Transthoracic defibrillation of swine with monophasic and biphasic waveforms

BACKGROUND: Biphasic waveforms have had a favorable impact on internal defibrillation but have seen minimal use in transthoracic defibrillation systems. The purpose of this study was to compare monophasic and biphasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation in swine. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three interrelated studies were performed in 19 swine to establish the relative transthoracic defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shock waveforms. In study 1, we measured voltage (V50) and energy (E50) strength-duration curves for monophasic and biphasic truncated exponential waveforms. We then independently examined the effects of phase duration and tilt on biphasic waveform defibrillation with a total waveform duration from study 1 that provided the minimum V50 (study 2) and the minimum E50 (study 3). At each pulse duration tested in study 1, biphasic waveforms defibrillated with significantly less voltage and energy than monophasic waveforms. At a duration of 12 ms, there was a voltage minimum for biphasic waveform defibrillation. At this duration, V50 was 1378 +/- 505 V for the biphasic waveform compared with 2185 +/- 361 V for the monophasic waveform, P = .01. For both monophasic and biphasic waveforms, E50 increased with pulse duration. With a total pulse duration of 12 ms, E50 was 169 +/- 101 J for the biphasic waveform compared with 414 +/- 114 J for the monophasic waveform, P = .003. In study 2, optimization of phase duration and total tilt reduced the defibrillation requirements of the 12-ms "minimum voltage" biphasic waveform to 1284 +/- 187 V and 129 +/- 36 J. In study 3, the 8-ms "minimum energy" biphasic waveform had an E50 of 115 +/- 35 J that was 11% less than the 12-ms biphasic waveform, P = .11; however, voltage requirements of 1476 +/- 239 V were 15% higher, P = .005. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the superiority of truncated biphasic waveforms over truncated monophasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation of swine. Biphasic waveforms should prove as advantageous at reducing voltage and energy requirements for transthoracic defibrillation as they have for internal defibrillation.     

Relative efficacy of monophasic and biphasic waveforms for transthoracic defibrillation after short and long durations of ventricular fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Recently, interest has arisen in using biphasic waveforms for external defibrillation. Little work has been done, however, in measuring transthoracic defibrillation efficacy after long periods of ventricular fibrillation. In protocol 1, we compared the efficacy of a quasi-sinusoidal biphasic waveform (QSBW), a truncated exponential biphasic waveform (TEBW), and a critically damped sinusoidal monophasic waveform (CDSMW) after 15 seconds of fibrillation. In protocol 2, we compared the efficacy of the more efficacious biphasic waveform from protocol 1, QSBW, with CDSMW after 15 seconds and 5 minutes of fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In protocol 1, 50% success levels, ED50, were measured after 15 seconds of fibrillation for the 3 waveforms in 6 dogs. In protocol 2, defibrillation thresholds were measured for QSBW and CDSMW after 15 seconds of fibrillation and after 3 minutes of unsupported fibrillation followed by 2 minutes of fibrillation with femoral-femoral cross-circulation. In protocol 1, QSBW had a lower ED50, 16.0+/-4.9 J, than TEBW, 20.3+/-4.4 J, or CDSMW, 27.4+/-6.0 J. In protocol 2, QSBW had a lower defibrillation threshold after 15 seconds, 38+/-10 J, and after 5 minutes, 41.5+/-5 J, than CDSMW after 15 seconds, 54+/-19 J, and 5 minutes, 80+/-30 J, of fibrillation. The defibrillation threshold remained statistically the same for QSBW for the 2 fibrillation durations but rose significantly for CDSMW. CONCLUSIONS: In this animal model of sudden death and resuscitation, these 2 biphasic waveforms are more efficacious than the CDSMW at short durations of fibrillation. Furthermore, the QSBW is even more efficacious than the CDSMW at longer durations of fibrillation.     

The effect of biphasic waveform tilt in transvenous atrial defibrillation

Atrial defibrillation can be accomplished using low energy shocks and transvenous catheters. The biphasic waveform tilt required to achieve optimal atrial defibrillation thresholds (ADFTs) is, however, not known. The effect of single capacitor biphasic waveform tilt modification on ADFT was assessed in 20 patients. Following AF induction the defibrillation pulses were delivered between the catheters positioned in the coronary sinus and the right atrium. The single capacitor biphasic waveform shocks, delivered over the same pathways, consisted of 65% tilt (65/65 biphasic waveform) to produce an overall tilt of 88%, or 50% tilt (50/50 biphasic waveform) to produce an overall tilt of 75%. Although 65/65 biphasic waveform delivers more energy, the shorter duration 50/50 biphasic waveform reduced stored energy ADFT 21%, from 1.34 +/- 0.82 J with 65/65 biphasic to 1.06 +/- 0.81 J. These differences were not statistically significant. Nine patients had lower ADFT with 50/50 biphasic waveform while five patients had lower ADFT with 65/65 biphasic waveform. Equivalent reduction in ADFT was seen in the remaining six patients. The ADFT was 0.83 +/- 0.65 J when both tilts were considered. In conclusion, biphasic waveform tilt modification may affect the ADFT in an individual patient. The optimal biphasic waveform for ADFT is not known.     

Early out-of-hospital experience with an impedance-compensating low-energy biphasic waveform automatic external defibrillator

Impedance-compensating low-energy biphasic truncated exponential (BTE) waveforms are effective in transthoracic defibrillation of short-duration ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, the BTE waveform has not been examined in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with patients in prolonged VF often associated with myocardial ischemia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the BTE waveform automatic external defibrillator (AED) in the out-of-hospital setting with long-duration VF. AEDs incorporating a 150-J BTE waveform were placed in 12 police squad cars and 4 paramedic-staffed advanced life support ambulances. AEDs were applied to arrested patients by first-arriving personnel, whether police or paramedics. Data were obtained from PC Data Cards within the AED. Defibrillation was defined as at least transient termination of VF. Ten patients, 64 +/- 14 years, were treated for VF with BTE shocks. Another 8 patients were in nonshockable rhythms and the AEDs, appropriately, did not advise a shock. Five of the 10 VF arrests were witnessed with a 911 call-to-shock time of 6.6 +/- 1.7 minutes. VF detection and defibrillation occurred in all 10 patients. Spontaneous circulation was restored in 3 of 5 witnessed arrest patients and 1 survived to discharge home. Fifty-one VF episodes were converted with 62 shocks. Presenting VF amplitude and rate were 0.43 +/- 0.22 (0.13-0.86) mV and 232 +/- 62 (122-353) beats/min, respectively, and defibrillation was achieved with the first shock in 7 of 10 patients. Including transient conversions, defibrillation occurred in 42 of 51 VF episodes (82%) with one BTE shock. Shock impedance was 85 +/- 10 (39-138) ohms. Delivered energy and peak voltage were 152 +/- 2 J and 1754 +/- 4 V, respectively. The average number of shocks per VF episode was 1.2 +/- 0.5 (1-3). More than one shock was needed in only 9 episodes; none required > 3 shocks to defibrillate. Impedance-compensating low-energy BTE waveforms terminated VF in OHCA patients with a conversion rate exceeding that of higher energy monophasic waveforms. VF was terminated in all patients, including those with high impedance.     

Preferential selection of specific rotavirus gene segments in coinfection and multiple passages with reassortant viruses and their parental strain

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-microF biphasic waveform was compared to a standard 125-microF biphasic waveform. The 90-microF 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 w as 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-microF ICDs with DFTs feasible using current defibrillation lead systems.     

Influence of polarity reversal on defibrillation success with biphasic shocks and a transvenous/subcutaneous defibrillator system in a porcine animal model

Clinical studies show that polarity reversal affects defibrillation success in transvenous monophasic defibrillators. Current devices use biphasic shocks for defibrillation. We investigated in a porcine animal model whether polarity reversal influences defibrillation success with biphasic shocks. In nine anesthetized, ventilated pigs, the defibrillation efficacy of biphasic shocks (14.3 ms and 10.8 ms pulse duration) with "initial polarity" (IP, distal electrode = cathode) and "reversed polarity" (RP, distal electrode = anode) delivered via a transvenous/subcutaneous lead system was compared. Voltage and current of each defibrillating pulse were recorded on an oscilloscope and impedance calculated as voltage divided by current. Cumulative defibrillation success was significantly higher for RP than for IP for both pulse durations (55% vs 44%, P = 0.019) for 14.3 ms (57% vs 45%, P < 0.05) and insignificantly higher for 10.8 ms (52% vs 42%, P = ns). Impedance was significantly lower with RP at the trailing edge of pulse 1 (IP: 44 +/- 8.4 vs RP: 37 +/- 9.3 with 14.3 ms, P < 0.001 and IP: 44 +/- 6.2 vs RP: 41 +/- 7.6 omega with 10.8 ms, P < 0.001) and the leading edge of pulse 2 (IP: 37 +/- 5 vs RP: 35 +/- 4.2 omega with 14.3 ms, P = 0.05 and IP: 37.5 +/- 3.7 vs RP: 36 +/- 5 omega with 10.8 ms, P = 0.02). In conclusion, in this animal model, internal defibrillation using the distal coil as anode results in higher defibrillation efficacy than using the distal coil as cathode. Calculated impedances show different courses throughout the shock pulses suggesting differences in current flow during the shock.     

Monetary compensation for plasma donors: a record of safety

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia after open heart surgery. Traditional treatment with a range of antiarrhythmic drugs and electrical cardioversion is associated with considerable side effects. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and efficacy of low-energy atrial defibrillation with temporary epicardial defibrillation wire electrodes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Epicardial defibrillation wire electrodes were placed at the left and right atria during open heart surgery in 100 consecutive patients (age 65+/-9 years; male to female ratio 67:23). Electrophysiological studies performed postoperatively revealed a test shock (0.3 J) impedance of 96+/-12 omega (monophasic) and 97+/-13 omega (biphasic). During their hospital stay, AF occurred in 23 patients (23%) at 2.1+/-1.3 days postoperatively. Internal atrial defibrillation was performed in 20 patients. Of these patients, 80% (16/20) were successfully cardioverted with a mean energy of 5.2+/-3 J. Early recurrence of AF (< or =60 seconds after defibrillation) developed in 8 patients. Five patients had multiple episodes of AF. In total, 35 episodes of AF were treated, with an 88% success rate. Only 6 patients (30%) required sedation. No complications were observed with shock application or with lead extraction. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial defibrillation with temporary epicardial wire electrodes can be performed safely and effectively in patients after cardiac operations. The shock energy required to restore sinus rhythm is low. Thus, patients can be cardioverted without anesthesia.     

Clinical shock tolerability and effect of different right atrial electrode locations on efficacy of low energy human transvenous atrial defibrillation using an implantable lead system

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

Charge-burping theory correctly predicts optimal ratios of phase duration for biphasic defibrillation waveforms

BACKGROUND: For biphasic waveforms, it is accepted that the ratio of the duration of phase 2 to the duration of phase 1 (phase-duration ratio) should be < or = 1. The charge-burping theory postulates that the beneficial effects of phase 2 are maximal when it completely removes the charge delivered by phase 1. It predicts that the phase-duration ratio should be < 1 when the time constant of the defibrillation system (tau s) exceeds the time constant of the cell membrane (tau m) but > 1 when tau s < tau m. This study tested the hypothesis that the optimal phase-duration ratio depends on tau s (the product of the defibrillator capacitance and pathway resistance). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a canine model of transvenous defibrillation (n = 8), we determined stored-energy defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) for biphasic waveforms from conventional capacitors (140 microF. tau s = 7.1 +/- 0.8 ms) and very small capacitors (40 microF. tau s = 2.0 +/- 0.2 ms). Each capacitance was tested with phase-duration ratios of 0.5, 1, 2, and 3. The duration of phase 1 approximated the optimal monophasic waveform, 6.3 +/- 0.7 ms for 140-microF waveforms and 2.8 +/- 0.2 ms for 40-microF waveforms. For 140-microF waveforms, the DFT was lower for phase-duration ratios < or = 1 than for phase-duration ratios > 1 (P = .0003). The reverse was true for 40-microF capacitors (P = .0008). There was a significant interaction between the effects of capacitance and phase-duration ratio on DFT (P = .0002). The lowest DFT for 40-microF waveforms was less than the lowest DFT for 140-microF waveforms (4.9 +/- 2.5 versus 6.4 +/- 2.4 J, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal phase-duration ratio is < or = 1 for conventional capacitors and > 1 for small capacitors. This supports the predictions of the charge-burping theory.     

Low-energy endocardial defibrillation using dual, triple, and quadruple electrode systems

The feasibility of achieving both universal application of nonthoracotomy leads and low (< or = 15 J) defibrillation energy requirements by optimizing lead system configuration for use with low-output (<30 J) biphasic shock pulse generators was examined. Sixteen patients (mean age 62 +/- 8 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 38 +/- 15%) were included in the study. All patients had either experienced syncope with induced ventricular tachycardia (n = 4) or had documented sustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 7) or ventricular fibrillation (n = 5). Defibrillation threshold testing was performed in 2 stages on different days in these patients. In the first stage, 2 defibrillation catheter electrodes were positioned in the right ventricle and superior vena cava with an axillary cutaneous patch. Fifteen-joule, 10- and 5-J biphasic shocks were delivered across 3 different electrode configurations-right ventricle to superior vena cava, right ventricle to axillary patch, right ventricle to a combination of superior vena cava and axillary patch. In the second stage, an 80-ml can electrode was added subcutaneously in a pectoral location to the previous leads. Configurations compared were the right ventricle to pectoral can, and right ventricle to an "array"-combining superior vena cava, can, and axillary patch leads. The defibrillation threshold was determined using a step-down method. In stage 1, mean defibrillation threshold for the right ventricle to axillary patch (12.7 +/- 5.9 J) and right ventricle to superior vena cava plus axillary patch (9.8 +/- 5.2 J) configurations was lower than the right ventricle to superior vena cava configuration (14.2 +/- 6.4 J, p <0.05). In stage 2, the defibrillation was higher for the right ventricle to pectoral can (9.2 +/- 5.1 J) configuration compared with the right ventricle to the array (5.6 +/- 3.6 J, p < or =0.05). The right ventricle to array had the lowest defibrillation threshold, whereas the right ventricle to pectoral can was the best dual electrode system. Low-energy endocardial defibrillation (< or =10 J) was feasible in 72% of tested patients with > 1 electrode configuration at 10 J, whereas only 53% of successful patients could be reverted at >1 electrode configuration at 5 J (p <0.05). Reduction in maximum pulse generator output to < or =25 J using these electrode configurations with bidirectional shocks is feasible and maintains an adequate safety margin.     

Relationship between efficacy of defibrillation shocks and frequency characteristics of shock waveforms

INTRODUCTION: Using the Fourier transform, it is possible to replace each time domain representation of a defibrillatory shock by a unique frequency domain representation in which the shock waveform is defined in terms of a complex number function of frequency and typically described as an amplitude in amperes per hertz (or, closely related, joules per hertz) and an associated frequency-dependent phase angle. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present article describes the conceptual basis of the Fourier transform, sketches a simplified mathematical framework for deriving frequency domain parameters, considers properties crucial to interpreting defibrillatory-type shocks when expressed in the frequency domain, and then presents a series of shock waveforms in the frequency domain. Although not definitive, knowledge of the energy distribution with frequency alone, usually presented in joules per hertz, is shown to yield considerable insight into the probable comparable efficacy of uniphasic/biphasic rectangular, untruncated/truncated uniphasic exponential, and various biphasic "single capacitor" waveforms. CONCLUSION: In general, efficacy in achieving ventricular defibrillation is improved by parameter changes that shift a larger percentage of the delivered energy into a mid-frequency range (very roughly, 40 to 160 Hz). With further study, the frequency domain approach may prove to be a useful tool in the a priori selection of optimal defibrillatory shock waveforms.     

Postshock potential gradients and dispersion of repolarization in cells stimulated with monophasic and biphasic waveforms

INTRODUCTION: Even though the clinical advantage of biphasic defibrillation waveforms is well documented, the mechanisms that underlie this greater efficacy remain incompletely understood. It is established, though, that the response of relatively refractory cells to the shock is important in determining defibrillation success or failure. We used two computer models of an isolated ventricular cell to test the hypothesis that biphasic stimuli cause a more uniform response than the equivalent monophasic shocks, decreasing the likelihood that fibrillation will be reinduced. METHODS AND RESULTS: Models of reciprocally polarized and uniformly polarized cells were used. Rapid pacing and elevated [K]o were simulated, and either 10-msec rectangular monophasic or 5-msec/5-msec symmetric biphasic stimuli were delivered in the relative refractory period. The effects of stimulus intensity and coupling interval on response duration and postshock transmembrane potential (Vm) were quantified for each waveform. With reciprocal polarization, biphasic stimuli caused a more uniform response than monophasic stimuli, resulting in fewer large gradients of Vm (only for shock strengths < or = 1.25x threshold vs < or = 2.125x threshold) and a smaller dispersion of repolarization (1611 msec2 vs 1835 msec2). The reverse was observed with uniform polarization: monophasic pulses caused a more uniform response than did biphasic stimuli. CONCLUSION: These results show that the response of relatively refractory cardiac cells to biphasic stimuli is less dependent on the coupling interval and stimulus strength than the response to monophasic stimuli under conditions of reciprocal polarization. Because this may lead to fewer and smaller spatial gradients in Vm, these data support the hypothesis that biphasic defibrillation waveforms will be less likely to reinduce fibrillation. Further, published experimental results correlate to a greater degree with conditions of reciprocal polarization than of uniform polarization, providing indirect evidence that interactions between depolarized and hyperpolarized regions play a role in determining the effects of defibrillation shocks on cardiac tissue.     

Effect of the addition of an abdominal hot can cardioverter/defibrillator pulse generator on the defibrillation energy requirements in a single-lead endocardial defibrillation system

AIMS: The effects of a cardioverter/defibrillator system with an electrically active generator can, applied without recourse to thoracotomy, have not been investigated in the abdominal position in humans. The purpose of this acute clinical study was to evaluate the defibrillation efficacy of an abdominally positioned hot can electrode in connection with a single lead endocardial defibrillation system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients undergoing implantation of a cardioverter/defibrillator or pulse generator replacement were enrolled in this study Each patient received an integrated, tripolar single-lead system. This was tested using an asymmetrical biphasic defibrillation waveform with constant energy delivery. Defibrillation energy, peak voltage, peak current and impedance were compared between two electrode configurations: (A) in this configuration the distal right ventricular coil was negative and the proximal coil positive; (B) in this configuration the distal right ventricular coil was negative and the proximal coil and the abdominal hot can (65 ccm), as common anode, were positive. Defibrillation threshold testing started at 15 J with stepwise energy reduction (10 J, 8 J, 5 J and 3 J) until defibrillation was ineffective. RESULTS: Compared to the single-lead configuration, the abdominal hot can configuration revealed at 17.5% reduction in defibrillation energy requirements (8.6 J +/- 4.3 J vs 10.43 J +/- 3.9 J; P = 0.041), a 15.7% reduction in peak voltage (308.6 V +/- 63 V vs 365.3 V +/- 68 V; P = 0.003), and a 21.6% reduction in impedance (41.1 omega +/- 6.3 omega vs 52.4 omega +/- 6.6 omega; P < 0.001). Peak current showed a significant increase during hot can testing of 8.2% (7.2 A +/- 1.8 A vs 7.8 A +/- 2.2 A; P = 0.16). CONCLUSION: An abdominally placed hot can pulse generator lowered defibrillation energy requirements in patients with an endocardial defibrillation lead system.     

Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: marked reduction in defibrillation threshold with dual current pathways

BACKGROUND: The ultimate acceptance of a fully automatic atrial defibrillator will depend on the reduction of pain to acceptable levels, requiring a marked decrease in defibrillation thresholds. The purpose of this study was to determine whether atrial defibrillation thresholds can be reduced by sequential shocks delivered through two current pathways. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sustained atrial fibrillation was induced with rapid atrial pacing in 12 adult sheep. Defibrillation electrodes were positioned in the right atrial appendage (RAap), distal coronary sinus (DCS), proximal coronary sinus (CSos), main/left pulmonary artery junction (PA), and right ventricular apex (RV). Single-capacitor biphasic waveforms (3/1 ms) were delivered through combinations of these electrodes. Probability-of-success curves were determined for single shocks with a single current pathway and sequential shocks with either single- or dual current pathways. The ED50 for delivered energy for the dual current pathway RAap to DCS then CSos to PA was 0.36+/-0.13 J, which was significantly lower than the ED50 of the standard single current pathway RAap to DCS (1.31+/-0.3 J) and was significantly lower than all other configurations tested. CONCLUSIONS: Internal atrial defibrillation thresholds can be markedly reduced with two sequential biphasic shocks delivered over two current pathways compared with the standard single shock delivered over a single current pathway or with sequential shocks delivered over a single current pathway.     

Transthoracic resistance in human defibrillation. Influence of body weight, chest size, serial shocks, paddle size and paddle contact pressure

Successful defibrillation depends on delivery of adequate electrical current to the heart; one of the major determinants of current flow is transthoracic resistance (TTR). To study the factors influencing TTR, we prospectively collected data from 44 patients undergoing emergency defibrillation. Shocks of 94-450 J delivered energy were administered from specially calibrated Datascope defibrillators that displayed peak current flow, thereby permitting determination of TTR. Shocks were applied from standard (8.5-cm diameter) or large (13 cm) paddles placed anteriorly and laterally. First-shock TTR ranged from 15-143 omega. There was a weak correlation between TTR and body weight (r = 0.45, p less than 0.05) and a stronger correlation between TTR and chest width (r = 0.80, p less than 0.01). Twenty-three patients who were defibrillated using standard 8.5-cm paddles had a mean TTR of 67 +/- 36 omega (+/- SD), whereas 21 patients who received shocks using paddle pairs with at least one large (13 cm) paddle had a 21% lower TTR of 53 +/- 24 omega (p = 0.05, unpaired t test). Ten patients received first and second shocks at the same energy level; TTR declined only 8%, from 52 +/- 19 to 48 +/- 16 omega (p less than 0.01, paired t test). In closed chest dogs, shocks were administered using a spring apparatus that regulated paddle contact pressure against the thorax. Firmer contact pressure caused TTR to decrease 25%, from 48 +/- 22 to 36 +/- 17 omega (p less than 0.01, paired t test). Thus, human TTR varies widely and is related most closely to chest size. TTR declines only slightly with a second shock at the same energy level. More substantial reductions in TTR and declines only slightly with a second shock at the same energy level. More substantial reductions in TTR and increases in current flow can be achieved by using large paddles and applying firm paddle contact pressure.     

Long-term evaluation of the ventricular defibrillation energy requirement

INTRODUCTION: Defibrillation energy requirements in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillators may increase within several months after implantation. However, the stability of the defibrillation energy requirement beyond 1 year has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to characterize the defibrillation energy requirement during 2 years of clinical follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients with a biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillation system underwent defibrillation energy requirement testing using a step-down technique (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 J) during defibrillator implantation, and then 24 hours, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years after implantation. The mean defibrillation energy requirement during these evaluations was 10.9+/-5.5 J, 12.3+/-7.3 J, 11.7+/-5.6 J, 10.2+/-4.0 J, and 11.7+/-7.4 J, respectively (P = 0.4). The defibrillation energy requirement was noted to have increased by 10 J or more after 2 years of follow-up in five patients. In one of these patients, the defibrillation energy requirement was no longer associated with an adequate safety margin, necessitating revision of the defibrillation system. There were no identifiable clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who did and did not develop a 10-J or more increase in the defibrillation energy requirement. CONCLUSION: The mean defibrillation energy requirement does not change significantly after 2 years of biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillator system implantation. However, approximately 15% of patients develop a 10-J or greater elevation in the defibrillation energy requirement, and 3% may require a defibrillation system revision. Therefore, a yearly evaluation of the defibrillation energy requirement may be appropriate.     

Favorable effects of flecainide in transvenous internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of intravenous (IV) flecainide on defibrillation energy requirements in patients treated with low-energy internal atrial cardioversion. BACKGROUND: Internal cardioversion of atrial fibrillation is becoming a more widely accepted therapy for acute episode termination and for implantable atrial defibrillators. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with atrial fibrillation (19 persistent, 5 paroxysmal) underwent elective transvenous cardioversion according to a step-up protocol. After successful conversion in a drug-free state, atrial fibrillation was induced by atrial pacing; IV flecainide (2 mg/kg) was administered and a second threshold was determined. In patients in whom cardioversion in a drug-free state failed notwithstanding a 400- to 550-V shock, a threshold determination was attempted after flecainide. RESULTS: Chronic persistent atrial fibrillation was converted in 13/19 (68%) patients at baseline and in 16/19 (84%) patients after flecainide. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was successfully cardioverted in all the patients. A favorable effect of flecainide was observed either in chronic persistent atrial fibrillation (13 patients) or in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (5 patients) with significant reductions in energy requirements for effective defibrillation (persistent atrial fibrillation: 4.42+/-1.37 to 3.50+/-1.51 J, p < 0.005; paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: 1.68+/-0.29 to 0.84+/-0.26 J, p < 0.01). In 14 patients not requiring sedation, the favorable effects of flecainide on defibrillation threshold resulted in a significant reduction in the scores of shock-induced discomfort (3.71+/-0.83 vs. 4.29+/-0.61, p < 0.005). No ventricular proarrhythmia was observed for any shock. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous flecainide reduces atrial defibrillation threshold in patients treated with low-energy internal atrial cardioversion. This reduction in threshold results in lower shock-induced discomfort. Additionally, flecainide may increase the procedure success rate in patients with chronic persistent atrial fibrillation.     

Additional lead improves defibrillation efficacy with an abdominal 'hot can' electrode system

BACKGROUND: Although the left prepectoral site is preferred for "hot can" placement, this site is unavailable in some patients. We evaluated the influence of electrode location on defibrillation thresholds with alternative hot can and transvenous lead configurations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three interrelated studies were performed. In group 1, the importance of hot can location was investigated by pairing a right ventricular lead to five different hot can placement sites in seven pigs. The defibrillation energies for right pectoral, left pectoral, left subaxillary, and right and left abdominal hot can sites were 20.3+/-2.7,* 15.9+/-3.8, 14.9+/-2.5, 32.0+/-3.4,* and 30.0+/-3.4 J,* respectively (*P<.005 versus left pectoral and left subaxillary sites). In group 2, the value of a three-electrode configuration with an abdominal hot can placement was investigated by adding a subclavian vein lead to the pectoral or abdominal hot can configurations in seven pigs. The defibrillation energies for left pectoral and abdominal sites were 18.6+/-4.2 and 29.0+/-5.8 J (P=.0001), respectively. The addition of a right or left subclavian vein lead with an abdominal hot can reduced the threshold to 19.3+/-4.2* or 18.8+/-3.2,* respectively (*P=.0001 versus abdominal site). In group 3, the contribution of the abdominal hot can electrode to the three-electrode configuration was tested by a comparison with two purely transvenous two-electrode configurations in six pigs. The defibrillation energy (19.9+/-3.2 J) for the abdominal hot can with a subclavian vein lead was lower than the transvenous lead configurations with a subclavian vein (29.0+/-2.5 J, P=.0001) or a superior vena cava lead (30.7+/-3.7 J, P=.0001). The right ventricular lead was the sole cathode during the first phase of the biphasic shock in all experiments. CONCLUSIONS: Defibrillation energy depends on the hot can placement site. The addition of a subclavian vein lead with an abdominal hot can improves defibrillation efficacy to the level of the pectoral placement and is better than a purely transvenous lead configuration.     

Virtual electrode-induced phase singularity: a basic mechanism of defibrillation failure

Delivery of a strong electric shock to the heart remains the only effective therapy against ventricular fibrillation. Despite significant improvements in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, the fundamental mechanisms of defibrillation remain poorly understood. We have recently demonstrated that a monophasic defibrillation shock produces a highly nonuniform epicardial polarization pattern, referred to as a virtual electrode pattern (VEP). The VEP consists of large adjacent areas of strong positive and negative polarization. We sought to determine whether the VEP may be responsible for defibrillation failure by creating dispersion of postshock repolarization and reentry. Truncated exponential biphasic and monophasic shocks were delivered from a bipolar ICD lead in Langendorff-perfused rabbit hearts. Epicardial electrical activity was mapped during and after defibrillation shocks and shocks applied at the plateau phase of a normal action potential produced by ventricular pacing. A high-resolution fluorescence mapping system with 256 recording sites and a voltage-sensitive dye were used. Biphasic shocks with a weak second phase (<20% leading-edge voltage of the second phase with respect to the leading-edge voltage of the first phase) produced VEPs similar to monophasic shocks. Biphasic shocks with a strong second phase (>70%) produced VEPs of reversed polarity. Both of these waveforms resulted in extra beats and arrhythmias. However, biphasic waveforms with intermediate second-phase voltages (20% to 70% of first-phase voltage) produced no VEP, because of an asymmetric reversal of the first-phase polarization. Therefore, there was no substrate for postshock dispersion of repolarization. Shocks producing strong VEPs resulted in postshock reentrant arrhythmias via a mechanism of phase singularity. Points of phase singularity were created by the shock in the intersection of areas of positive, negative, and no polarization, which were set by the shock to excited, excitable, and refractory states, respectively. Shock-induced VEPs may reinduce arrhythmias via a phase-singularity mechanism. Strong shocks may overcome the preshock electrical activity and create phase singularities, regardless of the preshock phase distribution. Optimal defibrillation waveforms did not produce VEPs because of an asymmetric effect of phase reversal on membrane polarization.     

Effect of a single element subcutaneous array electrode added to a transvenous electrode configuration on the defibrillation field and the defibrillation threshold

Even with the use of biphasic shocks, up to 5% of patients need an additional subcutaneous lead to obtain a defibrillation safety margin of at least 10 J. The number of patients requiring additional subcutaneous leads may even increase, because recent generation devices have a < 34 J maximum output in order to decrease their size. In 20 consecutive patients, a single element subcutaneous array lead was implanted in addition to a transvenous lead system consisting of a right ventricular (RV) and a vena cava superior lead using a single infraclavicular incision. The RV lead acted as the cathode; the subcutaneous lead and the lead in the subclavian vein acted as the anode. The biphasic defibrillation threshold was determined using a binary search protocol. Patients were randomized as to whether to start them with the transvenous lead configuration or the combination of the transvenous lead and the subcutaneous lead. In addition, a simplified assessment of the defibrillation field was performed by determining the interelectrode area for the transvenous lead only and the transvenous lead in combination with the subcutaneous lead from a biplane chest X ray. The intraoperative defibrillation threshold was reconfirmed after 1 week, after 3 months, and after 12 months. The mean defibrillation threshold with the additional subcutaneous lead was significantly (P = 0.0001) lower (5.7 +/- 2.9 J) than for the transvenous lead system (9.5 +/- 4.6 J). With the subcutaneous lead, the impedance of the high voltage circuit decreased from 48.9 +/- 7.4 omega to 39.2 +/- 5.0 omega. In the frontal plane, the interelectrode area increased by 11.3% +/- 5.5% (P < 0.0001) and in the lateral plane by 29.5% +/- 12.4% (P < 0.0001). The defibrillation threshold did not increase during follow-up. Complications with the subcutaneous electrode were not observed during a follow-up of 15.8 +/- 2 months. The single finger array lead is useful in order to lower the defibrillation threshold and can be used in order to lower the defibrillation threshold.