心脏复律除颤器植入术中除颤阈值测试的现代观点

早期埋藏式心脏复律除颤器装置可靠性差,除颤失败率高,对快速的室性心律失常（室性心动过速）或心室颤动事件唯一的治疗方法是电击;因此在植入埋藏式心脏复律除颤器时常规进行除颤阈值测试。现代埋藏式心脏复律除颤器的性能较前明显改善,除颤性能提高,经静脉途径植入埋藏式心脏复律除颤器的平均除颤阈值是20～30J,低于埋藏式心脏复律除颤器最大输出能量,且除颤阈值测试可给患者带来一定的危险;因此许多临床心脏电生理学者开始质疑埋藏式心脏复律除颤器植入术中除颤阈值测试的价值。     

A Prospective Evaluation of Two Defibrillation Safety Margin Techniques in Patients with Low Defibrillation Energy Requirements

Low-Energy Defibrillation. Introduction : In patients undergoing defibrillator implantation, an appropriate defibrillation safety margin has been considered to be either 10 J or an energy equal to the defibrillation energy requirement. However, a previous clinical report suggested that a larger safety margin may be required in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to compare the defibrillation efficacy of the two safety margin techniques in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement.
Methods and Results : Sixty patients who underwent implantation of a defibrillator and who had a low defibrillation energy requirement (≤ 6 J) underwent six separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation, at least 5 minutes apart. For each of the first three inductions of ventricular fibrillation, the first two shocks were equal to either the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J (14.6 ± 1.0 J), or to twice the defibrillation energy requirement (9.9 ± 2.3 J). The alternate technique was used for the subsequent three inductions of ventricular fibrillation. For each induction of ventricular fibrillation, the first shock success rate was 99.5%± 4.3% for shocks using the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J, compared to 95.0%± 17.2% for shocks at twice the defibrillation energy requirement (P = 0.02). The charge time (P < 0.0001) and the total duration of ventricular fibrillation (P < 0.0001) were each approximately 1 second longer with the defibrillation energy requirement plus 10 J technique.
Conclusion : This study is the first to compare prospectively the defibrillation efficacy of two defibrillation safety margins. In patients with a defibrillation energy requirement ≤ 6 J, a higher rate of successful defibrillation is achieved with a safety margin of 10 J than with a safety margin equal to the defibrillation energy requirement.     

Defibrillation thresholds in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Defibrillation Thresholds in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy . Background: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is performed in part to ensure an adequate safety margin for the termination of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias. Left ventricular mass is a predictor of high DFTs, so patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are often considered to be at risk for increased defibrillation energy requirements. However, there are little prospective data addressing this issue. Objective: To assess DFTs in patients with HCM and evaluate the clinical predictors of elevated DFTs. Methods: Eighty‐nine consecutive patients with HCM and 600 control patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy underwent a uniform modified step‐down DFT testing protocol. DFT was compared between the control and HCM populations. Predictors of elevated DFT were evaluated in the HCM group. Results: There was no difference in DFT between HCM and control groups (10.4 ± 5.8 J vs 11.2 ± 5.6 J, respectively). Among patients with HCM, clinical parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular septal thickness, left ventricular mass, and QRS duration were not predictive of an elevated DFT. Only 3 patients (3.4%) with HCM had a DFT >20 J. Conclusion: Patients with HCM do not have elevated DFTs as compared to more typical populations undergoing implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implant; high‐energy devices or complex lead systems are not needed routinely in this population. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 22, pp. 569‐572 May 2011)     

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.     

Effects of Procainamide and Lidocaine on Defibrillation Energy Requirements in Patients Receiving Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Devices

Effects of Procainamide and Lidocaine on Defibrillation. intntduction: In acute canine studies, lidocaine. but not prucainamidc, increases defibrillation energy requirements. We evaluated the effects of lidocaine or procainamide on defihrillation energy requirements in 27 patients undergoing intraoperative testing fur implantable cardioverter dcfibrillator device placement.
Methods and Results: Patients were tested off antiarrhythmic drugs and again following either lidocaine (200 to 250 mg loading and 3 mg/min maintenance infusions) or procainamide (1 gm loading and 3 to 4 mg/min maintenance infusions). The defibrillation testing protocol consisted of initial testing at 15 J, followed by higher or lower energies to determine the lowest energy producing three consecutive successful defibrillations. Overall, the mean defibrillation energy increased from 14 ± 5 J to 18 ± 7 J during lidocaine (plasma concentration 5.1 ± 1.6 μ/mL; P < 0.02) but were similar at baseline (12 ± 5 J) and during procainamide infusion (13 ± 6 J) (plasma concentration: procainamide 10.7 ± 7.2 μ/rnl.; N-acetyl procainamide 1.0 ± 0.4 μ/niL). A positive linear correlation was found between lidocaine plasma concentration and percent change in defibrillation energy (lidocaine: r = 0.61; P = 0.01). Procainamide raised the defibrillation energy in three patients, two with supra therapeutic plasma concentrations. The increase in defibrillation energy equaled or exceeded 25 J in four patients after lidocaine and in one patient after procainamide.
Conclusion: The data suggest that at high plasma concentrations, lidocaine and procainamide adversely affect defibrillation energy requirements consistent with an adverse, concentration-dependent effect of sodium channel blockade on defibrillation energy requirements in patients.     

Single Capacitive Discharge Utilizing an Auxiliary Shock in the Coronary Venous System Reduces the Defibrillation Threshold

Auxiliary shocks (AS) from electrodes sutured to the left ventricle (LV) prior to primary biphasic shocks (PS) have been shown to reduce defibrillation thresholds (DFT). Two capacitors are required to generate these waveforms. We investigate delivery of AS from one capacitor using a novel waveform. The epicardial surface of the LV is accessed transvenously via the middle cardiac vein (MCV) avoiding a thoracotomy. Methods: A defibrillation electrode was placed in the right ventricle (RV) and superior vena cava (SVC) in 12 pigs (37±2kg). A 50×1.8mm electrode was inserted in the MCV through a guide catheter. A can was placed in the left pectoral region. A monophasic AS (100F, 1.5J) was delivered along one pathway before switching to deliver a biphasic waveform (40% tilt, 2ms phase 2) along another. DFTs (PS+AS) were assessed using a binary search. Two configurations not incorporating AS acted as controls. DFTs were compared using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: DFTs of the four novel configurations (AS/PS) were: RVCan/MCVCan=14.9±3.7J, MCVCan/RVCan=17.2±5.7J, RVSVC+Can/MCVSVC+Can=13.4±4.6J, MCVSVC+Can/RVSVC+Can=17.1±5.9J. Delivering AS in the RV followed by PS in the MCV reduced the DFT (RVCan (19.9±7.3 J, P<0.01) and RVSVC+Can (19.2±6.0 J, P<0.05)). Conclusions: Delivering AS prior to PS in the MCV reduces the DFT by up to a third compared to conventional configurations of RVCan and RVSVC+Can. This is possible using only a single capacitor and an entirely transvenous approach to the LV.     

Internal Defibrillation with Smaller Capacitors: A Prospective Randomized Cross-Over Comparison of Defibrillation Efficacy Obtained with 90-μF and 125-μF Capacitors in Humans

Defibrillation with Small Capacitance. Introduction: The size of current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is still large in comparison to pacemakers and thus not convenient for pectoral implantation. One way to reduce ICD size is to defibrillate with smaller capacitors. A trade-off exists, however, since smaller capacitors may generate a lower maximum energy output.
Methods and Results: In a prospective randomized cross-over study, the step-down defibrillation threshold (DFT) of an experimental 90-μF biphasic waveform was compared to a standard 125-μF biphasic waveform. The 90-μF capacitor delivered the same energy faster and with a higher peak voltage but provided only a maximum energy output of 20 instead of 34 J. DFTs were determined intraoperatively in 30 patients randomized to receive either an endocardial (n = 15) or an endocardial-subcutaneous array (n = 15) defibrillation lead system. Independent of the lead system used, energy requirements did not differ at DFT for the experimental and the standard waveforms (10.3 ± 4.1 and 9.5 ± 4.9 J, respectively), but peak voltages were higher for the experimental waveform than for the standard waveform (411 ± 80 and 325 ± 81 V, respectively). For the experimental waveform the DFT was 10 J or less using an endocardial lead-alone system in 10 (67%) of 15 patients and in 12 (80%) of 15 patients using an endocardial-subcutaneous array lead system.
Conclusions : A shorter duration waveform delivered by smaller capacitors does not increase defibrillation energy requirements and might reduce device size. However, the smaller capacitance reduces the maximum energy output. If a 10-J safety margin between DFT and maximum energy output of the ICD is required, only a subgroup of patients will benefit from 90-μF ICDs with DFTs feasible using current defibrillation lead systems.     

Effect of Waveform Tilt on Defibrillation Thresholds in Humans

Effect of Tilt on Defibrillation Threshold. Introduction : Despite the common use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator to treat patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, the mechanism of defibrillation and the optimal waveform for implanted devices are poorly understood. All of the currently available pulse generators deliver exponentially declining pulses that are either automatically or manually truncated to achieve tilts of about 50% to 65%. Although this value was chosen based on experimental animal data, several theoretical models have been developed to describe defibrillation, which raise into question this choice of waveform shape. Accordingly, the present study was designed to test the effect of waveform tilt on defibrillation efficacy in humans.
Methods and Results : Twenty-three patients undergoing cardioverter defibrillator implantation were studied. Monophasic defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were measured using a single reversal protocol at 35%, 50%, 65%, and 80% tilts by altering the pulse width of the shock. Mean defibrillation impedance was 41 ± 6 Ω. The DFT, measured by either leading-edge voltage or stored energy, was insensitive to altering the waveform tilt from 50% to 80%, only increasing when the tilt was reduced to 35%. A tilt of 65% yielded the lowest DFT voltage in only 8 of 23 patients. Significantly lower DFTs (≥ 40 V) were obtained using other tilts in seven patients. When the relationship between average current and pulse width was fit with a Weiss-Lapicque model, the data yielded a mean chronaxie of 4.6 ± 3.0 msec and a rheobase of 4.2 ± 1.7 A, but considerable patient variability was observed.
Conclusion : On average, DFTs in humans are insensitive to altering monophasic waveform tilts between 50% and 80%. There is, however, considerable patient variability, raising into question the premise that a single defibrillator waveform tilt is best for all patients.     

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.     

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.     

Role of Defibrillation Threshold Testing in the Contemporary Defibrillator Patient Population

Role of Defibrillation Threshold Testing. Introduction: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has been performed to prove functionality of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Over the past years it has become increasingly controversial because of possible morbidity and mortality. The goal of this study was to determine unsuccessful shock testing and report strategies used to overcome these problems. Methods and Results: A total of 314 patients with a de novo implantation of an ICD and 127 patients receiving a generator exchange were identified retrospectively. All patients underwent defibrillation threshold testing after induction of VF using a low‐energy T‐wave shock during the intervention, 2 shock tests after de novo implantations, 1 after generator change. A safety margin of 10 J or more was requested. Seven (2.3%) patients in the de novo group and 2 patients (1.4%) in the generator exchange group could not be defibrillated using the standard approach. All of those patients had either chronic amiodarone therapy, secondary prevention or a cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT). In univariate analysis, amiodarone therapy, dilated cardiomyopathy, and lower ejection fraction were predictors of failure. Conclusion: Our study's results as well as a review of the current literature favor shock testing, especially in patients with specific risk factors as mentioned above. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 24, pp. 437‐441, April 2013)     

Comparison of Fixed Tilt and Tuned Defibrillation Waveforms: The PROMISE Study

Comparison of Defibrillation Waveforms . Background: All modern defibrillation systems use biphasic shock waveforms. Typically a fixed tilt waveform is used for implantable defibrillators (ICDs), but a tuned waveform with duration based on shock impedance may be superior based on theoretical calculations. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare defibrillation efficacy of fixed tilt and tuned waveforms. Methods: PROMISE was designed as a prospective, within‐patient, randomized study of defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) comparing a tuned (assuming a 3.5 milliseconds membrane time constant) versus a 50/50% tilt waveform. All patients had a left pectoral implant (active can) and testing was performed with a single coil shocking configuration (“SVC coil OFF”). DFTs were measured in random order with a binary search method in 52 patients, using the high‐voltage lead impedance to select the pulse widths for both waveforms. Results: At the DFT, the tuned waveform had similar delivered energy (10.5 ± 6.3 vs 9.5 ± 5.5 J, P = 0.47), stored energy (13.6 ± 7.9 vs 11.3 ± 6.3 J, P = 0.06), peak current (7.5 ± 3.0 vs 6.8 ± 2.2 A, P = 0.09), and delivered voltage (451.0 ± 134.5 vs 411.5 ± 120.7 V, P = 0.05) compared with the 50/50% tilt waveform. Conclusion: The DFTs for 3.5‐millisecond time constant based tuned and 50/50% tilt waveforms are similar using a single coil, left pectoral active can. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 24, pp. 323‐327, March 2013)     

Effect of Shock Waveform on Relationship Between Upper Limit of Vulnerability and Defibrillation Threshold

ULV-DFT Waveform. Introduction: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT). The ULV can he determined with a single episode of ventricular fibrillation and is more reproducible than the single-point DFT. The critical-point hypothesis of defibrillation predicts that the relation between the ULV and the DFT is independent of shock waveform. The principal goal of this study was to test this prediction. Methods and Results: We studied 45 patients at implants of pectoral cardioverter defibrillators. In the monophasic-biphasic group (n = 15), DFT and ULV were determined for monophasic and biphasic pulses from a 120-μF capacitor. In the 60- to 110-μF group (n = 30), DFT and ULV were compared for a clinically used 110-μF waveform and a novel 60-μF waveform with 70% phase 1 tilt and 7-msec phase 2 duration. In the monophasic-biphasic group, all measures of ULV and DFT were greater for monophasic than biphasic waveforms (P < 0.0001). In the 60- to 110-/tF group, the current and voltage at the ULV and DFT were higher for the 60-μF waveform (P < 0.0001), hut stored energy was lower (ULV 17%, P < 0.0001; DFT 19%, P = 0.03). There was a close correlation between ULV and DFT for both the monophasic-biphasic group (monophasic r²= 0.75, P < 0.001; hiphasic r²= 0.82, P < 0.001) and the 60- to 110-μF group (60 μF r²= 0.81 P < 0.001; 110 μF r²= 0.75, P < 0.001). The ratio of ULV to DFT was not significantly different for monophasic versus biphasic pulses (1.17 ± 0.12 vs 1.14 ± 0.19, P = 0.19) or 60-μF versus 110-μF pulses (1.15 ± 0.16 vs 1.11 ± 0.14, P = 0.82). The slopes of the ULV versus DFT regression lines also were not significantly different (monophasic vs biphasic pulses, P = 0.46; 60-μF vs UO-μF pulses, P = 0.99). The sample sizes required to detect the observed differences between experimental conditions (P < 0.05) were 4 for ULV versus 6 for DFT in the monophasic-biphasic group (95% power) and 11 for ULV versus 31 for DFT in the 60- to 110-μF group (75% power). Conclusion: The relation between ULV and DFT is independent of shock waveform. Fewer patients are required to detect a moderate difference in efficacy of defibrillation waveforms by ULV than by DFT. A small-capacitor biphasic waveform with a long second phase defibrillates with lower stored energy than a clinically used waveform.     

Upper Limit of Vulnerability Predicts Chronic Defibrillation Threshold for Transvenous Implantable Defibrillators

ULV Predicts Chronic DFT. Introduction: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the shock strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation cannot be induced when delivered in the vulnerable period. It correlates acutely with the acute defibrillation threshold (DFT) and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation. The goal of this prospective study was to determine the relationship between the ULV and the chronic DFT.
Methods and Results: We studied 40 patients at, and 3 months after, implantation of transvenous cardioverter defibrillators. The ULV was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that failed to induce fibrillation when delivered 0,20, and 40 msec before the peak of the T wave. Patients were classified as clinically stable or unstable based on prospectively defined criteria. There were no significant differences between the group means for the acute and chronic determinations of ULV (13.5 ± 5.3 J vs 12.4 ± 6.8 J, P = 0.25) and DFT (10.1 ± 5.0 J vs 9.9 ± 5.7 J, P = 0.74). Five patients (15%) were classified as unstable. The strength of the correlation between acute ULV and acute DFT (r = 0.74, P < 0.001) was similar to that between the chronic ULV and chronic DFT (r = 0.82, P < 0.001). There was a correlation between the change in ULV from acute to chronic and the corresponding change in DFT (r = 0.67, P < 0.001). The chronic DFT was less than the acute ULV + 3 J in all 35 stable patients, but it was greater in 2 of 5 unstable patients (P = 0.04).
Conclusions: The strength of the correlation between the chronic ULV and the chronic DFT is comparable to that between the acute ULV and the acute DFT. Temporal changes in the ULV predict temporal changes in the DFT. In clinically stable patients, a defibrillation safety margin of 3 J above the acute ULV proved an adequate chronic safety margin.     

Temporal Stability of Defibrillation Thresholds with an Active Pectoral Lead System

Stability of Defibrillation Thresholds. Introduction : Monophasic defibrillation thresholds rise over time with a variety of lead systems. These chronic changes are attenuated or eliminated by biphasic waveforms, although the effect appears dependent upon the lead system. With the downsizing of pulse generator size to allow for routine pectoral implantation, active can lead systems have now become standard. However, the temporal stability of such lead systems has not been evaluated previously.
Methods and Results : This study was a prospective assessment of the changes of active pectoral defibrillation thresholds over time. Thresholds were measured at implant, predischarge, and at a mean follow-up of 50 days in 46 patients with a uniform testing protocol and shock polarity. The lead system was a dual-coil Endotak DSP lead with an active pectoral pulse generator. Defibrillation thresholds were 9.9 ± 5.5 J at implantation, 8.5 ± 6.0 J predischarge, and 7.6 ± 5.5 J at follow-up (ANOVA, P = 0.007). Moreover, only two patients developed an increased threshold > 5 J, and no patient had an inadequate safety margin at follow-up.
Conclusion : These results indicate that active pectoral defibirillation thresholds are stable over the first 2 months postimplantation and question the need for routine serial defibrillation threshold testing.     

Transvenous Defibrillation Lead Systems

Transvenous Defibrillation. The use of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator has grown dramatically over the past 10 years. One of the major advances in defibrillation technology is the development of transvenous lead systems. Compared with traditional epicardial lead systems, transvenous defibrillation leads reduce perioperative mortality, hospitalization, and costs. Transvenous lead systems provide reliable sensing of ventricular tachyarrhythmias, although redetection of ventricular fibrillation can be prolonged, especially with integrated lead systems. Both ramp and burst adaptive pacing are equally effective for the termination of ventricular tachycardia and are successful in up to 90% of spontaneous events. Defibrillation thresholds are higher with transvenous leads than with epicardial patches. These thresholds are reduced with the use of multiple transvenous leads, subcutaneous patches, or with reversing shock polarity. However, the development of biphasic waveforms has made the largest impact on the efficacy of these lead systems, allowing dual coil transvenous systems to be effective in about 90% of patients. Defibrillation efficacy is further enhanced and implantation simplified by the incorporation of an active pulse generator located in the left pectoral region. Active pectoral pulse generators with biphasic waveforms will be the primary lead system for new implants.     

Influence of Body Position on Defibrillation Thresholds of Nonthoracotomy Implantable Defibrillators:

DFT of Nonthoracotomy Defibrillators. Introduction : Defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) usually are determined with the patient in the supine position. However, patients may be in the upright position when a shock is delivered during follow-up, which may explain some first shock failures observed clinically. This study investigated whether body posture affects defibrillation energy requirements of nonthoracotomy implantable cardioverter defibrillators with biphasic shocks.
Methods and Results : Using a step up-down protocol, DFTs were compared intraindividually in 52 patients ("active-can" systems in 41 patients, two-lead systems in II patients) for the supine and upright positions as achieved by a tilt table. The mean DFT was 7.3 ± 4.2 J in the supine versus 9.2 ± 4.8 J in the upright position (P = 0.002). Repeated comparison in reversed order 3 months after implantation in 22 patients revealed thresholds of 6.2 ± 2.5 J (supine) versus 8.4 ± 3.7 J (upright; P < 0.03) 1 week and 4.4 ± 2.4 J (supine) versus 6.2 ± 4.1 J (upright; P < 0.04) 3 months after implantation. DFTs decreased significantly for both body positions from 1 week to 3 months after implantation (P < 0.04).
Conclusion :(I) DFTs for biphasic shocks delivered by nonthoracotomy defibrillators are higher in the upright compared to the supine body position. (2) Differences remain significant 3 months after implantation. For both body positions, DFT decreases significantly from 1 week to 3 months after implantation. These findings have important implications for programming first shock energy to lower than maximal values or for development of devices with lower maximal stored energy.     

Effect of Ventricular Shock Strength on Cardiac Hemodynamics

Ventricular Defibrillation and Cardiac Function . Introduction: The effect of implantable defibrillator shocks on cardiac hemodynamics is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that ventricular defibrillator shocks adversely effect cardiac hemodynamics. Methods and Results: The cardiac index was determined by calculating the mitral valve inflow with transesophogeal Doppler during nonthoracotomy defibrillator implantation in 17 patients. The cardiac index was determined before, and immediately, 1 minute, 2 minutes, and 4 minutes after shocks were delivered during defibrillation energy requirement testing with 27- to 34-, 15-, 10-, 5-, 3-, or 1-J shocks. The cardiac Index was also measured at the same time points after 27- to 34-, and 1-J shocks delivered during the baseline rhythm. The cardiac index decreased from 2.30 ± 0.40 L/min per m² before a 27- to 34-J shock during defibrillation energy requirement testing to 2.14 ± 0.45 L/min per m² immediately afterwards (P= 0.001). This effect persisted for >4 minutes. An adverse hemodynamic effect of similar magnitude occurred after 15 J (P= 0.003) and 10-J shocks (P= 0.01), but dissipated after 4 minutes and within 2 minutes, respectively. There was a significant correlation between shock strength and the percent change in cardiac index (r = 0.3, P= 0.03). The cardiac index decreased 14% after a 27- to 34-J shock during the baseline rhythm (P < 0.0001). This effect persisted for <4 minutes. A 1- J shock during the baseline rhythm did not effect the cardiac index. Conclusion: Defibrillator shocks >9 J delivered during the baseline rhythm or during defibrillation energy requirement testing result in a 10% to 15% reduction in cardiac index, whereas smaller energy shocks do not affect cardiac hemodynamics. The duration and extent of the adverse effect are proportional to the shock strength. Shock strength, and not ventricular fibrillation, appears to be most responsible for This effect. Therefore, the detrimental hemodynamic effects of high-energy shocks may be avoided when low-energy defibrillation is used.