Characteristics and outcomes of recurrent atrial fibrillation after prior failed pulmonary vein isolation

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology - The mechanisms for atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) catheter ablation are unclear. Non-PV organized...     

Prognostic significance of atrial arrhythmias in a primary prevention ICD population

Introduction : We investigated whether primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) patients with atrial arrhythmias are at higher risk for ICD shocks and mortality compared to patients without atrial arrhythmias in a subanalysis of the PREPARE study. Methods and Results : Details of the PREPARE study design and results have been previously reported. We now included 537 of the 700 patients enrolled in PREPARE. These patients had a dual or biventricular device and at least one device follow‐up after implantation. Continuously collected device diagnostics data were used to classify patients into two groups during follow‐up: with (n = 133) or without (n = 404) atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation (AT/AF). The primary outcomes were ICD shocks and mortality. Subjects were followed for a mean of 333 ± 73 (range 5–365) days. During a follow‐up of 1 year, ICD shocks occurred in 44 (8%) patients. Significantly, more patients with AT/AF received a shock (13.0% vs 6.9%, P = 0.03), with inappropriate shocks accounting for the majority of the difference (6.9% vs 2.6%, P = 0.02). There was no difference in prevalence of shocks between patients with and without a history of AF. Mortality was similar in patients with and without AT/AF, whether detected during the study or prior to the study. In addition, the 34 subjects with high average ventricular rate (≥110 beats per minute) during AT/AF had a higher risk of an inappropriate shock (21.0% vs 2.1%, P < 0.01). Conclusion : Primary prevention ICD patients with AT/AF are more likely to receive shocks, especially inappropriate shocks. Mortality was not higher in AT/AF patients. (PACE 2011; 34:1070–1079)     

Correlation of Acute and Chronic Defibrillation Threshold with Upper Limit of Vulnerability Determined in Normal Sinus Rhythm

Background: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) is the stimulus strength above which ventricular fibrillation cannot be induced, even when the stimulus occurs during the vulnerable period of the cardiac cycle. Determination of ULV using T-wave shocks during ventricular pacing has been shown to closely correlate with the defibrillation threshold (DFT) at ICD implantation. However, there are no data correlating ULV determined in sinus rhythm at ICD implantation, with DFT determined at implantation or during long-term follow-up. This is of clinical importance since ULV may be used to estimate DFT during ICD implantation, both during ventricular pacing or sinus rhythm.Methods and Results: Twenty-one patients receiving a transvenous ICD system were studied prospectively. There were 16 males and 5 females, mean age 68 ± 15 years, with mean ejection fraction 37.4 ± 17.4%. All had structural heart disease. The ULV was defined as the lowest energy that did not induce ventricular fibrillation with shocks at 0, 20 and 40ms before the peak of the T-wave, using a step-down protocol. The initial energy tested was 15J and the lowest energy 2J. DFT was determined following a similar step-down protocol. The DFT was defined as the lowest energy that successfully defibrillated the ventricles. The linear correlation coefficient between ULV and DFT was r = 0.73 (p < 0.001). At implant, mean ULV was 9.2 ± 5J, not statistically different from mean DFT 9.4 ± 4J. ULV plus 5J successfully defibrillated 19 of 21 patients. During long-term follow-up of 10.1 ± 1.8 months in eight patients, DFT was 8.8 ± 5.8J, not significantly different than the DFT of 7.5 ± 4.1J or ULV of 8.0 ± 5.3 at implant.Conclusion: 1) When determined during normal sinus rhythm the ULV significantly correlates with DFT. 2) ULV testing might be used in lieu of standard DFT testing to confirm adequate lead placement thus minimizing or eliminating VF inductions, particularly in hemodynamically unstable patients. 3) Since ULV + 5J has a high probability of successful defibrillation in most patients, programming ICD first shock energy for VF at ULV + 5J may result in lower first shock energies compared to the standard methods of programming first shock energy at twice DFT.Condensed Abstract. The purpose of this study was to determine if the upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) determined during normal sinus rhythm correlates with the defibrillation threshold (DFT), as has been previously shown when determined during ventricular pacing. The linear correlation coefficient between the ULV and DFT was r = 0.73 (p < 0.001). Mean ULV at implant was 9.2 ± 5J, not statistically different from mean DFT of 0.4 ± 4J. During long-term follow-up of 10.1 ± 1.8 months in 8 patients, DFT was 8.75 ± 8J, not significantly different than the DFT of 7.5 ± 4.1J or ULV of 8.0 ± 5.3 at implant. Shocks energies of ULV + 5J successfully defibrillated 19 of 21 patients at implant and 8 of 8 at follow-up. This study indicates that the ULV determined in normal sinus rhythm closely correlates with the DFT, and that ULV + 5J defibrillated most patients. ULV testing could be used to predict DFT and reduce or eliminate the need for DFT testing and VF induction. Programming ICD first shock energy for VF to ULV + 5J will result in lower energy than that used with standard DFT testing.     

Case Report: Inappropriate Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Discharge from Sensing of External Alternating Current Leak

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are now an accepted and effective therapy for treatment of survivors of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and prevention of SCD in high-risk patients. Normal ICD function and delivery of therapy depends on appropriate sensing and detection of myocardial electrical potentials. Electromagnetic interference resulting in ICD malfunction is a well-documented phenomenon, however, there are less well-known external sources of interference, which may cause life threatening ICD malfunction. We report a unique case of repeated inappropriate ICD shocks in a ten-year old boy caused by the ICD sensing alternating current from an unexpected external source.