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.     

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.     

Trans venous-Subcutaneous Defibrillation Leads:

Effect of Transvenous Electrode Polarity on DFT. Introduction: The defibrillation threshold (DFT) of a transvenous-subcutaneous electrode configuration is sometimes unacceptably high. To obtain a DFT with a sufficient safety margin, the defibrillation field can be modified by repositioning the electrodes or more easily by a change of electrode polarity. In a prospective randomized cross-over study, the effect of transvenous electrode polarity on DFT was evaluated.
Methods and Results: In 21 patients receiving transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation leads, the DFT was determined intraoperatively for two electrode configurations. Two monophasic defibrillation pulses were delivered in sequential mode between either the right ventricular (RV) electrode as common cathode and the superior vena cava (SVC) and subcutaneous electrodes as anodes (configuration I) or the SVC electrode as common cathode and the RV and subcutaneous electrodes as anodes (configuration II). In each patient, both electrode configurations were used alternately with declining energies (25, 15, 10, 5, 2 J) until failure of defibrillation occurred. The DFT did not differ between both configurations (18.3 ± 8.2 J vs 18.9 ± 8.9 J; P = 0.72). Eleven patients had the same DFT with both electrode configurations, 5 patients a lower DFT with the RV electrode as cathode, and 5 patients a lower DFT with the SVC as cathode. Four patients had a sufficiently low DFT (≤ 25 J) with only 1 of the 2 configurations.
Conclusion: A change of electrode polarity of transvenous-subcutaneous defibrillation electrodes may result in effective defibrillation if the first electrode polarity tested fails to defibrillate. In general, neither the RV electrode nor the SVC electrode is superior if used as a common cathode in combination with a subcutaneous anodal chest patch.     

Novel electrode design for potentially painless internal defibrillation also allows for successful external defibrillation

Background: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) save lives, but the defibrillation shocks delivered by these devices produce substantial pain, presumably due to skeletal muscle activation. In this study, we tested an electrode system composed of epicardial panels designed to shield skeletal muscles from internal defibrillation, but allow penetration of an external electric field to enable external defibrillation when required.
Methods and Results: Eleven adult mongrel dogs were studied under general anesthesia. Internal defibrillation threshold (DFT) and shock-induced skeletal muscle force at various biphasic shock strengths were compared between two electrode configurations: (1) a transvenous coil placed in the right ventricle (RV) as cathode and a dummy can placed subcutaneously in the left infraclavicular fossa as anode (control configuration) and (2) RV coil as cathode and the multielectrode epicardial sock with the panels connected together as anode (sock-connected). External DFT was also tested with these electrode configurations, as well as with the epicardial sock present, but with panels disconnected from each other (sock-disconnected). Internal DFT was higher with sock-connected than control (24 ± 7 J vs. 16 ± 6 J, P < 0.02), but muscle contraction force at DFT was greatly reduced (1.3 ± 1.3 kg vs. 10.6 ± 2.2 kg, P < 0.0001). External defibrillation was never successful, even at 360 J, with sock-connected, while always possible with sock-disconnected.
Conclusion: Internal defibrillation with greatly reduced skeletal muscle stimulation can be achieved using a novel electrode system that also preserves the ability to externally defibrillate when required. This system may provide a means for painless ICD therapy.     

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.     

Effect of coronary sinus electrode on the optimal atrial defibrillation pathway for an atrioventricular defibrillator

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated significant failure in converting atrial fibrillation (AF) using a conventional ventricular pathway. The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of incorporating a coronary sinus (CS) lead into the atrial defibrillation pathway in atrial defibrillation threshold (ADFT) reduction in patients with persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective, randomized assessment of shock configuration on ADFT in 18 patients undergoing elective internal cardioversion for persistent AF (mean AF duration: 8 +/- 9 months). The lead system included a dual-coil defibrillation lead (Endotak DSP, Guidant) with a distal right ventricular (RV) electrode and a proximal superior vena cava (SVC) electrode, a CS lead (Perimeter, Guidant), and a left pectoral cutaneous electrode (Can). In each patient, dual step-up ADFTs were determined for each of three vectors: (1) RV --> SVC+Can; (2) CS --> SVC+Can; and (3) RV --> CS+SVC+Can (group 1, n = 8) or RV+CS --> SVC+Can (group 2, n = 10), using R wave-synchronized biphasic shocks. Successful defibrillation was achieved in all patients without any ventricular proarrhythmia. ADFT of CS --> SVC+Can (11.8 +/- 5.6 J) was significantly lower than ADFT of RV --> SVC+Can (16.5 +/- 7.8 J, P = 0.021). ADFT of CS --> SVC+Can was similar to RV --> CS+SVC+Can (group 1: 12.0 +/- 6.5 J vs 17.4 +/- 4.8 J, P = 0.16), but it was significantly higher than RV+CS --> SVC+Can (group 2: 9.0 +/- 3.9 J vs 11.6 +/- 5.0 J, P = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Patients with persistent AF of substantial duration can be reliably cardioverted using a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) lead set; however, the incorporation of a CS lead to the conventional ICD lead configuration significantly lowered ADFT. The optimal shock vector that incorporates a CS lead for atrial defibrillation requires future studies.     

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.     

Biphasic Waveform Defibrillation Using a Three-Electrode Transvenous Lead System in Humans

Biphasic Transvenous Defibrillation. Introduction: Biphasic waveform defibrillation is not always more efficacious than monophasic waveform defibrillation.
Methods and Results: Waveform efficacy appears to vary with the lead system used. In this prospective, randomized study, defibrillation efficacy with biphasic and monophasic single capacitor 120μF, 65% tilt pulses was compared for a lead system consisting of right ventricular (RV), chest patch (CP), and superior vena cava (SVC) electrodes. Although this lead system is commonly used with monophasic pulses in transvenous defibrillators, few studies have examined the defibrillation efficacy of this lead system in man for biphasic waveform defibrillation. Fourteen cardiac arrest survivors undergoing defibrillator implantation were included in the study using pulses delivered from a cathodal RV electrode simultaneously to anodal SVC and CP electrodes. Biphasic and monophasic waveforms were recorded oscilloscopically to acquire defibrillation threshold (DFT) data on leading edge voltage requirements and for stored energy. The monophasic DFT voltage was 661 ± 177 V compared to the biphasic DFT voltage of 451± 185 V (P < 0.0001). The monophasic DFT stored energy was 28.0 ± 13.4 J compared to the biphasic DFT stored energy of 14.1 ± 12.4 J (P ± 0.0001). The stored energy DFT was < 15 J in only 2 of 14 patients (15%) with monophasic defibrillation but < 15 J in 10 of 14 (71%) patients with biphasic defibrillation.
Conclusion: These findings indicate that biphasic defibrillation with an RV, SVC, CP transvenous electrode system is substantially more efficient than monophasic defibrillation. allowing for higher numbers of patients to receive transvenous defibrillators with a relatively simple lead system at a satisfactory cutoff DFT safety margin of 15 J.     

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.     

Optimization of atrial defibrillation with a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system

INTRODUCTION: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, but the optimal shocking configuration is unknown. The objective of this prospective study was to compare atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with three shocking configurations that are available with standard ICD leads. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a prospective, randomized, paired comparison of shocking configurations on atrial DFTs in 58 patients. The lead system evaluated was a transvenous defibrillation lead with coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular apex (RV) and a left pectoral pulse generator emulator (Can). In the first 33 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad (RV --> SVC + Can) and unipolar (RV --> Can) shocking pathways. In the next 25 patients, atrial DFT was measured with the ventricular triad and the proximal triad (SVC --> RV + Can) configurations. Delivered energy at DFT was significantly lower with the ventricular triad compared to the unipolar configuration (4.7 +/- 3.7 J vs 10.1 +/- 9.5 J, P < 0.001). Peak voltage and shock impedance also were significantly reduced (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in DFT energy when the ventricular triad and proximal triad shocking configurations were compared (3.6 +/- 3.0 J vs 3.4 +/- 2.9 J for ventricular and proximal triad, respectively, P = NS). Although shock impedance was reduced by 13% with the proximal triad (P < 0.001), this effect was offset by an increased current requirement (10%). CONCLUSION: The ventricular triad is equivalent or superior to other possible shocking pathways for atrial defibrillation afforded by a dual-coil, active pectoral lead system. Because the ventricular triad is also the most efficacious shocking pathway for ventricular defibrillation, this pathway should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular defibrillators.     

Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Maintained by Nonpulmonary Vein Sources Can Be Predicted by Dominant Frequency Analysis of Atriopulmonary Electrograms

Introduction: Increasing evidence suggests that high-frequency excitation in the pulmonary vein (PV) plays a dominant role in the maintenance of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in a certain population of patients, AF remains inducible after PV isolation (PVI). We sought to clarify whether dominant frequency (DF) analysis of atriopulmonary electrograms can predict paroxysmal AF maintained by non-PV sources.
Methods and Results: Sixty-one patients with paroxysmal AF (aged 59 ± 12 years) were studied. Before PVI, bipolar electrograms during AF were recorded simultaneously from three PV ostia, the coronary sinus (CS), and the septum and free wall of the right atrium (RA). DF was obtained by fast Fourier transform (FFT) analysis. AF was rendered noninducible after PVI in 39 of the 61 patients (noninducible group), but was still inducible in the remaining 22 (inducible group). Among the six recording sites, the highest DF was documented in the PV in all of the patients in the noninducible group; the maximum DF among the three PVs (PV-DF_max) was higher than that among the CS and two RA sites (atrial DF_max; 7.2 ± 1.0 Hz vs 5.8 ± 0.7 Hz, P < 0.0001). In contrast, the highest DF was documented in the CS or RA in 45.5% of the patients in the inducible group; PV-DF_max was comparable with atrial DF_max (6.6 ± 0.8 Hz vs 6.6 ± 0.6 Hz). AF inducibility after PVI was predicted by a PV-to-atrial DF_max gradient of <0.5 Hz, with a sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 89.7%.
Conclusion: Paroxysmal AF maintained by non-PV sources can be predicted by the PV-to-atrial DF gradient.     

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.     

Effect of an active abdominal pulse generator on defibrillation thresholds with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have older lead systems, which are usually not replaced at the time of pulse generator replacement unless a malfunction is noted. Therefore, optimization of defibrillation with these lead systems is clinically important. The objective of this prospective study was to determine if an active abdominal pulse generator (Can) affects chronic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) with a dual-coil, transvenous ICD lead system. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 39 patients who presented for routine abdominal pulse generator replacement. Each patient underwent two assessments of DFT using a step-down protocol, with the order of testing randomized. The distal right ventricular (RV) coil was the anode for the first phase of the biphasic shocks. The proximal superior vena cava (SVC) coil was the cathode for the Lead Alone configuration (RV --> SVC). For the Active Can configuration, the SVC coil and Can were connected electrically as the cathode (RV --> SVC + Can). The Active Can configuration was associated with a significant decrease in shock impedance (39.5 +/- 5.8 Omega vs. 50.0 +/- 7.6 Omega, P < 0.01) and a significant increase in peak current (8.3 +/- 2.6 A vs. 7.2 +/- 2.4 A, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in DFT energy (9.0 +/- 4.6 J vs. 9.8 +/- 5.2 J) or leading edge voltage (319 +/- 86 V vs. 315 +/- 83 V). An adequate safety margin for defibrillation (> or =10 J) was present in all patients with both shocking configurations. CONCLUSION: DFTs are similar with the Active Can and Lead Alone configurations when a dual-coil, transvenous lead is used with a left abdominal pulse generator. Since most commercially available ICDs are only available with an active can, our data support the use of an active can device with this lead system for patients who present for routine pulse generator replacement.     

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.     

Atrial Electrograms and Activation Sequences in the Transition Between Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter

Transition Between Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter. Introduction: The eletrophysiologic mechanism of atrial fibrillation (AF) has a wide spectrum, and it seems that some atrial regions are essential for the occurrence of a particular type of AF. We focused on one type of AF: AF associated with typical atrial flutter (AFI), which was right atrial (RA) arrhythmia, and sought to investigate intra-atrial electrograms and activation sequences in the transition between AF and AFL.
Methods and Results: Intra-atrial electrograms and activation sequences in the R.A free wall and the septum were evaluated in the transition between AF and AFL in seven patients without organic heart disease (all men; mean age 57 ± 11 years). In five episodes of the conversion of AFL into AF, the AFL cycle length was shortened (from 211 ± 6 msec in stable AFL to 190 ± 15 msec before the conversion, P, 0.001). Interruption of the AFL wavefront and an abrupt activation sequential change induced by a premature atrial impulse resulted in fractionation and disorganization of the septal electrograms. During sustained AF, septal electrograms were persistently fractionated with disorganized activation sequences. However, the RA free-wall electrograms were organized, and the activation sequence was predominantly craniocaudal rather than caudocranial throughout AF. In 12 episodes of the conversion of AF into AFL, the AF cycle length measured in the RA free wall increased (from 165 ± 26 msec at the onset of AF to 180 ± 24 msec before the conversion, P, 0.001). AFL resumed when fractionated septal electrograms were separated and organized to the caudocranial direction, despite the RA free-wall electrograms remaining discrete and sharp with an isoelectric line.
Conclusion: Changes of the electrogram and activation sequence in the atrial septum played an important role in the transition between AF and AFL.     

An Experimental Study of Transvenous Defibrillation Using a Coronary Sinus Catheter

The efficacy of a transvenous defibrillating system, utilizing bipolar right ventricular and coronary sinus catheters was evaluated in 14 normal mongrel dogs. Two groups of seven animals each were studied. During all shocks, the right ventricular apex electrode served as the anode. In both groups, defibrillation was performed using the proximal pole of the right ventricular catheter (superior vena cava), as the cathode served as a control (configuration A). In group 1, a coronary sinus cathode (configuration B) was compared to control. The mean energy at which 50% or more of the shocks were successful was similar for configuration B (20.7 ± 7.9 joules) and for configuration A (18.8 ± 9.4 joules). In group 2, the superior vena cava and coronary sinus electrodes served as a common cathode (configuration C). Mean defibrillation energy at which 50% or more of the shocks was successful was 21.4 ± 9.0 joules for configuration C and 27.1 ± 9.5 joules for configuration A (P < 0.01). Leading edge voltage was similar for all three configurations, hut shock duration was longer for configuration A (11.3 ± 2.8 msec) than configuration B (6.6 ± 1.8 msec) or C (6.1 ± 1.5; P < 0.05). Nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and transient heart block were common, but no damage to the coronary sinus was noted despite the delivery of up to 38 shocks. Conclusions: (1) With the catheter system used, coronary sinus to right ventricular apex defibrillation system offered no advantages over a superior vena cava to right ventricular apex system; (2) A three-electrode system with the high right atrium and coronary sinus serving as the common cathode reduced defibrillation thresholds significantly without any severe short-term adverse consequences; and (3) Improvements in catheter design may make a coronary sinus catheter part of a feasible transvenous defibrillating system.     

Coronary sinus electrode does not reduce atrial defibrillation thresholds

BACKGROUND: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with a conventional dual-coil, active pectoral implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead system. Shocking vectors that incorporate an additional electrode in the CS have been used, but it is unclear if they improve atrial DFTs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective, randomized study was to determine if a coronary sinus (CS) electrode reduces atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). METHODS: This was a prospective study of 36 patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. A defibrillation lead with superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular (RV) shocking coils was implanted in the RV. An active can emulator (Can) was placed in a pre-pectoral pocket. A lead with a 4 cm long shocking coil was placed in the CS. Atrial DFTs were determined in the following 3 shocking configurations in each patient, with the order of testing randomized: RV --> SVC + Can (Ventricular Triad), distal CS --> SVC + Can (Distal Atrial Triad), and proximal CS --> SVC + Can (Proximal Atrial Triad). RESULTS: The Proximal and Distal Atrial Triad configurations were both associated with significant reductions in peak current (p < 0.01), but this effect was offset by significant increases in shock impedance (p < 0.01), resulting in no net change in the peak voltage or DFT energy in comparison to the Ventricular Triad configuration (Ventricular Triad: 4.9 +/- 6.6 J, Proximal Atrial Triad: 3.3 +/- 4.1J, Distal Atrial Triad: 4.4 +/- 6.7 J, p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: Shocking vectors that incorporate a CS coil do not significantly improve atrial defibrillation efficacy. Since the Ventricular Triad shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.     

Optimization of transvenous coil position for active can defibrillation thresholds

INTRODUCTION: Lead systems that include an active pectoral pulse generator are now standard for initial defibrillator implantations. However, the optimal transvenous lead system and coil location for such active can configurations are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the benefit and optimal position of a superior vena cava (SVC) coil on defibrillation thresholds with an active left pectoral pulse generator and right ventricular coil. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, randomized study was performed on 27 patients. Each subject was evaluated with three lead configurations, with the order of testing randomized. Biphasic shocks were delivered between the right ventricular coil and an active can alone (unipolar), or an active can in common with the proximal coil positioned either at the right atrial/SVC junction (low SVC) or in the left subclavian vein (high SVC). Stored energies at defibrillation threshold were higher for the single-coil, unipolar configuration (11.2 +/- 6.6 J) than for the high (8.9 +/- 4.2 J) or low (8.5 +/- 4.2 J) SVC configurations (P < 0.01). Moreover, 96% of subjects had low (< or = 15 J) thresholds with the SVC coil in either position compared with 81% for the single-coil configuration. Shock impedance (P < 0.001) was increased with the unipolar configuration, whereas peak current was reduced (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The addition of a proximal transvenous coil to an active can unipolar lead configuration reduces defibrillation energy requirements. The position of this coil has no significant effect on defibrillation thresholds.     

Distal right ventricular coil position reduces defibrillation thresholds

Distal RV Coil Position Reduces DFTs. INTRODUCTION: Understanding the factors that affect defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) has important implications both for optimization of defibrillation efficacy and for the design of new transvenous leads. The aim of this prospective study was to test the hypothesis that defibrillation efficacy is improved with the right ventricular (RV) coil in a distal position compared with a more proximal RV coil position. METHODS AND RESULTS: A novel defibrillation lead with three adjacent RV defibrillation coils (distal 0.8 cm, middle 3.7 cm, proximal 0.8 cm) was used for this study to permit comparison of DFTs with the proximal and distal RV coil positions without lead repositioning. In the distal RV configuration, the distal and middle RV coils were connected electrically as the anode for defibrillation. In the proximal RV configuration, the middle and proximal coils were the anode. A superior vena cava (SVC) coil and active can were connected electrically as the cathode (reversed polarity, RV-->Can+SVC). In each patient, the DFT was measured twice using a binary search protocol with the distal RV and proximal RV configurations, with the order of testing randomized. The study cohort consisted of 31 subjects (mean age 65 +/- 12 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 30% +/- 16%, 81% male predominance). The mean delivered energy (8.2 +/- 5.3 J vs 11.2 +/- 6.1 J), leading-edge voltage (335 +/- 109 V vs 393 +/- 118 V), and peak current (11.6 +/- 5.2 A vs 14.9 +/- 7.3 A) at DFT all were significantly lower with the distal RV configuration compared to the proximal RV configuration (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: DFTs are significantly reduced with the distal RV configuration compared to the proximal RV configuration. Defibrillation leads should be designed with the shortest tip to coil distance that can be achieved without compromising ventricular fibrillation sensing.     

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.