Der atriale Defibrillator

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a frequent and costly health care problem representing the most common arrhythmia resulting in hospital admission. Total mortality and cardiovascular mortality are significantly increased in patients with AF compared to controls. In addition to symptoms of palpitations, patients with AF have an increased risk of stroke and may also develop decreased exercise tolerance and left ventricular dysfunction. All of these problems may be reversed with restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. External electrical cardioversion has been a remarkably effective and safe method for termination of this arrhythmia. Originally described by Lown et al. in 1963, it has been a well accepted mode of acute therapy. However, this technique requires general anesthesia or heavy sedation. Internal atrial defibrillation has been evaluated as an alternative approach to the external technique for over 2 decades. Recent studies have shown that low-energy internal atrial defibrillation using biphasic shocks is an effective and safe means in restoring sinus rhythm in patients with AF and should be considered especially in patients in whom external cardioversion attempts have failed. Implantable Atrial Defibrillator: Recently, a stand alone IAD, the Metrix^TM System (model 3000 and 3020), has entered clinical investigation. Atrial defibrillation is accomplished by a shock delivered between electrodes in the right atrium and the coronary sinus. The right atrium lead has an active fixation in the right atrium. The coronary sinus lead has a natural spiral configuration for retention in the coronary sinus, and can be straightened with a stylet. Both leads are 7 French in diameter and the defibrillation coils are each 6 cm in length. The electrodes may be placed using separate leads, or very soon by using a single bipolar lead. A separate bipolar right ventricular lead is used for R wave synchronization and post shock pacing. The Metric^TM defibrillator can be used to induce AF by using R wave synchronous shocks and can store intracardiac electrograms (EGMs) for up to 2 minutes from the most recent 6 AF episodes. The device can be programmed into one of the following operating modes: fully automatic, patient activated, monitor mode, bradycardia pacing only, and off. As AF is not life-threatening, in the automatic mode the device is only intermittently active in detecting and treating AF, and this “sleep wake-up” cycle interval is programmable. The device employs extensive processing both for detection and R wave synchronization. In April 1996, the phase I Metrix^TM multicenter clinical trial was started. As of May 1997, a total of 51 Metrix^TM systems had been implanted as part of the phase I multicenter clinical trial. Preliminary data suggest that both defibrillation thresholds and electrograms are stable over time (implant to 3 months). Detection accuracy has been excellent (100% specificity, 92.3% sensitivity) and there have been no errors of R wave selection for synchronization. No proarrhythmias have resulted from over 3700 shocks delivered. The device is effective in electrically converting 96% of the spontaneous episodes of AF. In 27% of episodes several shocks were required because of early recurrence of AF. In 5 patients, the atrial defibrillator was removed: 2 infections, 1 cardiac tamponade, 1 permanent loss of telemetry, 1 patient required His-Bundle ablation because of frequent episodes of drug refractory AF with rapid ventricular response. Initial clinical experience under controlled conditions with the Metrix^TM system suggests that the implantable atrial defibrillator may offer a therapeutic alternative for a subgroup of patients with drug refractory, symptomatic, long lasting, and infrequent episodes of AF. Further efforts must be undertaken to reduce the patient discomfort associated with internal atrial defibrillation in an attempt to make this new therapy acceptable to a larger patient population with AF. Combined Atrioventricular Defibrillator: Recently, a new dual-chamber defibrillator, the 7250 Jewel^® AF AMD, has entered clinical evaluation. Concern has been raised whether or not a stand alone implantable atrial defibrillator is safe enough or should provide ventricular backup defibrillation in the rare case of shock induced ventricular proarrhythmia. The availability of a dual-chamber defibrillator has reactivated the discussion about the safety of a stand alone implantable atrial defibrillator. The most important new features of the 7250 Jewel^® AF AMD system include: dualchamber pacing, a new dual-chamber detection criterion for rejection of supraventricular tachycardias, detection and treatment modalities of atrial arrhythmias, prevention strategies for atrial arrhythmias. Initial clinical experience with the 7250 Jewel^® AF AMD device that combines both detection and treatment in the atrium as well as in the ventricle indicates a significant improvement in the management of patients with both supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias.     

Feasibility of atrial fibrillation detection and use of a preceding synchronization interval as a criterion for shock delivery in humans with atrial fibrillation

Objectives. This study assessed the feasibility of detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) and delivery of appropriately timed R wave shocks using an implantable atrial defibrillator.Background. For atrial defibrillation therapy to be feasible in an implantable form, AF must be detected in a specific fashion, and the risk of ventricular proarrhythmia should be minimized.Methods. Eleven patients with AF underwent testing with an implantable atrial defibrillator (METRIX 3000 Automatic Atrial Defibrillator, InControl, Inc.). Wideband electrograms (EGMs) were recorded from the right ventricular (RV) bipolar catheter and from the multipolar catheters located in the right atrium (RA) and coronary sinus (CS). Atrial fibrillation detection was performed using two serial algorithms—quiet interval analysis and baseline crossing analysis—that defect atrial activity on the RA-CS channel. Ventricular sensing using a minimal preceding synchronization interval of 500 ms as a criterion for synchronous shock delivery was performed from filtered RV and RV-CS EGMs.Results. The AF detection algorithms were applied to 53 AF data segments and 18 normal sinus rhythm data segments. Atrial fibrillation was detected appropriately in 49 instances, and the specificity for detecting AF and normal sinus rhythm was 100%. Synchronization criterion efficacy was assessed by delivering shock markers and shocks. Of the 2,025 R waves processed, 557 (27.5%) were marked as suitable for shock delivery. In addition, 69 therapeutic and 11 test shocks were delivered during AF. All shock markers and shocks were delivered synchronously with the R wave, and the synchronization criterion was never violated.Conclusions. Atrial fibrillation can be detected in a specific fashion using the RA-CS lead configuration and serial detection algorithms for atrial sensing. The delivery of properly timed shocks is feasible and should minimize the risk of ventricular proarrhythmia.     

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.     

Atrial fibrillation detection and R-wave synchronization by Metrix implantable atrial defibrillator: implications for long-term efficacy and safety. The Metrix Investigators

BACKGROUND: The long-term efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection and R-wave synchronization are critical safety requirements for the development of an implantable atrial defibrillator (IAD) for treatment of AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The long-term efficacy of the Metrix IAD for AF detection and R-wave synchronization was tested in 51 patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 259+/-138 days (72 to 613 days). AF detection tests were performed 2240 times during observed operation with 100% specificity and 92.3% sensitivity for differentiation between sinus rhythm and AF; 2219 episodes and their electrograms stored in the device during AF detection were analyzed. The positive predictive value of the AF detection algorithm was 97.4% (lower 95% confidence limit [CL], 94.5%) in the out-of-hospital setting. A total of 242 435 R waves were analyzed for R-wave synchronization. Of these, 49% were marked for synchronized shock delivery, 82% of sinus rhythm and 36% of AF R waves, respectively. All shock markers were properly synchronized and within the R wave (overall synchronization accuracy, 100%; lower 95% CL, 99.999%). Overall, 3719 shocks have been delivered via the IAD with no instance of unsynchronized shock delivery or any episode of proarrhythmia. The observed proarrhythmic risk was 0%, with an estimated maximum proarrhythmic risk of 0.084% per shock (95% upper CL). CONCLUSIONS: The Metrix IAD can appropriately detect AF with a high specificity and sensitivity and reliably synchronize within a suitable R wave for shock delivery to minimize the risk of ventricular proarrhythmia.     

Limited internal shocks for atrial fibrillation refractory to external cardioversion.

We investigated the feasibility and long-term results of low-energy internal defibrillation using a limited number of shocks in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation resistant to external cardioversion. A relatively high number of shocks of lower energy are usually required in those cases and can be poorly tolerated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with persistent atrial fibrillation underwent internal defibrillation, using biphasic R wave synchronous shocks between two catheters in the high right atrium and the coronary sinus. Conversion to sinus rhythm was obtained in all patients, with a median of two shocks. Early recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) occurred in eight cases (32%). Seven patients (41%) out of 17 discharged in sinus rhythm remained free of AF after a median follow-up of 8.9 months. Severe mitral insufficiency (P=0.05) and low left ventricle ejection fraction (P=0.002) were correlated with earlier recurrence. Amiodarone significantly favored (P=0.019) maintenance of sinus rhythm. CONCLUSION: Internal defibrillation using a limited number of shocks equal to or less than 30 Joules is effective in terminating refractory atrial fibrillation and could be more acceptable for patients. However, the recurrence rate remains high, particularly in patients with severe mitral insufficiency or poor ventricular function. Amiodarone delays recurrences of atrial fibrillation.     

Clinical Shock Tolerability and Effect of Different Right Atrial Electrode Locations on Efficacy of Low Energy Human Transvenous Atrial Defibrillation Using an Implantable Lead System

Objectives. The objectives of this study were 1) to evaluate the effect of different right atrial electrode locations on the efficacy of low energy transvenous defibrillation with an implantable lead system; and 2) to qualitate and quantify the discomfort from atrial defibrillation shocks delivered by a clinically relevant method.Background. Biatrial shocks result in the lowest thresholds for transvenous atrial defibrillation, but the optimal right atrial and coronary sinus electrode locations for defibrillation efficacy in humans have not been defined.Methods. Twenty-eight patients (17 men, 11 women) with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) (lasting ≥1 month) were studied. Transvenous atrial defibrillation was performed by delivering R wave-synchronized biphasic shocks with incremental shock levels (from 180 to 400 V in steps of 40 V). Different electrode location combinations were used and tested randomly: the anterolateral, inferomedial right atrium or high right atrial appendage to the distal coronary sinus. Defibrillation thresholds were defined in duplicate by using the step-up protocol. Pain perception of shock delivery was assessed by using a purpose-designed questionnaire; sedation was given when the shock level was unacceptable (tolerability threshold).Results. Sinus rhythm was restored in 26 of 28 patients by using at least one of the right atrial electrode locations tested. The conversion rate with the anterolateral right atrial location (21 [81%] of 26) was higher than that with the inferomedial right atrial location (8 [50%] of 16, p < 0.05) but similar to that with the high right atrial appendage location (16 [89%] of 18, p > 0.05). The mean defibrillation thresholds for the high right atrial appendage, anterolateral right atrium and inferomedial right atrium were all significantly different with respect to energy (3.9 ± 1.8 J vs. 4.6 ± 1.8 J vs. 6.0 ± 1.7 J, respectively, p < 0.05) and voltage (317 ± 77 V vs. 348 ± 70 V vs. 396 ± 66 V, respectively, p < 0.05). Patients tolerated a mean of 3.4 ± 2 shocks with a tolerability threshold of 255 ± 60 V, 2.5 ± 1.3 J.Conclusions. Low energy transvenous defibrillation with an implantable defibrillation lead system is an effective treatment for AF. Most patients can tolerate two to three shocks, and, when the starting shock level (180 V) is close to the defibrillation threshold, they can tolerate on average a shock level of 260 V without sedation. Electrodes should be positioned in the distal coronary sinus and in the high right atrial appendage to achieve the lowest defibrillation threshold, although other locations may be suitable for certain patients.     

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)     

Is There Any Indication for an Intracardiac Defibrillator for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation?

ICD for Treatment of AF. The experience gained using intracardiac cardioverter defibrillators for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias has prompted the development of an automatic atrial defibrillator capable of detecting and automatically terminating atrial fibrillation (AF). Experimental studies in sheep have shown that it is possible to terminate AF with energies ranging from < 1 to 7 joules [J], using biphasic shocks. The best electrode configuration using intracardiac catheters and/or a subcutaneous patch was two catheters, one in the right atrium and the other in the coronary sinus. Current studies in man focus on the answers to three questions. First, can the experimental results of atrial defibrillation derived from healthy anesthetized sheep without spontaneous AF be extrapolated to AF in man with areas of fibrosis within the atria and/or underlying heart disease in 80% of cases? Preliminary studies in man suggest that cardioversion of AF of short duration is feasible using a mean energy of 2 J. Second, are these energies well tolerated in an awake nonsedated patient? Energies < 1 J were well tolerated, but pain resulting from higher energies needs further investigation. Third, is low-energy atrial defibrillation safe, i.e., is there a risk of ventricular arrhythmias induced by an atrial shock? Experimental results in sheep have shown that the risk of R wave synchronized shock to induce ventricular arrhythmias was only present when the preceding RR interval was shorter than 300 msec. The risk of proarrhythmia in man is undergoing evaluation and must be sufficiently low (< 0.1) before sanctioning implantation of a stand-alone (without associated ventricular defibrillator) automatic atrial defibrillator. Preliminary data on 1212 shocks showed no proarrhythmia. There is definitely a significant group of patients with attacks of AF (Class IIIB or IIIC) that are resistant to antiar-rhythmic therapy. Another group of symptomatic patients may have infrequent attacks, or poorly tolerated (syncope or heart failure) or long-lasting attacks requiring medical intervention and/or hospitalization (Class IB, IIB), for whom an automatic atrial defibrillator may be a valuable option. The alternative therapies could be either catheter ablation of the AV node with implantation of a pacemaker or selective surgery. Most of the technical problems related to AF detection and reliable atrial defibrillation have been solved. However, clinical investigations are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this new and exciting therapeutic modality.     

Marked reduction in atrial defibrillation thresholds with repeated internal cardioversion.

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to assess the atrial defibrillation threshold in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) using repeated internal cardioversion. BACKGROUND: Previous studies in patients with chronic AF undergoing internal cardioversion have shown this method to be effective and safe. However, current energy requirements might preclude patients with longer-lasting AF from being eligible for an implantable atrial defibrillator. METHODS: Internal shocks were delivered via defibrillation electrodes placed in the right atrium (cathode) and the coronary sinus (anode) or the right atrium (cathode) and the left pulmonary artery. After cardioversion, patients were orally treated with sotalol (mean 189 +/- 63 mg/day). Eighty consecutive patients with chronic AF (mean duration 291 +/- 237 days) underwent internal cardioversion, and sinus rhythm was restored in 74 patients. Eighteen patients underwent repeated internal cardioversion using the same electrode position and shock configuration after recurrence of AF (mean duration 34 +/- 25 days). RESULTS: In these 18 patients, the overall mean defibrillation threshold was 6.67 +/- 3.09 J for the first cardioversion and 3.83 +/- 2.62 J for the second (p = 0.003). Mean lead impedance was 55.6 +/- 5.1 ohms and 57.1 +/- 3.7 ohms, respectively (not significant). For sedation, 6.7 +/- 2.9 mg and 3.9 +/- 2.2 mg midazolam were administered intravenously (p = 0.003), and the pain score (0 = not felt, 10 = intolerable) was 5.1 +/- 1.9 and 2.7 +/- 1.8 (p = 0.001). Uni- and multivariate analyses revealed only the duration of AF before cardioversion to be of relevance, lasting 175 +/- 113 days before the first and 34 +/- 25 days before the second cardioversion in these 18 patients (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: If the duration of AF is reduced, a significant reduction in defibrillation energy requirements for internal cardioversion ensues. This might extend the group of patients eligible for an implantable atrial defibrillator despite relatively high initial defibrillation thresholds.     

Klinische Erfahrungen mit dem implantierbaren atrialen Defibrillator (Atrioverter) bei Patienten mit Vorhofflimmern

Due to the limited efficacy of drug therapy in atrial fibrillation and the high rate of recurrence, strong efforts were made to find non-pharmacological strategies. For three years now, the implantable atrial defibrillator Metrix from InControl has been available as an alternative therapy. From October 1995 to the present the atrial defibrillator was implanted in 179 patients worldwide. The sensitivity of the system and its algorithms to detect atrial fibrillation is 90%; the specificity to detect sinus rhythm is 100%. In 121 of 179 patients, 748 episodes of spontaneous atrial fibrillation were treated with 2.4 shocks per episode. No proarrhythmic event or stroke was seen. A cardioversion to sinus rhythm could be achieved in 95% of patients; the overall clinical success rate was 88%. In 7% of all patients, early recurrence of atrial fibrillation (ERAF) occurred that could not be converted into stable sinus rhythm after further cardioversions and antiarrhythmic therapy. In 4.1% there were lead-related complications, in 4 patients the device had to be explanted because of ineffective therapy, and in 3 patients the device had to be changed because of loss of telemetry or early depletion of battery. In 8 patients, postoperative complications were seen (infections, pneumothorax and thrombosis of the subclavian vein). Overall, the implantable atrial defibrillator Metrix is an effective and safe alternative in treating atrial fibrillation.     

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.     

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.     

What is the optimal electrode configuration for atrial defibrillators in man?

AIMS: To compare the atrial defibrillation threshold (DFT) for two electrode configurations in patients with drug refractory persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: 11 patients, 73% male, mean age 60.9 (range 38 to 83), underwent implantation of a Medtronic Jewel AF dual chamber defibrillator (model 7250). A step-up atrial DFT was performed in a randomized sequence for two electrode configurations: (1) Right atrial to distal coronary sinus electrode (RA > CS) and (2) defibrillator can to right ventricular and right atrial electrodes (CAN > RV + RA). The RA > CS configuration restored SR in 10 patients (91%). The CAN > RA + RV configuration restored SR in four patients (36%). The mean atrial DFT was significantly lower for the RA > CS than CAN > RA + RV configuration (10 +/- 7 Joules vs 25 +/- 6 Joules), P < 0.01. At 3 months post implantation, AF was reinduced and the protocol was repeated for the optimal electrode configuration. There was no significant difference in the atrial DFT compared with that at implant. CONCLUSION: The right atrium to coronary sinus electrode configuration significantly reduces the atrial DFT. The atrial DFT also remains stable at 3 months post-implantation. Patients with persistent AF undergoing insertion of an atrial defibrillator should have a coronary sinus electrode implanted.     

Is the Automatic Atrial Defibrillator a Promising Approach?

Automatic Atrial Defibrillator. Atrial fibrillation is a common arrhythmia, accounting for more consumption of medical resources than any other arrhythmia. The impact of the disease results from the combination of a loss of atrial contraction, and atrial control over cardiac rate. Studies in animals demonstrated the basic feasibility of atrial defibrillation using electrodes passed intravenously. Subsequent studies in patients confirmed that low-energy shocks were effective in converting atrial fibrillation and were safe if delivered synchronous to the R wave in the absence of a short preceding RR interval. Preliminary experience suggests that a small implanted device might provide beneficial therapy for patients with recurring episodes of persistent, drug-refractory, atrial fibrillation.     

Effect of Direct Current Shocks on Left Atrial Mechanical Function in Patients With Structural Heart Disease

Objectives. This study examined the effect of endocardial and transthoracic direct current (DC) shocks on left atrial and left atrial appendage function in humans with structural heart disease.Background. DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) to sinus rhythm is associated with transient left atrial and left atrial appendage dysfunction and the development of spontaneous echo contrast (SEC). This phenomenon has been termed atrial “stunning” and may be associated with thrombus formation and embolic stroke. To what extent the shock itself contributes to atrial stunning is unclear.Methods. Thirteen patients in sinus rhythm undergoing implantation of a ventricular implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were prospectively evaluated. All patients had significant structural heart disease. To evaluate the effects of DC shocks on left atrial and left atrial appendage function, biphasic R wave synchronized endocardial shocks of 1, 10 and 20 J were delivered between the right ventricular electrode and the left pectoral generator of the ICD in sinus rhythm. R wave synchronized transthoracic shocks of 360 J were also delivered between anteriorly and posteriorly positioned chest electrodes. Transesophageal echocardiography was performed to evaluate left atrial appendage velocities, mitral inflow velocities and the presence of SEC before and immediately after each DC shock.Results. There were no significant changes in left atrial or left atrial appendage function after endocardial or transthoracic DC shocks. Left atrial SEC did not develop after endocardial or transthoracic DC shocks.Conclusions. Endocardial and transthoracic DC shocks are not directly responsible for left atrial and left atrial appendage stunning and do not contribute to the stunning that is observed after the cardioversion of AF to sinus rhythm.     

Implantable atrial defibrillator with a single-pass dual-electrode lead

OBJECTIVES

We examined the feasibility and efficacy of using a single-pass, dual-electrode (Solo) lead for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection and defibrillation.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of an implantable atrial defibrillator (IAD) has been extensively studied; however, separate right atrial (RA) and coronary sinus (CS) defibrillation leads are used for the present system.

METHODS

We studied the use of the Solo lead for AF detection and defibrillation in 17 patients who underwent cardioversion of chronic AF. The Solo lead with a proximal 6-cm RA electrode and a distal 6-cm spiral-shaped CS electrode were positioned into the CS with the RA electrode against the anterolateral RA wall. The RA-CS electrogram signal amplitudes were measured and the efficacy of the Solo lead for AF detection and defibrillation was assessed by using an external version of the IAD.

RESULTS

The leads were inserted in all patients without complication (mean fluoroscopy time: 13.3 ± 6.8 min). The mean RA-CS signal amplitude was 484 ± 229 μV during sinus rhythm and 274 ± 88 μV during AF (p < 0.05). All patients had satisfactory atrial signal amplitude to allow accurate detection of sinus rhythm. Successful cardioversion was achieved in 16/17 (94%) patients with an atrial defibrillation threshold of 320 ± 70 V (5.5 ± 2.7 J). Insufficient interelectrode spacing resulted in suboptimal electrode locations, associated with a lower atrial signal amplitude, a higher atrial defibrillation threshold and diaphragmatic stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest a simplified lead configuration with optimal interelectrode spacing can be used with an IAD for AF detection and defibrillation.     

Activation sequences following failed atrial defibrillation

OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to examine the first activations following atrial defibrillation shocks to help understand how and where atrial fibrillation (AF) relapsed following failed shocks and to assess the difference in postshock activation between failed and successful shocks. BACKGROUND: While many studies have investigated the mechanism of ventricular defibrillation, much less is known about the mechanisms of AF. METHODS: Sustained AF was induced electrically after pericardial infusion of methylcholine in 10 sheep. Biphasic subthreshold shocks were delivered to three configurations: right atrium to distal coronary sinus (RA-CS), sequential shocks with RA-CS as the first pathway followed by proximal CS to superior vena cava as the second pathway (Sequential), and right ventricle to superior vena cava plus can (V-triad). In eight sheep, global atrial mapping was performed with 504 electrodes spaced 3 to 4 mm apart. RESULTS: Earliest postshock activations mostly arose from the left atrium for V-triad but arose from either atrium for RA-CS and Sequential. Preshock AF cycle lengths were significantly shorter at the earliest activation sites than at seven of eight other sites globally distributed over both atria. In all type B successful episodes in which one or more rapid activations occurred after the shock and in 50 of the 72 failed episodes analyzed, activation fronts spread away from the earliest site in a focal pattern, and discrete nonfragmented activation complexes were present in the first derivatives of the electrograms. In the other 22 failed episodes, earliest activation fronts spread in a nonfocal pattern, and earliest postshock electrogram derivatives were fractionated. To better interpret the activation pattern in the fragmented regions, a 504 electrode plaque with 1.5-mm electrode spacing was placed on the right atrial appendage in two additional sheep. In 11 of 108 failed episodes, earliest postshock activation appeared inside the plaque and spread in a focal pattern with nonfragmented electrogram derivatives in 10 episodes and in a reentrant pattern with fragmented electrogram derivatives in the other. CONCLUSIONS: (1) The electrode configuration influenced the location of earliest postshock activation. (2) Earliest postshock activation occurred where the preshock AF cycle length was short. (3) Earliest activations following all type B successful and most failed episodes were not fragmented and spread in a focal pattern. (4) The region of earliest postshock activation in the failed episodes without a focal postshock activation pattern exhibited regions of fragmented electrogram derivatives that may represent conduction block and possibly reentry.     

Novel electrophysiologic parameter of dispersion of atrial repolarization: comparison of different atrial pacing methods

INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneity of ventricular repolarization plays a major role in reentrant tachyarrhythmias in cardiac tissue. However, the role of atrial repolarization added activation time (AT) to refractoriness in atrial vulnerability has not been investigated in detail. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 34 patients: 18 with atrial fibrillation (AF) and 16 without AF (control group). The effective refractory periods (ERPs) in the right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrium, high right septum, and distal coronary sinus, and ATs from P wave onset to each electrogram during sinus rhythm and right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrial, high right septal, distal coronary sinus, and biatrial pacing were measured. Atrial recovery time, defined as the sum of AT and ERP, and its dispersions during sinus rhythm, right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrial, high right septal, distal coronary sinus, and biatrial pacing were calculated. Both ERP dispersion and atrial recovery time dispersion during sinus rhythm were significantly greater in the AF group than in the control group. Atrial recovery time dispersion during distal coronary sinus, high right septal, or biatrial pacing was significantly smaller than that during right atrial appendage or low lateral right atrial pacing in each group. In particular, atrial recovery time dispersion during distal coronary sinus pacing was the smallest of the five pacing methods in the AF group. P wave duration during biatrial or high right septal pacing was significantly shorter than during right atrial appendage, low lateral right atrial, or distal coronary sinus pacing in each group. CONCLUSION: Atrial recovery time dispersion is suitable as an electrophysiologic parameter of atrial vulnerability. Distal coronary sinus pacing may prevent AF by increasing homogeneity of atrial repolarization, whereas biatrial and high right septal pacing contribute not only homogeneity of atrial repolarization but also improvement of atrial depolarization.     

Spontaneous episodes of atrial fibrillation after implantation of the Metrix Atrioverter: observations on treated and nontreated episodes. Metrix Investigators

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the number and duration of device-treated and self-terminating, nontreated episodes of atrial fibrillation (AF) after implantation of the Metrix Atrioverter. BACKGROUND: A recent study has shown that the Atrioverter can rapidly restore sinus rhythm in patients with AF; however, the effect of the device on the clinical course of the arrhythmia in these patients is unknown. METHODS: The Atrioverter was implanted in 51 patients with symptomatic, recurrent, drug-refractory AF. The device was programmed to periodically monitor the cardiac rhythm. Defibrillation of AF episodes was performed under physician observation. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 260 +/- 144 days, 1,161 episodes of AF were observed during valid monitoring periods in 45 of 51 patients. Forty-one patients experienced 231 episodes for which they sought defibrillation therapy. The average duration of the treated episodes during valid monitoring periods (190 of 231 episodes in 39 of 41 patients) was significantly longer than that of the nontreated episodes (38 +/- 44 vs. 10 +/- 8 h; p < 0.05). The time between episodes requiring Atrioverter therapy increased, and the risk of having an episode requiring treatment decreased. No changes were observed in the number and duration of the short-lasting, nontreated episodes as time since implantation of the device increased. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic, recurrent, drug-refractory AF, the frequency of long-lasting episodes, which were treated under observation with repeated defibrillation using the Atrioverter, decreased. The number and duration of short-lasting, nontreated episodes did not change during the 20-month study period. The effect of ambulatory use of the device on the recurrence of short-lasting episodes needs to be evaluated.