Lower Defibrillation Threshold Research Articles

Low-energy defibrillation using a base-apex epicardial electrode.

Current implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) require electric conduction with high voltage and high energy, which can impair cardiac function and induce another malignant arrhythmia. As a result, there has been a demand for an ICD that can effectively operate with lower energy to mitigate the risks of a strong electric shock. A pair of sheet-shaped electrodes covering the heart were analyzed in three configurations (top-bottom, left-right, and front-back) using a heart simulator. We also varied the distance between the two electrodes (clearance) to identify the electrode shape with the lowest defibrillation threshold (DFT). We also investigated the ICD shock waveform, shock direction, and the effect of the backside insulator of the electrode. The DFT was high when the clearance was too small and the DFT was high even when the clearance was too large, suggesting that an optimal value clearance. The top-bottom electrodes with optimal clearance showed the lowest DFT when the biphasic shocks set the top electrode to a high potential first and then the bottom electrode was set to a high potential. An interval between a first shock waveform and a second shock waveform should be provided for low-energy defibrillation. Because the insulator prevents unnecessary current flow to the backside, the DFT of the electrodes with insulators is less than those without insulators. Painless defibrillation using sheet-shaped electrodes on the epicardium is predicated on the basis of results using a heart simulator.

Additional coils mitigate elevated defibrillation threshold in right-sided implantable cardioverter defibrillator generator placement: a simulation study.

The standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator (can) is placed in the left pectoral area; however, in certain circumstances, right-sided cans may be required which may increase defibrillation threshold (DFT) due to suboptimal shock vectors. We aim to quantitatively assess whether the potential increase in DFT of right-sided can configurations may be mitigated by alternate positioning of the right ventricular (RV) shocking coil or adding coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and coronary sinus (CS). A cohort of CT-derived torso models was used to assess DFT of ICD configurations with right-sided cans and alternate positioning of RV shock coils. Efficacy changes with additional coils in the SVC and CS were evaluated. A right-sided can with an apical RV shock coil significantly increased DFT compared to a left-sided can [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P < 0.001]. Septal positioning of the RV coil led to a further DFT increase when using a right-sided can [26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J, P < 0.001], but not a left-sided can [12.1 (8.1, 17.6) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P = 0.099). Defibrillation threshold of a right-sided can with apical or septal coil was reduced the most by adding both SVC and CS coils [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 6.6 (3.9, 9.9) J, P < 0.001, and 26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 12.1 (5.7, 13.5) J, P < 0.001]. Right-sided, compared to left-sided, can positioning results in a 50% increase in DFT. For right-sided cans, apical shock coil positioning produces a lower DFT than septal positions. Elevated right-sided can DFTs may be mitigated by utilizing additional coils in SVC and CS.

Clinical predictors of very low defibrillation threshold in the extravascular ICD

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic, Inc. Background The extravascular ICD (EV ICD) is a 40J device utilising a lead placed behind the sternum and a subcutaneous can in the axilla to achieve defibrillation efficacy, size, and predicted longevity comparable to transvenous devices, as well as providing pause prevention and antitachycardia pacing. In the worldwide EV ICD Pivotal Study, 98.7% of 302 patients completed the defibrillation (DF) testing protocol with a safety margin of ≥10J. In 71.5% of patients, defibrillation was successful at lower energies (20J or 15J). Factors associated with lower energy defibrillation in EV ICD patients have yet to be determined. Purpose In this analysis we examine what factors are associated with very low DF thresholds (safety margin ≥20J). Methods Multivariate analysis was performed to look for clinical and implant predictors in patients with success at very low energies (15J or 20J, n = 216) versus those in whom either success was achieved at higher energies (2x 30J before or after polarity changes/revisions, n = 82), or DF testing failed (n=4) or was incomplete (n = 4). Results 24 variables were examined: 18 pre-implant clinical factors (including gender, body measurements, aetiology, LV ejection fraction, medications) and 6 peri-implant electrical measurements. Univariate analysis identified 5 clinical factors and 4 implant measurements as predictors of defibrillation success at very low energy; multivariate analysis with a gate of p &amp;lt;0.1 found 6 factors to be independent predictors (see table). Conclusions Certain pre-implant clinical factors and implant details are independent predictors of successful defibrillation at very low energies. If confirmed, these findings suggest that in many cases DF testing at EV ICD implant may not be necessary.

Reduction in defibrillation threshold by modifications to the subcutaneous implantable-cardioverter defibrillator coil

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) is approved as an alternative to the traditional transvenous ICD (T-ICD). The S-ICD has higher average defibrillation threshold (DFT) than the T-ICD, related primarily to greater distance from shocking coil to ventricular myocardium with the S-ICD. The S-ICD therefore utilizes a larger device capable of generating an 80J shock, compared to 35-40J maximal shock output typical for T-ICDs, and defibrillation efficacy testing is generally recommended for the S-ICD 1 Wilkoff B, Fauchier L, Stiles M, et al. 2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing. Heart Rhythm 2016;13;e50-86. Google Scholar . We previously published computer modeling of predictors of defibrillation efficacy with the S-ICD, which determined that minimal fat underlying the S-ICD coil and generator (reducing shock impedance), and posterior generator position (better directing the shock vector across the ventricles), are predictors of lower DFT 2 Heist E. Belalcazar A. Stahl W. et al. Determinants of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Efficacy. J Am Coll Cardiol EP. 2017; 3: 405-414 Google Scholar . Those findings formed the basis for the PRAETORIAN score, which is utilized in clinical S-ICD implantation to reduce DFT 3 Quast A.-F.B.E. Baalman S.W.E. Brouwer T.F. et al. A novel tool to evaluate the implant position and predict defibrillation success of the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: The PRAETORIAN score. Heart Rhythm. 2018; 16: 403-410 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (65) Google Scholar . A previously published computer modeling study examined the impact of dual S-ICD electrodes and electrode arrays, as well as variations in generator and lead location; results demonstrated reduced DFT with some configurations compared to the standard S-ICD 4 Jolley M. Stinstra J. Tate J. et al. Finite Element Modeling of Subcutaneous Implantable Defibrillator Electrodes in an Adult Torso. Heart Rhythm. 2010; 7: 692-698 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (37) Google Scholar . In this current study, we performed computer modeling to determine whether design modifications to the S-ICD coil could result in reductions to S-ICD DFT.

Active compression versus standard anterior-posterior defibrillation for external cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: A prospective randomized study

Electrical cardioversion is the first-line rhythm control therapy for symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Contemporary use of biphasic shock waveforms and anterior-posterior positioning of defibrillation electrodes have improved cardioversion efficacy; however, it remains unsuccessful in >10% of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of applying active compression on defibrillation electrodes during AF cardioversion. We performed a bicenter randomized study including patients referred for persistent AF cardioversion. Elective external cardioversion was performed by a standardized step-up protocol with increasing biphasic shock energy (50-100-150-200 J). Patients were randomly assigned to standard anterior-posterior defibrillation or to defibrillation with active compression applied over the anterior electrode. If sinus rhythm was not achieved at 200 J, a single crossover shock (200 J) was applied. Defibrillation threshold, total delivered energy, number of shocks, and success rate were compared between groups. We included 100 patients, 50 in each group. In the active compression group, defibrillation threshold was lower (103.1 ±49.9 J vs 130.4 ± 47.7 J; P = .008), as well as total delivered energy (203 ± 173.3 J vs 309 ± 213.5 J; P = .0076) and number of shocks (2.2 ± 1.1 vs 2.9 ± 1.2; P = .0033), and cardioversion was more often successful (48 of 50 patients [96%] vs 42 of 50 patients [84%]; P = .0455) than that in the standard anterior-posterior group. Crossover from the compression group to the standard group was not successful (0 of 2 patients), whereas crossover from the standard group to the compression group was successful in 50% of patients (4 of 8). Active compression applied to the anterior defibrillation electrode is more effective for persistent AF cardioversion than standard anterior-posterior cardioversion, with lower defibrillation threshold and higher success rate.

Removalof subcutaneous defibrillator shocking coils: Lessons to learn for future extraction of subcutaneous defibrillator systems.

Subcutaneous shocking coils (SQC) have been used to lower defibrillation thresholds in certain patient populations. There are limited data regarding the extraction complexity of these leads. The goal of this study is to describe our SQC extraction experience and identify challenges that may be of importance with the increase in utilization and extraction of fully subcutaneous defibrillator systems. We studied consecutive patients who underwent lead removal at our institution during which a Medtronic 6996SQ (Medtronic plc, Minneapolis, MN, USA) was removed RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (54.5 ± 14 years, 85.7% male) underwent procedures where at least one lead removed was a SQC. Mean ejection fraction was 27.7% and 11 patients had prior ventricular arrhythmia. Median SQC age was 177 days and the age of the oldest SQC removed was 3,041 days. Infection was the indication for removal in 14 patients. One removal was performed surgically and 20 were completed percutaneously. Three procedures required additional incisions beyond the device pocket and tie-down sleeve to complete the SQC lead removal due to dense adhesions. One removal procedure required the use of a laser sheath to relieve fibrosis. Complications in this group did not appear related to SQC removal. Drawing from our SQC removal experience, there may be a need for additional incisions and extra tools to complete removal of older subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads.

Routine DFT testing in patients undergoing ICD implantation does not improve mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has been an integral part of implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) implantation to confirm appropriate sensing of ventricular fibrillation and to establish an adequate safety margin for defibrillation. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding benefits of routine DFT testing. Therefore, we performed a meta‐analysis to assess its mortality benefit. We searched MEDLINE for studies comparing mortality outcomes in ICD recipients who underwent DFT testing to those who did not. For the second analysis, studies comparing outcomes in patients with high‐ vs low‐energy DFT were included. Odds ratio and standard errors were calculated, and inverse variance method in a random‐effect model was used to combine effect sizes. Fifteen studies with 10,975 subjects comparing outcomes in patients who underwent routine DFT testing during ICD implantation and those who did not were included. There was no difference in the group that did not undergo DFT testing with regards to all‐cause mortality (OR 0.935; CI 0.725‐1.207; P = 0.606), cardiac mortality (OR 0.709; CI 0.385‐1.307; P = 0.271), noncardiac mortality (OR 0.921; CI 0.701‐1.210; P = 0.554), and arrhythmic mortality (OR 1.152; CI 0.831‐1.596; P = 0.396). Percentage of successful appropriate first shocks among the two groups showed no difference. Five studies with 2278 subjects were included in the second analysis comparing patients with low DFT vs high DFT. Patients with high DFT had no significant increase in all‐cause mortality compared to patients with low DFT (OR 0.527; CI 0.034‐8.107; P = 0.646). Patients requiring higher DFT had no increased all‐cause mortality compared to patients with lower DFT. Routine DFT testing during ICD implantation does not confer any significant benefit.

51 Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: a meta-analysis

AimsDual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads have traditionally been used over single-coil leads due to concerns regarding high defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and consequent poor shock efficacy. However, accumulating evidence suggests...

A Novel Defibrillation Tool: Percutaneously Delivered, Partially Insulated Epicardial Defibrillation.

Epicardial defibrillation systems currently require surgical access. We aimed to develop a percutaneous defibrillation system with partially-insulated epicardial coils to focus electrical energy on the myocardium and prevent or minimize extra-cardiac stimulation. We tested 2 prototypes created for percutaneous introduction into the pericardial space via a steerable sheath. This included a partially-insulated defibrillation coil and a defibrillation mesh with a urethane balloon acting as an insulator to the face of the mesh not in contact with the epicardium. The average energy associated with a chance of successful defibrillation 75% of the time (ED75) was calculated for each experiment. Of 16 animal experiments, 3 pig experiments had malfunctioning mesh prototypes such that results were unreliable; these were excluded. Therefore, 13 animal experiments were analyzed - 6 canines (29.8±4.0kg); 7 pigs (41.1±4.4kg). The overall ED75 was 12.8±6.7J (10.9±9.1J for canines; 14.4±3.9J in pigs [P=0.37]). The lowest ED75 obtained in canines was 2.5J while in pigs it was 9.5J. The lowest energy resulting in successful defibrillation was 2J in canines and 5J in pigs. There was no evidence of coronary vessel injury or trauma to extra-pericardial structures. Percutaneous, epicardial defibrillation using a partially insulated coil is feasible and appears to be associated with low defibrillation thresholds. Focusing insulation may limit extra-cardiac stimulation and potentially lower energy requirements for efficient defibrillation.

Determinants of Subcutaneous ImplantableCardioverter-Defibrillator Efficacy: A Computer Modeling Study.

This study determined the impact of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) coil andgenerator position on defibrillation threshold (DFT). S-ICD implantation can occasionally result in unacceptably high DFT. Implant position characteristics associated with high DFTs in S-ICD patients have not been fully elucidated. A 3.8-million-element computer model built from magnetic resonance images was used to simulate the electric fields that occur during defibrillation. Generator positions were tested from posterior to anterior in 4-cm increments. The left parasternal coil was tested with 0, 5, and 10 mm of underlying subcutaneous fat and the generator with 20 mm of underlying fat. The estimated DFT for the S-ICD was defined as the energy delivered when producing anelectric field of 4 volts/cm in at least 95% of the ventricular myocardium. Estimated DFTs were 22, 29, 64, and 135 joules for posterior, standard (lateral), mid-anterior, and anterior generator locations, respectively. Defibrillation thresholds were 29, 58, and 95 joules with 0, 5, and 10 mm subcoil fat, respectively, and 45 joules with 20 mm subgenerator fat. Combining anterior generator position with subcoil fat resulted in a very high DFT (379 joules). Shock impedance increased with both subcoil and subgenerator fat but was minimally affected by anterior/posterior generator position. The model suggests that an S-ICD implantation strategy involving posterior generator location and coil and generator directly over the fascia without underlying fat is likely to markedly lower DFTs with the S-ICD and assist in troubleshooting of patients with unacceptably high DFTs.

Outcomes with single-coil versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillators: a meta-analysis.

Dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads have traditionally been used over single-coil leads due to concerns regarding high defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and consequent poor shock efficacy. However, accumulating evidence suggests that this position may be unfounded and that dual-coil leads may also be associated with higher complication rates during lead extraction. This meta-analysis collates data comparing dual- and single-coil ICD leads. Electronic databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomized studies comparing single-coil and dual-coil leads. The mean differences in DFT and summary estimates of the odds-ratio (OR) for first-shock efficacy and the hazard-ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality were calculated using random effects models. Eighteen studies including a total of 138,124 patients were identified. Dual-coil leads were associated with a lower DFT compared to single coil leads (mean difference -0.83J; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.39--0.27; P = 0.004). There was no difference in the first-shock success rate with dual-coil compared to single-coil leads (OR 0.74; 95%CI 0.45-1.21; P=0.22). There was a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality associated with single-coil leads (HR 0.91; 95%CI 0.86-0.95; P < 0.0001). This meta-analysis suggests that single-coil leads have a marginally higher DFT but that this may be clinically insignificant as there appears to be no difference in first-shock efficacy when compared to dual-coil leads. The mortality benefit with single-coil leads most likely represents patient selection bias. Given the increased risk and complexity of extracting dual-coil leads, centres should strongly consider single-coil ICD leads as the lead of choice for routine new left-sided ICD implants.

Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry.

Dual-coil leads were traditionally considered standard of care due to lower defibrillation thresholds (DFT). Higher complication rates during extraction with parallel progression in implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) technology raised questions on dual coil necessity. Prior substudies found no significant outcome difference between dual and single coils, although using higher rates of DFT testing then currently practiced. We evaluated the temporal trends in implantation rates of single- vs. dual-coil leads and determined the associated adverse clinical outcomes, using a contemporary nation-wide ICD registry. Between July 2010 and March 2015, 6343 consecutive ICD (n = 3998) or CRT-D (n = 2345) implantation patients were prospectively enrolled in the Israeli ICD Registry. A follow-up of at least 1 year of 2285 patients was available for outcome analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Single-coil leads were implanted in 32% of our cohort, 36% among ICD recipients, and 26% among CRT-D recipients. Secondary prevention indication was associated with an increased rate of dual-coil implantation. A significant decline in dual-coil leads with reciprocal incline of single coils was observed, despite low rates of DFT testing (11.6%) during implantation, which also declined from 31 to 2%. In the multivariate Cox model analysis, dual- vs. single-coil lead implantation was not associated with an increased risk of mortality [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; P= 0.33], heart failure hospitalization (HR = 1.34; P=0.13), appropriate (HR = 1.25; P= 0.33), or inappropriate ICD therapy (HR = 2.07; P= 0.12). Real-life rates of single-coil lead implantation are rising while adding no additional risk. These results of single-coil safety are reassuring and obtained, despite low and contemporary rates of DFT testing.

The effects of second and third phase duration on defibrillation efficacy of triphasic rectangle waveforms

BackgroundBiphasic waveforms are superior to monophasic waveforms for the termination of ventricular fibrillation (VF). However, whether triphasic waveforms are more effective than biphasic ones is still controversial. In the present study, we investigated the effects of second and third phase duration of triphasic rectangle waveform on defibrillation efficacy in a rabbit model of VF. MethodsVF was electrically induced and untreated for 30s in 20 New Zealand rabbits. A defibrillatory shock was applied with one of the 7 waveforms: 6 triphasic rectangle waveforms and a biphasic rectangle waveform. The triphasic waveforms had identical first duration but with different second and third phase durations. A 5 step up-and-down protocol was utilized for determining the defibrillation threshold (DFT). After a 5min interval, the procedure was repeated. A total of 35 cardiac arrest events and defibrillations were investigated for each animal. ResultsTwo triphasic waveforms with identical first and second phase duration but shorter third phase duration had significantly lower DFT energy than biphasic waveform (0.57±0.18J vs. 0.80±0.28J, p=0.001; 0.60±0.18J vs. 0.80±0.28J, p=0.003). However, no statistical difference in DFT energy was observed between the two triaphsic waveforms that had identical phase duration but different voltages (0.57±0.18J vs. 0.60±0.18J, p=0.638). ConclusionsPhase durations played a main role on defibrillation success for triphasic rectangle waveforms. The optimal triphasic rectangle waveforms that composed of identical second and first phase durations but with shorter third pulse were superior to biphasic rectangle waveform for ventricular defibrillation.

Decreased Defibrillation Threshold and Minimized Myocardial Damage With Left Axilla Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation.

To reduce myocardial damage caused by implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock, the left axilla was studied as an alternative pulse generator implantation site, and compared with the traditional implantation site, the left anterior chest. Computer simulation was used to study the defibrillation conduction pattern and estimate the simulated defibrillation threshold (DFT) and myocardial damage when pulse generators were placed in the left axilla and left anterior chest, respectively; pulse generators were also newly implanted in the left axilla (n=30) and anterior chest (n=40) to compare the corresponding DFT. On simulation, when ICD generators were implanted in the left axilla, compared with the left anterior chest, the whole heart may be defibrillated with a lower defibrillation energy (left axilla 6.4 J vs. left anterior chest 12.0 J) and thus the proportion of cardiac myocardial damage may be reduced (2.1 vs. 4.2%). Clinically, ventricular fibrillation was successfully terminated with a defibrillation output ≤5 J in 86.7% (26/30) of the left axillary group, and in 27.5% (11/40) of the left anterior group (P<0.001). Clinically and theoretically, the left axilla was shown to be an improved ICD implantation site that may reduce DFT and lessen myocardial damage due to shock. Lower DFT also facilitates less myocardial damage, as a result of the lower shock required.

Efficacy and Myocardial Injury With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators - Computer Simulation of Defibrillation Shock Conduction.

Subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator (S-ICD) systems have a lower invasiveness than traditional ICD systems, and expand the indications of ICD implantations. The S-ICD standard defibrillation shock output energy, however, is approximately 4 times that of the traditional ICD system. This raises concern about the efficacy of the defibrillation and myocardial injury. In this study, we investigated the defibrillation efficacy and myocardial injury with S-ICD systems based on computer simulations. First, computer simulations were performed based on the S-ICD system configurations proposed in a previous study. Furthermore, simulations were performed by placing the lead at the left or right parasternal margin and the pulse generator in the superior and inferior positions (0-10 cm) of the recommended site. The simulated defibrillation threshold (DFT) for the 4 S-ICD system configurations were 30.1, 41.6, 40.6, and 32.8 J, which were generally similar to the corresponding clinical results of 33.5, 40.4, 40.1, and 34.3 J. The simulated DFT were generally similar to their clinical counterparts. In the simulation, the S-ICD system had a higher DFT but relatively less severe myocardial injury compared with the traditional ICD system. Further, the lead at the right parasternal margin may correspond to a lower DFT and cause less myocardial injury.

Implantation of looped epicardial cardioverter defibrillator coil on the surface of the right ventricular outflow tract.

We present the early results of looped epicardial cardioverter defibrillator coil implantation on the anterior surface of right ventricular outflow tract in infants and children. Patients with a surgical history of an epicardial implantable cardioverter defibrillator system between 2013 and 2014 were included in the study. Patient age, gender, body weight, indications for a cardioverter defibrillator system implantation, defibrillation threshold values, and defibrillation therapies were retrospectively evaluated. There were eight patients with a mean age of 4.4 ± 2.9 years and a mean body weight of 19.5 ± 11.7 kg. Five of the patients had been diagnosed with long QT syndrome, one patient had been diagnosed with genetic channelopathy and noncompaction of the left ventricle, and two patients had been diagnosed with univentricle physiology. The implantable cardioverter defibrillator system was composed of pace-sense leads, an abdominal active can, and a defibrillation coil placed below the pulmonary valve annulus on the anterior surface of the heart. The mean defibrillation threshold was 6.6 ± 2.3 joules. There were four appropriate therapies in two patients in a mean follow-up of 9 ± 6.5 months. The significantly low defibrillation thresholds with the defibrillation coils located below the pulmonary valve annulus are encouraging. However, a larger patient series will be necessary to evaluate the safety and reliability of this technique.

Abstract 9386: Ramp Biphasic Waveforms Have a Lower External Defibrillation Threshold

Introduction: We have previously shown that waveforms with an ascending ramp in both phases have a lower internal defibrillation threshold (DFT). The purpose of this study was to test whether waveforms with rectilinear, ascending and descending ramps in the second phase would reduce the DFT compared with a standard exponential biphasic waveform with external defibrillation shocks. Methods: In 6 pigs, DFTs were determined for 10 waveforms: a standard truncated exponential biphasic waveform with 60% tilt (Fig 1, #1) and 9 biphasic waveforms with an 8 ms ascending ramp 1st phase and one of 3 rectilinear, ascending ramp or descending ramp 2nd phases. The 3 rectilinear 2nd phases were: 1 ms, 200% of peak voltage of phase 1 (#2); 2 ms, same voltage as phase (#3); 3 ms, half the voltage of phase 1 (#4). The 3 ascending ramp 2nd phases were: 2 ms, 200% of voltage of phase 1(#5); 3 ms, same voltage as phase 1(#6); 4.5 ms, half the voltage of phase 1(#7). The 3 descending ramp 2nd phases were: 2 ms, 200% of voltage of phase 1(#8); 3 ms, same voltage as phase 1(#9); 4.5 ms, half the voltage of phase 1(#10). Results: Phase 2 ascending ramp (#7) and descending ramp (#8, #9) waveforms had the lowest DFTs, which were significantly smaller than for the truncated exponential waveform. (Fig 1, *indicates p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: Waveforms with a ramp in phase 2 (#7, #8, #9) have a lower DFT.

Abstract 19129: Does System Modification “Really” Modify Survival in Patients With High Defibrillation Threshold? Probably Not

Introduction: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is a routine part of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) placement at most centers. If a patient is found to have a high DFT, many physicians perform system modification by adding subcutaneous or transvenous shocking coil to the ICD in an attempt to lower DFT. It is not clear how patients with system modification fare compared to patients without such modification. Hypothesis: System modification should have an effect of reducing mortality in patients high DFT when compared with those who don’t undergo it. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed demographic and procedural data from 6520 patients who underwent ICD implant at the Cleveland Clinic, between August 1996 and November 2010. The Social Security Death Index was queried to obtain mortality data. High DFT was defined as DFT greater than 25 joules. Among patients with high DFT, survival was compared between those who underwent system modification versus those who did not, using the log-rank test. Results: 191 patients had a high DFT (mean DFT 30.6+/- 3.4J). The types of ICDs were single chamber 64 (33.5%); dual chamber 72 (37.7%) and cardiac resynchronization or CRT-D 55 (28.8%). 120 patients underwent a system modification (mean DFT after modification was 24.3+/- 5.6J). The commonest system modification was subcutaneous coil (70 patients; Medtronic 6996SQ-58). Median follow-up was 1788 days. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of these two groups exhibited no significant difference in mortality between patients with and without system modification (Mantel-Cox Log-rank, p = 0.731). Conclusions: Patients with high DFT at ICD implant managed by system modification have mortality similar to patients without it. This questions the practice of system modification &amp; calls for further analysis.

Virtual 3D Heart Models to Aid Pacemaker Implantation in Children

Virtual 3D Heart Models to Aid Pacemaker Implantation in Children

Circulation Editors’ Picks

<i>Circulation</i> Editors’ Picks