Search

The implantable atrial defibrillator (IAD) is designed to detect and treat atrial fibrillation (AF) with low energy synchronized shocks. A patient with a history of persistent AF was implanted with an IAD after ineffective treatment with procainamide and sotalol. Through four months of follow-up, the IAD performed appropriate detection and treatment of AF. During the fifth month, the patient was put on flecainide in an attempt to minimize the AF recurrence rate. On flecainide the patient experienced typical atrial flutter which required IAD reprogramming for appropriate detection and therapy delivery. This case report examines the optimization of the IAD to detect atrial flutter. Six months of follow-up after optimization the IAD has shown appropriate detection of both atrial flutter and AF. During the entire follow-up period the IAD had appropriate detection of sinus rhythm (no false positive detection, i.e. sinus rhythm as AF).

The effect of initial phase polarity on the DFT of two pectorally implanted biphasic ICDs was tested in a randomized, prospective manner at the time of implantation. Twenty-two consecutive patients with VT-VF who received either the Medtronic PCD 7219C Jewel device (10 patients) or PCD 7219D Jewel device (12 patients) were studied. DFT testing was performed in a standard step-down manner. Both initial phase polarities--initial defibrillation current flowing from active can/SVC coil +/- subcutaneous patch) to the RV coil (RV coil to active can/SVC (RV+)--were tested in random order. The mean DFT achieved with RV+ compared with RV-was lower for the 7219C patient group (6.6 +/- 3.1 vs 10.8 +/- 5.5 J; P = 0.007). A similar trend was observed for the 7219D group, though the difference did not reach statistical significance (12.0 +/ 4.0 vs 16.3 +/- 7.3 J; P = 0.07). Seven of the 10 patients in the 7219C group had a lower DFT with RV+, while the initial phase polarity made no difference in 3. In the 7219D group, 7 patients had a lower DFT using RV+, 2 patients had a lower DFT using RV-, and the initial phase polarity made no difference in 3. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that changing the polarity of the initial phase of a biphasic shock waveform can have a significant impact on the DFT achieved at the time of ICD implantation.

Objectives: This study assessed the feasibility of detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) and delivery of appropriately timed R wave shocks using an implantable atrial defibrillator., Background: For atrial defibrillation therapy to be feasible in an implantable form, AF must be detected in a specific fashion, and the risk of ventricular proarrhythmia should be minimized., Methods: Eleven patients with AF underwent testing with an implantable atrial defibrillator (METRIX 3000 Automatic Atrial Defibrillator, InControl, Inc.). Wideband electrograms (EGMs) were recorded from the right ventricular (RV) bipolar catheter and from the multipolar catheters located in the right atrium (RA) and coronary sinus (CS). Atrial fibrillation detection was performed using two serial algorithms-quiet interval analysis and baseline crossing analysis-that detect atrial activity on the RA-CS channel. Ventricular sensing using a minimal preceding synchronization interval of 500 ms as a criterion for synchronous shock delivery was performed from filtered RV and RV-CS EGMs., Results: The AF detection algorithms were applied to 53 AF data segments and 18 normal sinus rhythm data segments. Atrial fibrillation was detected appropriately in 49 instances, and the specificity for detecting AF and normal sinus rhythm was 100%. Synchronization criterion efficacy was assessed by delivering shock markers and shocks. Of the 2,025 R waves processed, 557 (27.5%) were marked as suitable for shock delivery. In addition, 69 therapeutic and 11 test shocks were delivered during AF. All shock markers and shocks were delivered synchronously with the R wave, and the synchronization criterion was never violated., Conclusions: Atrial fibrillation can be detected in a specific fashion using the RA-CS lead configuration and serial detection algorithms for atrial sensing. The delivery of properly timed shocks is feasible and should minimize the risk of ventricular proarrhythmia.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators have an established role in the management of life-threatening tachyarrhythmias. These devices use sophisticated sensing circuitry to detect and promptly treat a vast majority of these arrhythmias. However, they are not foolproof. We report one case where the device failed to sense every other QRS complex during induced ventricular fibrillation due to marked electrical alterans. Thus, undersensing can be a potentially fatal problem despite the use of auto adjustable gain.

Introduction: Previous studies have suggested that coronary artery bypass surgery is sufficient to prevent recurrence of sudden death in patients with critical coronary artery stenosis presenting with ventricular fibrillation or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. We present our experience in patients with one or more episodes of sudden death associated with documented ventricular fibrillation or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia and severe operable coronary artery disease who underwent defibrillator implant at the time of bypass surgery., Methods and Results: Fifty-eight consecutive patients (age 63 +/- 8 years) were included in this study. Eighteen of the 58 patients had no evidence of previous myocardial infarction. The mean ejection fraction was 37 +/- 13%. All patients underwent electrophysiologic study before and after revascularization. At the time of first defibrillator discharge, each patient was reevaluated to exclude the presence of ischemia. The benefits of defibrillator implant were estimated comparing the projected survival based upon defibrillator discharge preceded by syncope or presyncope with survival curves generated including total death and sudden plus cardiac death. After a mean follow-up of 4.6 +/- 2 years, 22 patients received appropriate shocks preceded by syncope or presyncope, and an additional 19 patients received asymptomatic shocks. At 4 years, survival free of total death was 71.2%, and the projected survival was 58.8% (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that ejection fraction lower than 30% and induction of arrhythmia with one or two extrastimuli (S2, S3) were independent predictors for defibrillator discharge. None of the remaining variables including age, gender, number of bypasses, history of myocardial infarction, and type of arrhythmias induced were predictive for death and occurrence of shocks., Conclusions: In patients with ventricular fibrillation and polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, bypass surgery does not protect from recurrence of life-threatening arrhythmias, and, as in our population, defibrillator implant may have significant impact on survival.

Implantation of a nonthoracotomy system (Medtronic PCD or CPI Endotak) was attempted in 170 patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) not requiring concomitant cardiac surgery. A nonthoracotomy system could be successfully implanted in 95 of the 115 patients with the PCD system and 49 of 55 patients receiving the Endotak lead system. In 26 patients with failed nonthoracotomy system because of defibrillation threshold (DFT) > 25 joules (J), an epicardial system was implanted at the same setting. Patients receiving the two lead systems were comparable with regard to age, sex, and ejection fraction. However, since the PCD system offers tiered therapy multiprogrammable options, all attempts were made to implant this lead system in patients with VT that could be pace terminated. Mean DFT (15 +/- 4.7 vs 17 +/- 4.6 J; P = 0.03) and implant time (2.5 +/- 0.6 vs 3.3 +/- 0.7 hours; P = 0.02) were less with the Endotak lead system. There was no perioperative mortality. During a mean follow-up of 20 +/- 4 months, there were eight instances of lead dislodgment in patients receiving the PCD system. There were four nonsudden cardiac deaths and one sudden death in the Endotak group and three nonsudden deaths in the PCD group. Sudden cardiac death and total survival using the intention-to-treat analysis during this follow-up period were 99% and 95%, respectively. In conclusion, successful implantation, perioperative mortality, and survival rate are comparable with both lead systems; however, incorporating two defibrillating electrodes in one lead minimizes lead dislodgment and reduces implant time.

Objectives: This study analyzed the advantage of combining a biphasic device with a transvenous system and compared the results with those obtained with a standard monophasic device., Background: Available lead systems use monophasic pulses and may require lengthy intraoperative testing to achieve adequate defibrillation threshold in a conspicuous number of patients. The option of biphasic waveform may provide further benefits. However, clinical experience with a permanent implant is lacking., Methods: Fifty-five patients underwent testing and received a permanent implant using the Endotak lead system associated with a CPI monophasic device. The remaining 36 patients received a permanent implant with the Endotak lead system connected to a biphasic device. In both groups a subcutaneous patch was combined when needed to obtain acceptable defibrillation thresholds., Results: Biphasic pulses resulted in lower mean (+/- SD) defibrillation thresholds (monophasic 15 +/- 4.7 J vs. biphasic 12 +/- 5 J, p = 0.03) and a better implantation rate (100% biphasic vs. 89% monophasic, p = 0.07). Biphasic pulses allowed implantation with less ventricular fibrillation induction (7.4 +/- 3.2 vs. 3.5 +/- 1.8, p < 0.01) and a mean shorter procedure time (168 +/- 39 vs. 111 +/- 30 min, p < 0.01). With the biphasic waveform a greater proportion of patients met the implantation criteria with the lead system alone (83% vs. 45%, p < 0.01). When needed, the left prepectoral location of the patch electrode was always sufficient in left subscapular position was required in 15 patients in the monophasic group. Implantation of the biphasic device was associated with a shorter mean hospital stay (3.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 5.4 +/- 2.2 days, p < 0.01)., Conclusions: Incorporation of a biphasic device in a transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator uniformly increases the efficacy of the system and the ease of implantation.