The Impact of Antitachycardia Pacing with Defibrillation

Chronic recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) can be reproducibly terminated by programmed endocardiaJ right ventricular stimulation. However, antitachycardia pacing can be associated with possible acceleration of VT, while frequent episodes of VT and patient discomfort can limit treatment by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The combined use of antitachycardia pacing and the AICD (automatic implantable cardioverier defibrillator) was evaluated in 6 out of 51 patients (age 57 ± 11 years) in whom the AICD had been implanted because of recurrent VT. In each instance VT could be terminated by temporary overdrive pacing. The interactive mode of VT termination by a pacemaker (Tachylog) as well as by the AICD was assessed after implantation. In the automatic mode, the Tachylog functioned as a bipolar, ventricular inhibited (VVI) device with antitachycardia burst stimulation capability, allowing two to five stimuli at intervals of 260–300 ms and one or two interventions. During follow-up of 47 ± 24 months, the Tachylog terminated VT reliably 50–505 times per patient. When burst stimulation accelerated VT, termination was achieved by AICD discharge. Thus, drug resistant VT can be terminated by antitachycardia pacing to avoid patient discomfort. In the event of tachycardia acceleration, VT was terminated by the AICD. A universal pacemaker-defibrillafor should combine antibradycardia and antitachycardia pacing with back-up cardioversion defibrillation.     

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.     

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.     

Value of Pre-Hospital Discharge Defibrillation Testing in Recipients of Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators

Opinions vary regarding the need to perform defibrillation testing prior to hospital discharge in recipients of state-of-the-art cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Our protocol is to perform predischarge ICD testing 1 day after implant. This report includes 682 consecutive implants. Adverse observations at testing were grouped into (1) risk of defibrillation failure, (2) surgical complications, (3) sensing/pacing issues or narrow defibrillation margin warranting closer follow-up, or (4) findings correctable by device reprogramming. Among the 682 patients, 63% had single-chamber and 37% dual-chamber or biventricular ICDs. In 48 patients (7%) there were 69 concerns and/or interventions, with overlaps among the four categories, including one failure to defibrillate (0.15%), and six other patients at risk. Surgical complications included 11 hematomas (1.6%), and six lead dysfunctions. Closer follow-up was indicated in 19 patients (2.7%), for high pacing thresholds in seven, sensing issues in seven, and <10 J defibrillation margin in five. Device reprogramming was needed in 31 patients (4.5%), for tachycardia detection and therapy settings in 12, and for pacing/sensing functions in 22 patients. In eight patients ventricular fibrillation could not be induced. There was no morbidity or mortality due to testing. The state-of-the-art ICDs delivering biphasic shocks are remarkably reliable. The routine pre-hospital discharge defibrillation testing of such ICDs may be optional and left to the physicians' discretion.     

Holter Documented Sudden Death in a Patient with an Implanted Defibrillator

A 68-year-old man with recurrent attacks of monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) received a pacer cardioverter defibrillator featuring antitachycardia pacing and cardioversion/defibrillation. Over 300 episodes of VT were successfully terminated by antitachycardia pacing. During Holter monitoring the patient experienced supraventricular tachycardia with delivery of multiple antitachycardia pacing, cardioversion, and defibrillation therapies ending with the death of the patient. The following factors played a role in the unfortunate outcome of this patient: 1. triggering of VT therapy by an unexpected high sinus rate; 2. atrial fibrillation induced by cardioversion therapy; 3. a gradual and continuous increase in rate during atrial fibrillation possibly caused by repeated VT and ventricular fibrillation therapies and/or by a thrombus, found at autopsy, in a bypass graft; and 4. the limited ability of presently available defibrillators to distinguish between ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias.     

Implantable Defibrillation and Thromboembolic Events

In ICD patients thrombo-embolic events (TEEs) are described as possible complications at implant or during the follow-up. We report four cases of TEEs (two peripheral and two cerebral; 6.5% of patients) that occurred in our series during a mean follow-up of 19.4 months. The patients had chronic postinfarction LV aneurysm (3) and idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (1). None had previous embolisms nor evidence of left atrial or LV clots at standard preoperative transthoracic echocardiography. No paroxysms of atrial fibrillation were documented prior or after ICD implant. We discuss the possible causes of embolization and the suitability of anticoagulant therapy in ICD patients.     

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.     

A Report Using a Hybrid ICD System: The Need for Compatibility Among Implanted Defibrillator Components

The successful implantation of an ICD system with hardware from three different manufacturers is described. This case exemplifies the need for compatibility of components among different manufacturers. This is most relevant at a time when rapidly changing technology and hardware availability may require a mixing, by informed practitioners, of ICD system components. The parallel to the development of the uniform IS-1 standard for bradycardia devices is made.     

The Value of DDD Pacing in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator

Although the beneficial effects of DDD pacing are well known, currently available ICDs provide only fixed rate ventricular antibradycardia pacing. In a consecutive series of 139 patients with ICDs, we have analyzed the need for antibradycardia pacing and the indications for DDD pacing. We also report our initial experience with the Defender 9001 (ELA Medical, France) DDD-ICD. Out of 139 patients, 25 (18%) were in need of antibradycardia pacing. Ten patients already had a pacemaker at the time of ICD implantation and ten other patients had a conventional pacemaker indication at that time. Five patients became pacemaker dependent during a follow-up of 20 ± 8 months. The disorders necessitating pacemaker therapy were high degree AV conduction disturbances in 72%, sick sinus syndrome in 12%, and AF with a slow ventricular response in 16% of patients. Based upon current indications, DDD pacing was indicated in 20 (80%) of 25 patients. The Defender 9001 DDD-ICD (ELA Medical) was used in two patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and pacemaker syndrome with VVI pacing. Cardiac output during DDD pacing increased by 36% in one patient with an increase in VO₂ max during exercise of 29%. The other patient showed an increase in cardiac output of 50% with DDD pacing, and, while unable to exercise with VVI pacing, had a VO_2max of 24 mL/kg per minute during DDD pacing. Up to 18% of our ICD patients are in need of antibradycardia pacing. Of these pacemaker dependent patients, 80% have an indication for DDD pacing. Our first clinical experience with a DDD-ICD confirms the hemodynamic benefit of AV synchronous pacing in ICD patients with pacemaker syndrome.     

Use of the AutoCapture Pacing System with Implantable Defibrillator Leads

MARENCO, J.P., et al.: Use of the AutoCapture Pacing System with Implantable Defibrillator Leads. Introduction: Previous studies using various bipolar pacemaker leads have shown that the AutoCapture (AC) Pacing System is able to verify ventricular capture and regulate pacing output, increasing patient safety with respect to unexpected threshold changes and potentially prolonging device longevity. An increasing number of patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) require ventricular pacing that contributes to a shortening of longevity of these systems. This prospective study tested the compatibility of the AC system with bipolar ICD leads. Methods: The AC algorithm was evaluated prior to ICD testing in 30 ICD recipients. A single coil, active fixation, true bipolar ventricular lead was implanted in 21 patients, and a dual coil, passive fixation, integrated bipolar ventricular lead was implanted in 9 patients. A ventricular evoked response sensitivity test and an AC threshold test were performed using a pacemaker with the ventricular AC algorithm. Results: AC was recommended in 22/30 (73.3%) of implants, including 20/21 (95.2%) with the single coil and 2/9 (22.2%) with the dual coil lead. Mean polarization was lower (   1.23 ± 0.95 mV   vs   3.70 ± 2.33 mV, P = 0.013   ) while the mean evoked response was higher (   18.04 ± 8.29 mV   vs   10.13 ± 4.22 mV, P = 0.002   ) with the single coil leads. Conclusion: Automatic threshold tracking using the AC is compatible with ICD leads. Leads with lower polarization and greater evoked response are more likely to result in recommendation of AC use. Use of this system offers the potential for increasing ICD generator longevity and improving patient safety in response to late unexpected threshold increases. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. II]:471–473)     

Long-Term Stability of Defibrillation Thresholds with Intrapericardial Defibrillator Patches

From March 1982 to May 1, 1992, 105 consecutive patients underwent initial implant of cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) at our institution. Twenty-nine patients (23 male and 6 female, average ejection fraction 32.24%) with ICD systems implanted via thoracotomy and either intra- or extrapericardial patches, had one or more revisions including 56 generator changes or staged implant procedures, three patch revisions, one patch lead fracture without revision, and one sensing lead revision. The time between pulse generator revisions averaged 19.5 months. Initial defibrillation threshold mean was 12.8 joules (n = 25); at first revision, 14.46 joules (n = 29), (P = NS); by fifth revision, 15.0 joules (n = 2), (P = NS). One patch was noted to be crinkled at 70 months; one patch had migrated by 39 months, and two patch leads had fractured at the costal margin by 69 and 90 months. One patient with marginal defibrillation thresholds had an additional patch placed at revision to an upgraded ICD unit. Once acceptable defibrillation threshold (DFT) is obtained, the long-term intrapericardial DFT remains stable unless a specific problem occurs. As a small, nonstatistically significant increase in DFT may occur, caution must be exercised in patients with marginal DFTs.     

Pacing Induced Ventricular Fibrillation in Internal Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients: A New Form of Proarrhythmia

Current model internal cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have cardioversion, defibrillation, pacemaker, and telemetry function. Telemetry documents arrhythmia and facilitates therapeutic adjustments. We report two cases of pacing induced VF terminated by the defibrillator, with the device responsible for both initiation and correction of the arrhythmia.     

Epicardial and Nonthoracotomy Defibrillation Lead Systems Combined with a Cardioverter Defibrillator

The intraoperative and long-term results were reviewed in 67 patients who underwent implantation of the Ventritex Cadence defibrillator with either epicardial patch (EPI, 25 patients) or nonthoracotomy CPI Endotak (ENDO, 42 patients) defibrillation lead systems. In the ENDO group, 35 patients (83 %) had a defibrillation threshold (DFT) of ≤ 20 joules and did not require a subcutaneous patch. Intraoperatively, the DFT was 13 ± 9 joules (mean ± SD) for EPI and 15 ± 8 joules for ENDO (P = NS). There was no perioperative death in either group. During a mean follow-up of 12 ± 8 months, there was no sudden death, and four patients died from congestive heart failure (3 EPI, 1 ENDO). During follow-up, 875 spontaneous arrhythmia episodes (AE) occurred in 15 of 25 EPI patients (60%). versus 652 in 28 of 42 ENDO patients (67%; P = NS). Ventricular tachycardia at a rate ≥ 222 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation represented 167 AE for EPI (19%) and 182 AE for ENDO (28%), and was terminated by the first shock in 76% and 75% of attempts, respectively. Ventricular tachycardia at a rate ≥ 222 beats/min represented a total of 1,178 AE and antitachycardia pacing was successful in 660 of 708 AE (93%) with EPI and 414 of 470 AE (88%) with ENDO lead systems (P= NS). Therefore, a nonthoracotomy approach using the Cadence V-100 is safe and effective and has clinical results that are not significantly different from epicardial defibrillation lead systems.     

Preliminary results with the simultaneous use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and permanent biventricular pacemakers: implications for device interaction and development

We report our preliminary experience with the combined use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and biventricular pacemakers in six patients with heart failure and malignant ventricular arrhythmia. Two patients underwent ICD implantation for malignant ventricular arrhythmia after previous biventricular pacemaker implantation. One patient underwent biventricular pacemaker insertion for NYHA Class III heart failure after previous ICD implantation. Two patients underwent single device implantation. In the sixth patient, a combined implantation failed due to an inability to obtain a satisfactory left ventricular pacemaker lead position. The potential for device interaction was explored during implantation. In two patients a potentially serious interaction was discovered. Subsequent alterations in device configuration and programming prevented these interactions with long-term use. No complication of combined device use has been demonstrated during a mean follow-up of 2 months (range 1-4 months). Satisfactory ICD and pacemaker function has also been demonstrated. We conclude that combined device implantation may be feasible with currently available pacing technology and that further prospective studies are required in this area.     

Low Defibrillation Threshold in a Patient with a Dual-Coil Defibrillator Lead Implanted through a Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

Several reports have described the successful insertion of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with a persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). The implanters have used various techniques to achieve appropriate lead placement. In our case, the use of a long sheath, guided by a deflectable catheter, not only facilitated proper implantation of the lead, but also provided a unique position of the dual-coil lead. This resulted in a very low defibrillation threshold (DFT). We describe a case of a patient found to have a PLSVC at implant who after successful insertion of the ICD exhibited DFT ≤5 J. (PACE 2012; 35:e274-e275).     

Holter, Loop Recorder, and Event Counter Capabilities of Implanted Devices

The current generation of cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators almost all have some capabilites to store data regarding device activity and patient events for future retrieval. This information may provide valuable information regarding device function and whether this is proving valuable in patient management. Examples include "pace-sense" counters, which can reveal under sensing of patient events, and serial lead impedance measurements, which are able to demonstrate trends not seen on isolated measurements. Holter capabilities become vital in more advanced devices for documenting the utility of, and fine tuning the programming of, features such as antitachycardia pacing, rate-responsiveness, and mode-switching. Finally, the ability to store patient events as marker channels and even intrac-ardiac electrograms adds a diagnostic capability not available through external monitoring. This role has now been advanced by the development of a purely diagnostic implantable loop recorder.     

Inappropriate Shock Despite Successful Termination of Supraventricular Tachycardia by Antitachycardia Pacing during Charging

We present a case of a 70‐year‐old man who received an inappropriate implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator shock for sinus tachycardia falling outside of the ventricular tachycardia zone. This occurred after termination of supraventricular tachycardia falling into the ventricular fibrillation zone by antitachycardia pacing. Particularities of the programming algorithms are reviewed. (PACE 2010; 33:e81–e83)     

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.     

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)