energies. We developed a single atrial lead system that allows atrial pacing, sensing, and defibrillation to improve and facilitate this new therapeutic option. Methods and Results: The lead consists of a tripolar sensing, pacing, and defibrillation system. Two defibrillation coil electrodes are positioned on a stylet-guided lead. A ring electrode located between the two coils serves as the cathode for atrial sensing and pacing. We used this lead to cardiovert patients with acute or chronic AE. The distal coil was positioned in the coronary sinus, and the proximal coil and the ring electrode in the right atrium. R wave synchronized biphasic shocks were delivered between the two coils. Atrial signal detection and pacing were performed using the proximal coil and the ring electrode. Eight patients with acute AF (38 ± 9 min) and eight patients with chronic AF (6.6 ± 5 months) were included. The fluoroscopy time for lead placement was 3.5 ± 4.3 minutes. The atrial defibrillation threshold was 2.0 ± 1.4 J for patients with acute AE and 9.2 ± 5.9 J for patients with chronic AF (P < 0.01). The signal amplitude detected was 1.7 ± 1.1 mV during AF and 4.0 ± 2.9 mV after restoration of sinus rhythm (P < 0.001). Atrial pacing was feasible at a threshold of 4.4 ± 3.3 V (0.5-msec pulse width). Conclusions: Atrial signal detection, atrial pacing, and low-energy atrial defibrillation using this single atrial lead system is feasible in various clinical settings. Tbis system might lead to a simpler, less invasive approach for internal atrial cardioversion.     

Implantable Atrial Defibrillators

Implantable Atrial Defibrillators. Due to the limited efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs for atrial fibrillation, several nonpharmacologic therapeutic options have evolved. One of these is an implantable atrial defibrillator. Recent studies have shown that internal atrial defibrillation is feasible with relatively low energies. To date, the optimal electrode configuration involves large surface area catheters in the right atrium and coronary sinus. In humans, atrial defibrillation can generally be achieved with < 2 J using this electrode configuration and a biphasic shock waveform. For shocks < 5 J, there is no significant pathological damage to the atria or coronary sinus. Further investigation is needed to guarantee that atrial defibrillation shocks do not provoke ventricular arrhythmias. Preliminary data suggest that atrial defibrillation shocks synchronized to R waves that are not closely coupled are safe. In addition, the shocks are well tolerated if the shock energy is < 1.5 J. With additional studies to confirm the safety of implantable atrial defibrillators, further reduce shock energy, and improve patient tolerance, an implantable atrial defibrillator can become an acceptable therapy for patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.     

Immediate Reinitiation of Atrial Fibrillation Following Internal Atrial Defibrillation

Immediate Reinitiation of AF. Introduction: Although the recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation has been reported to be similar to that after external and internal cardioversion, little is known about immediate reinitiation of atrial fibrillation (IRAF) following internal cardioversion. Methods and Results: Thirty-eight patients (24 men; mean age 63 ± 13 years) underwent internal atrial defibrillation. Catheter-based defibrillation electrodes were positioned in the anterolateral right atrium and the coronary sinus. All patients were cardioverted at a mean threshold of 4.6 ± 3.4 J. Five of 38 patients (13%) had 1 to 4 episodes of IRAF. No difference in clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were observed when patients with and without IRAF were compared. Atrial fibrillation was always reinitiated by an atrial premature beat. When the earliest atrial endocardial activation time on the defibrillation catheters was analyzed, these atrial premature heats did not seem to originate from the defibrillation catheters. Twenty-one patients had atrial premature heats without IRAF. When the coupling intervals of the first atrial premature heat in patients without and with IRAF after conversion were compared, a significant difference was found (661 ± 229 vs 418 ± 79 msec, P < 0.05). IRAF was successfully treated with repeated shock delivery after the administration of atropine in 1 patient and intravenous flecainide in 2. Only repeated shock delivery was sufficient to treat IRAF in another 2 patients. Late recurrences of atrial fibrillation occurred in 3 of 5 with IRAK and in 19 of 33 patients without IRAF (P = NS). Conclusion: IRAF after internal atrial defibrillation occurred in 13% of patients, was always initiated by an atrial premature heat having a short coupling interval not originating from the defibrillation catheters, and was prevented by repeated shock delivery with or without preceding administration of pharmacologic agents. IRAF did not predict early recurrences of the arrhythmia after discharge from the hospital, emphasizing the necessity to treat immediate reinitiation promptly to achieve a successful cardioversion.     

Atrial defibrillation with a transvenous lead: a randomized comparison of active can shocking pathways.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare transvenous atrial defibrillation thresholds with lead configurations consisting of an active left pectoral electrode and either single or dual transvenous coils. BACKGROUND: Low atrial defibrillation thresholds are achieved using complex lead systems including coils in the coronary sinus. However, the efficacy of more simple ventricular defibrillation leads with active pectoral pulse generators to defibrillate atrial fibrillation (AF) is unknown. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of shock configuration on atrial defibrillation thresholds in 32 patients. The lead system was a dual coil Endotak DSP lead with a left pectoral pulse generator emulator. Shocks were delivered either between the right ventricular coil and an active can in common with the proximal atrial coil (triad) or between the atrial coil and active can (transatrial). RESULTS: Delivered energy at defibrillation threshold was 7.1 +/- 6.0 J in the transatrial configuration and 4.0 +/- 4.2 J in the triad configuration (p < 0.005). Moreover, a low threshold (< or = 3 J) was observed in 69% of subjects in the triad configuration but only 47% in the transatrial configuration. Peak voltage and shock impedance were also lowered significantly in the triad configuration. Left atrial size was the only clinical predictor of the defibrillation threshold (r = 0.57, p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that low atrial defibrillation thresholds can be achieved using a single-pass transvenous ventricular defibrillation lead with a conventional ventricular defibrillation pathway. These data support the development of the combined atrial and ventricular defibrillator system.     

Effect of shock polarity on ventricular defibrillation threshold using a transvenous lead system

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the polarity of a monophasic shock used with a transvenous lead system affects the defibrillation threshold.Background. The ability to implant an automatic defibrillator depends on achieving an adequate defibriilation threshold.Methods. A transvenous defibrillation lead with distal and proximal shocking electrodes was used in this study. In 29 consecutive patients, the defibrillation threshold, using a step-down protocol was determined twice in random order: 1) with the distal coil as the anode, and 2) with the polarity reversed. Only the 20 patients in whom an adequate defibrillation threshold could be obtained with the transvenous lead alone were included in this study. These patients were 61 ± 14 years old (mean ± SD) and had a mean ejection fraction of 28 ± 12%.Results. The mean defibrillation threshold was 11.5 ± 5.0 J with the distal coil as the anode versus 16.9 ± 7.7 J with the distal coil as the cathode (p = 0.04). The defibrillation threshold was lower by a mean of 9 ± 7 J with the former configuration in 14 patients and was lower by a mean of 7 ± 6 J with the latter configuration in 3 patients; in 3 patients it was the same with both configurations. Use of a subcutaneous patch was avoided in five patients by utilizing the distal electrode as the anode.Conclusions. Defibrillation thresholds with monophasic shocks are ~30% lower with the distal electrode as the anode. The use of anodal shocks may obviate the need for a subcutaneous patch and allow more frequent implantation of a transvenous lead system.     

Effect of Electrode Configuration and Capacitor Size on Internal Atrial Defibrillation Threshold Using Leads Currently Used for Ventricular Defibrillation.

Background: Previous studies have shown that endocardial atrial defibrillation, using lead configurations specifically designed for ventricular defibrillation, is feasible but the substantial patient discomfort might prevent the widespread use of the technique unless significant improvements in shock tolerability are achieved. It has been suggested that the peak voltage or the peak current but not the total energy delivered determines the patient pain perception and therefore, lower defibrillating voltage and current achieved with modifications in lead and waveforms may increase shock tolerability. This study was undertaken to evaluate the effect, on the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT), of the addition of a patch electrode (mimicking the can electrode) to the right ventricle (RV)-superior vena cava (SVC) lead configuration. The influence of capacitor size on ADFT using the RV-SVC+skin patch configuration was also assessed.Methods: In 10 patients (pts) (Group 1) cardioversion thresholds were evaluated using biphasic shocks in two different configurations: 1) right ventricle (RV) to superior vena cava (SVC); 2) RV to SVC+skin patch. In a second group of twelve patients (Group 2) atrial defibrillation thresholds of biphasic waveforms that differed with the total capacitance (90 or 170 µF) were assessed using the RV to SVC+skin patch configuration.Results: In Group 1 AF was terminated in 10/10 pts (100 %) with both configurations. There was no significant difference in delivered energy at the defibrillation threshold between the two configurations (7.1 ± 5.1 J vs 7.1 ± 2.6 J; p < 0.05). In group 2 AF was terminated in 12/12 pts (100%) with both waveforms. The 170 µF waveform provided a significantly lower defibrillating voltage (323.7 ± 74.6 V vs 380 ± 70.2 V; p < 0.03) and current (8.1 ± 2.7 A vs 10.0 ± 2.3 A; p < 0.04) than the 90 µF waveform. All pts, in both groups, perceived the shock of the lowest energy tested (180 V) as painful or uncomfortable.Conclusions: The addition of a patch electrode to the RV-SVC lead configuration does not reduce the ADFT. Shocks from larger capacitors defibrillate with lower voltage and current but pts still perceive low energy subthreshold shocks as painful or uncomfortable.     

Transvenous Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation using Low-Energy Shocks

Recent reports have suggested that transvenous cardioversion ofatrial fibrillation is feasible using low-energy shocks and a right atriumcoronary sinus electrode configuration. We evaluated in a prospective studythe efficacy and safety of low-energy internal cardioversion of atrialfibrillation in 104 consecutive patients. Sixty-two patients presented withchronic atrial fibrillation (group I), 16 had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation(group II), and 26 had an induced atrial fibrillation episode (group III).The mean duration of the presenting episode of atrial fibrillation was 9± 19 months for group I, 4 ± 2 days for group II, and 18± 7 minutes for group III. Atrial defibrillation was performed usingtwo intracardiac catheters: one was placed in the right atrium (cathode) andthe other in the coronary sinus or in the left branch of the pulmonaryartery (anode). The catheters were connected to a customized externaldefibrillator capable of delivering 3/3-ms biphasic waveform shocks with avoltage programmable between 10 and 400 volts. The shocks were synchronizedto the R wave. Sinus rhythm was restored in 44 of the 62 patients in group I(70%), in 12 of the 16 patients in group II (75%), and in 20of 26 patients in group III (77%). The mean voltage and energyrequired for cardioversion were respectively 300 ± 68 V and 3.5± 1.5 J, for group I, 245 ± 72 V and 2.0 ± 0.9 J forgroup II, and 270 ± 67 V and 2.6 ± 1.2 J for group III. Theleading-edge voltage required for sinus rhythm restoration was significantlyhigher (p < 0.05) in the chronic atrial fibrillation group than in theparoxysmal or induced groups. No proarrhythmic effects ocurred for thedelivered 686 R-wave synchronized shocks. This study of a large group ofpatients confirms and extends the results of previous reports. Such findingsmay have clinical implications for elective cardioversion of atrialfibrillation and the development of an implantable atrial defibrillator.     

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.     

Favorable effects of flecainide in transvenous internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of intravenous (IV) flecainide on defibrillation energy requirements in patients treated with low-energy internal atrial cardioversion.BackgroundInternal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is becoming a more widely accepted therapy for acute episode termination and for implantable atrial defibrillators.MethodsTwenty-four patients with atrial fibrillation (19 persistent, 5 paroxysmal) underwent elective transvenous cardioversion according to a step-up protocol. After successful conversion in a drug-free state, atrial fibrillation was induced by atrial pacing; IV flecainide (2 mg/kg) was administered and a second threshold was determined. In patients in whom cardioversion in a drug-free state failed notwithstanding a 400- to 550-V shock, a threshold determination was attempted after flecainide.ResultsChronic persistent atrial fibrillation was converted in 13/19 (68%) patients at baseline and in 16/19 (84%) patients after flecainide. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was successfully cardioverted in all the patients. A favorable effect of flecainide was observed either in chronic persistent atrial fibrillation (13 patients) or in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (5 patients) with significant reductions in energy requirements for effective defibrillation (persistent atrial fibrillation: 4.42 ± 1.37 to 3.50 ± 1.51 J, p < 0.005; paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: 1.68 ± 0.29 to 0.84 ± 0.26 J, p < 0.01). In 14 patients not requiring sedation, the favorable effects of flecainide on defibrillation threshold resulted in a significant reduction in the scores of shock-induced discomfort (3.71 ± 0.83 vs. 4.29 ± 0.61, p < 0.005). No ventricular proarrhythmia was observed for any shock.ConclusionsIntravenous flecainide reduces atrial defibrillation threshold in patients treated with low-energy internal atrial cardioversion. This reduction in threshold results in lower shock-induced discomfort. Additionally, flecainide may increase the procedure success rate in patients with chronic persistent atrial fibrillation.     

Atrial defibrillation thresholds of electrode configurations available to an atrioventricular defibrillator

INTRODUCTION: Little investigation has been conducted to assess the atrial defibrillation thresholds of electrode configurations using electrodes designed for internal ventricular defibrillation (right ventricle [RV], superior vena cava [SVC], and pulse generator housing [Can]) combined with coronary sinus (CS) electrodes. We hypothesized that a CS-->SVC+Can electrode configuration would have a lower atrial defibrillation threshold than a standard configuration for defibrillation, RV-->SVC+Can. We also tested the atrial defibrillation thresholds of five other configurations. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 12 closed chest sheep, we situated a two-coil (RV, SVC) defibrillation catheter, a left-pectoral subcutaneous Can, and a CS lead. Atrial fibrillation was burst induced and maintained with continuous infusion of intrapericardial acetyl-beta-methylcholine chloride. Using fixed-tilt biphasic shocks, we determined the atrial defibrillation thresholds of seven test configurations in random order according to a multiple-reversal protocol. The peak voltage and delivered energy atrial defibrillation thresholds of CS-->SVC+Can (168+/-67 V, 2.68+/-2.40 J) were significantly lower than those of RV-->SVC+Can (215+/-88 V, 4.46+/-3.40 J). The atrial defibrillation thresholds of the other test configurations were RV+CS-->SVC+Can: 146+/-59 V, 1.92+/-1.45 J; RV-->CS+SVC+Can: 191+/-89 V, 3.53+/-3.19 J; CS-->SVC: 188+/-98 V, 3.77+/-4.14 J; SVC-->CS+ Can: 265+/-145 V, 7.37+/-9.12 J; and SVC-->Can: 516+/-209 V, 24.5+/-15.0 J. CONCLUSIONS: The atrial defibrillation threshold of CS-->SVC+Can is significantly lower than that of RV-->SVC+Can. In addition, the low atrial defibrillation threshold of RV+CS-->SVC+Can merits further investigation. Based on corroboration of low atrial defibrillation thresholds of CS-based configurations in humans, physicians might consider using CS leads with atrioventricular defibrillators.     

慢性快速心房起搏心房颤动犬内皮型一氧化氮合酶mRNA表达变化的研究

为研究慢性快速心房起搏心房颤动(简称房颤)犬模型中心内膜内皮型一氧化氮合酶(eNOS)mRNA表达的变化,探讨其与心房结构重构、血栓形成的关系。13只健康犬随机分为假手术组和起搏组,应用埋藏式高频率心脏起搏器快速起搏心房(400次 /分) 6周,取左、右心房,左、右心耳及主动脉内膜。通过逆转录 聚合酶链反应 (RT PCR),以β actin为内参照,测定犬心内膜eNOSmRNA表达的变化,同时检测血浆NO代谢产物硝酸盐 (NOx)的含量。结果:正常犬心脏eNOSmRNA表达存在差异,左房、左心耳明显高于右房、右心耳;起搏 6周后左房、左心耳eNOSmRNA表达起搏组明显低于假手术组,而右房、右心耳、主动脉无明显差别,血浆NOx起搏组亦明显低于假手术组。结论:正常犬心脏eNOS基因表达是不平衡的,左房明显高于右房。房颤犬eNOSmRNA表达降低可能是心房结构重构,血栓形成的重要因素之一。     

Low Energy Intracardiac Cardioversion After Failed Conventional External Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation

Objectives. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of intracardiac cardioversion in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation after unsuccessful external cardioversion.Background. Previous studies in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing intracardiac cardioversion have suggested that intracardiac cardioversion is highly effective and safe. However, the characteristics of patients who benefit most from this invasive technique are unknown.Methods. We prospectively studied 25 consecutive patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (11 ± 9 months). All patients had undergone at least three attempts at conventional external transthoracic cardioversion by means of paddles in an anteroposterolateral position applying energies up to 360 J without success. Intracardiac shocks were delivered by an external defibrillator through defibrillation electrodes placed in the right atrium and coronary sinus or in the right atrium and left pulmonary artery. After conversion, all patients were treated orally with sotalol (mean 194 ± 63 mg/day).Results. Internal cardioversion was successful in 22 of 25 patients at a mean defibrillation threshold of 6.5 ± 3.0 J. Mean lead impedance was 56.4 ± 7.4 Ω. No severe complications were observed. At a mean follow-up of 15 ± 12 months, 12 (55%) of the patients treated successfully remained in sinus rhythm.Conclusions. In patients with failed external cardioversion, internal cardioversion offers a new option for restoring sinus rhythm. Intracardiac cardioversion is an effective and safe method and can be easily performed in patients with minimal sedation.     

Optimization of Shocking Lead Configuration for Transvenous Atrial Defibrillation

Optimum Electrodes for Atrial Defibrillation. Introduction : High atrial defibrillation energy requirements (ADER) in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) may limit the acceptance of transvenous atrial defibrillation. We evaluated an optimized defibrillation electrode configuration that could help to reduce the ADKR in patients with AF.
Methods and Results : We tested ten different configurations in nine dogs with AF (3.33 ± 2.92 days) induced by rapid atrial pacing. The configurations were: right atrial (RA) appendage as anode und coronary sinus (CS) as cathode; RA and innominate vein (I) as anode to CS (cathode); RA-CS (anode) to I (cathode); I-CS (anode) to RA (cathode); RA and left lateral subcutaneous patch (P) as anode to CS (cathode); RA-CS (anode) to P (cathode); P-CS (anode) to RA (cathode); superior vena cava (SVC) and CS (anode) to RA (cathode); RA-CS (anode) to SVC (cathode); and RA-SVC (anode) to CS (cathode). ADER was defined as the voltage needed to defibrillate the atria in 10% to 90% of 20 consecutive shocks. Three lead systems had ADER lower than the RA (anode) to CS (cathode) configuration, which required a mean of 143 ± 58 volts. These three were: RA-SVC (anode) to CS (cathode) 103 ± 29 V; I-CS (anode) to RA (cathode) 129 ± 39 V; and P-CS (anode) to RA (cathode) 130 ± 38 V. The remaining configurations had ADER higher than the RA (anode) to CS (cathode) configuration.
Conclusion : Adding an additional shocking electrode may reduce ADER when compared with the RA (anode) to CS (cathode) configuration. This concept could he incorporated into future implantable atrial defibrillators or used for refractory patients undergoing temporary transvenous cardioversion.     

Right Atrial Thrombi and Depressed Right Atrial Appendage Function After Cardioversion of Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that cardioversion of atrial fibrillation may result in left atrial chamber and appendage dysfunction and cause new thrombi in the left atrium. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate right atrial appendage function and assess the incidence of new right atrial thrombi after electrical cardioversion. METHODS: Transthoracic echocardiography was performed in 25 patients 4 h before and at 24 h and 7 days after electrical cardioversion to determine right and left atrial mechanical function (internal atrial defibrillation, n = 16; external electrical cardioversion, n = 9), as assessed by peak A wave velocities derived from the transtricuspid and transmitral velocity profiles. In addition, transesophageal echocardiography was performed 4 h before and 24 h after cardioversion to evaluate postcardioversion thrombus formation in the right and left atrial chambers and to assess right and left atrial appendage function. The degree of spontaneous echo contrast was noted, and peak emptying velocities of the appendages were measured before and after cardioversion. RESULTS: Peak emptying velocities of both the right atrial appendage (mean +/- SD, 0.23 +/- 0.1 vs 0.32 +/- 0.11 m/sec; P = 0.02) and the left atrial appendage (0.3 +/- 0.15 vs 0.4 +/- 0.15 m/sec; P = 0.01) were significantly lower 24 h after cardioversion compared with 4 h before cardioversion, respectively. The degree of spontaneous echo contrast increased in the left atrium after cardioversion from 1.0 +/- 1.2 to 1.9 +/- 2.1 (P = 0.02), and in the right atrium, it increased from 0.8 +/- 1.1 to 1.2 +/- 1.1 (P = 0.1) after cardioversion. Peak A wave transtricuspid velocity increased from 0.26 +/- 0.05 m/sec at 24 h to 0.38 +/- 0.06 m/sec (P = 0.001) after 7 days; respective values for transmitral peak A wave velocity were 0.39 +/- 0.15 and 0.54 +/- 0.16 m/sec (P = 0.009). No thrombi were found in either the right or left atrium before cardioversion. In two patients, new thrombi in the right atrium were detected 24 h after internal atrial defibrillation. Thrombi were located at the superior rim of the fossa ovalis in both patients with patent foramen ovale. Another patient had developed a thrombus in the left atrial appendage. CONCLUSIONS: Electrical cardioversion may not only cause left atrial chamber and appendage dysfunction and left atrial thrombi but also lead to depressed right atrial appendage function and the generation of new thrombi in the body of the right atrium.     

Reduction of the internal atrial defibrillation threshold with balanced orthogonal sequential shocks

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) of a first shock across the standard right atrium (RA) to distal coronary sinus (dCS) configuration followed by a second shock along the atrial septum with a standard sequential waveform (the second shock leading edge equaled the first shock trailing edge) and a balanced sequential waveform (the leading edges of both shocks were equal). METHODS AND RESULTS: In nine sheep atrial fibrillation was induced with acetyl-beta-methylcholine and burst pacing. A catheter was placed with electrodes in the dCS, proximal coronary sinus (pCS), and RA. A J-shaped catheter was positioned with an electrode at Bachmann's bundle (BB) while another catheter was positioned with an electrode in the superior vena cava (SVC). The ADFTs of six single- and dual-pathway configurations were determined with single, standard sequential, or balanced sequential shocks. The ADFT of the RA-->dCS configuration (0.86 +/- 0.27 J, 159 +/- 29 V, 2.42 +/- 0.36 A) was significantly reduced when followed by an SVC-->pCS (0.58 +/- 0.17 J, 112 +/- 20 V, 1.64 +/- 0.39 A) or a BB-->pCS shock (0.64 +/- 0.16 J, 119 +/- 18 V, 1.81 +/- 0.38 A) with standard sequential shocks. With balanced sequential shocks, the peak voltage and current ADFTs were further significantly reduced (85 +/- 11 V and 1.24 +/- 0.21 A for second shock SVC-->pCS, and 93 +/- 13 V and 1.38 +/- 0.27 A for second shock BB-->pCS). CONCLUSION: The ADFT of the standard RA-->dCS shock is significantly reduced when followed by a second shock along the atrial septum delivered between electrodes in the pCS and either SVC or BB and ADFT is further reduced with balanced sequential shocks.     

Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation Following Ventricular Defibrillation with Transvenous Lead Systems in Man

Atrial Fibrillation After Ventricular Defibrillation. Introduction: The induction of atrial fibrillation (AF) following implantable defibrillator therapy of ventricular fibrillation carries multiple risks. The frequency of shock-induced AF may be more problematic in patients with transvenous defibrillators because current is often delivered through atrial tissue. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of AF following transvenous ventricular defibrillation. Methods and Results: Atrial electrograms were recorded before and after energy delivery in patients undergoing intraoperative testing of transvenous defibrillation lead systems. A total of 114 tracings were examined from 21 patients following ventricular defibrillation. Transvenous deflbrillation shock strength ranged between 200–800 volts (2–40 joules). Bipolar atrial electrograms were obtained from atrial electrodes with 1-cm interelectrode spacing located on one of the defibrillation catheters. The timing of the ventricular defibrillation shock was expressed as a percentage of the preceding sinus PP interval. Three of the 114 transvenous shocks (2.6%) generated AF. Each episode of AF occurred in a different patient. The shocks responsible for AF occurred at 21%, 43%, and 84% of the preceding sinus PP interval. No relation was found between AF induction and the timing of pulse delivery, pulse strength, or pulse number. Conclusion: We conclude that transvenous ventricular defibrillation infrequently causes AF and that timing shock delivery to the atrial cycle is likely to be of marginal or no benefit in the prevention of shock-induced AF. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 3, pp. 411–417, October 1992)     

Lack of benefit of an active pectoral pulse generator on atrial defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads, which has led to the development of combined atrial and ventricular devices. For ventricular defibrillation, use of an active pectoral electrode (active can) in the shocking pathway markedly reduces defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). However, the effect of an active pectoral can on atrial defibrillation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective, randomized, paired comparison of two shock configurations on atrial DFTs in 33 patients. The lead system evaluated was a dual-coil transvenous defibrillation lead with a left pectoral pulse generator emulator. Shocks were delivered either between the right ventricular coil and proximal atrial coil (lead) or between the right ventricular coil and an active can in common with the atrial coil (active can). Delivered energy at DFT was 4.2 +/- 4.1 J in the lead configuration and 5.0 +/- 3.7 J in the active can configuration (P = NS). Peak current was 32% higher with an active can (P < 0.01), whereas shock impedance was 18% lower (P < 0.001). Moreover, a low threshold (< or = 3 J) was observed in 61% of subjects in the lead configuration but in only 36% in the active can configuration (P < 0.05). There were no clinical predictors of the atrial DFT. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that low atrial DFTs can be achieved using a transvenous ventricular defibrillation lead. Because no benefit was observed with the use of an active pectoral electrode for atrial defibrillation, programmable shock vectors may be useful for dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillators.     

Ventricular Fibrillation Resulting from Synchronized Internal Atrial Defibrillation in a Patient with Ventricular Preexcitation

VF After Synchronized Internal Atrial Defibrillation. This case describes ventricular proarrhythmia as a result of a synchronized internal atrial defibrillation shock in a 29-year-old man with Ebstein's anomaly referred for radiofrequency ablation of a right posterior accessory pathway. During the electrophysiologic study, atrial fibrillation was induced and 3/3 msec shocks of various strengths were delivered between two decapolar defibrillation catheters in the coronary sinus and right atrial appendage. A 2.0-J biphasic shock synchronized to an R wave after a short-long-short ventricular cycle length pattern with a preshock coupling interval of 245 msec induced ventricular fibrillation, which was externally defibrillated with 200 J. This observation has implications for the development of implantable atrial defibrillators.     

Atrial defibrillation threshold in humans minutes after atrial fibrillation induction; "A stitch in time saves nine".

AIMS: To assess the effects of atrial fibrillation duration on the defibrillation threshold in atrial fibrillation patients seconds or minutes after initiation of the arrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nineteen patients with recurrent symptomatic atrial fibrillation were evaluated. After programmed induction of atrial fibrillation, the defibrillation threshold was assessed after two sequential periods of arrhythmia in the same patient: an "ultrashort" period of 30 s duration and a "short" period, which lasted 10 min. After the specified period, internal cardioversion was attempted using a balloon-guided catheter that allows the delivery of biphasic shocks between one electrode array placed in the left pulmonary artery and a proximal electrode array on the lateral right atrial wall. The defibrillation threshold was assessed with energy steps of 0.5 J with a starting level of 0.5 J. Mean time from induction to successful defibrillation was 92+/-30 s after the "ultrashort" period of atrial fibrillation and 910+/-86 s after the short period. The defibrillation threshold was significantly greater after 10 min of atrial fibrillation than after 30 s of arrhythmia (2.32+/-0.61 J vs 1.31+/-0.66 J, P<0.001). Clinical data were not found to affect the defibrillation threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Prolongation of atrial fibrillation over minutes in patients with paroxysmal arrhythmia increases the energy requirements for successful defibrillation.