Literature DB >> 17461867

Achieving sufficient safety margins with fixed duration waveforms and the use of multiple time constants.

David Keane1, N Aweh, Bryan Hynes, Richard G Sheahan, Tim Cripps, Yaver Bashir, Amir Zaidi, Gerard Fahy, Martin Lowe, Paul Doherty, Mark K Kroll.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There are several options to achieve a sufficient safety margin in a patient with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT), with varying and typically modest success. Programming fixed (millisecond) durations of both phases of a biphasic waveform in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has demonstrated utility.
METHODS: We established an informal multisite registry of ICD implanting facilities. Each facility agreed to attempt the use of fixed duration waveforms whenever there was an inadequate safety margin with tilt-based waveforms. A 3.5-ms-based fixed duration shock was tried first. If that failed to achieve a 10-J safety margin then a 2-ms-based shock was used. We also tabulated an HEDFT (high estimate DFT) as precise DFTs were not determined.
RESULTS: Sixteen patients (15 M, 1 F) were entered into the registry (age 58.2 +/- 17.9 years) with ejection fractions of .30 +/-.11. Superior vena cava coils were used in 7 patients according to physician preference. The tilt-based HEDFTs were 35.4 +/- 3.2 J delivered and 35.8 +/- 3.3 J stored energy. The 3.5-ms based shocks were evaluated on 14 patients and the HEDFT fell to 23.4 +/- 6.3 J delivered (P < 0.0001) and 26.2 +/- 6.9 J stored energy (P < 0.0001). The 2-ms-based fixed duration shocks were then evaluated on 6 patients and the delivered energy HEDFT was 22.2 +/- 5.8 J (P = 0.001 vs. tilt-based shocks) while the stored energy HEDFT was 27.9 +/- 6.4 J (P = 0.01 vs. tilt-based shocks). Using the better of the two fixed duration waveforms, the mean safety margin was improved from -1.2 +/- 1.9 J to 9.5 +/- 5.9 J (P < 0.00001). Multivariate predictors of the safety margin improvement were the absence of the Superior Vena Cava (SVC) coil and absence of Ventricular fibrillation (VF) presentation. Four patients still required lead repositioning after the use of the fixed duration waveforms. No additional leads were implanted.
CONCLUSION: The use of a selection of directly programmed fixed duration biphasic shocks had a striking impact on the HEDFT for these difficult patients. Adequate safety margins were obtained for 12 of 16 patients with no lead manipulation or other approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17461867     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2007.00718.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  5 in total

Review 1.  Dual- versus single-coil implantable defibrillator leads: review of the literature.

Authors:  Jörg Neuzner; Jörg Carlsson
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 5.460

2.  Axillary sub-pectoral pulse generator pocket for lowering defibrillation threshold.

Authors:  Ernest W Lau
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-02-23       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  Incidence of very high defibrillation thresholds (DFT) and efficacy of subcutaneous (SQ) array insertion during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

Authors:  Atul Verma; Alexander J Kaplan; Bradley Sarak; Richard Oosthuizen; Marianne Beardsall; Jan Higgenbottam; Zaev Wulffhart; Yaariv Khaykin
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-09-24       Impact factor: 1.900

Review 4.  Optimizing defibrillation waveforms for ICDs.

Authors:  Mark W Kroll; Charles D Swerdlow
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2007-06-01       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Higher defibrillation threshold in methamphetamine cardiomyopathy patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

Authors:  Rakesh Malhotra; Shyam Patel; Tekchand Ramchand; Omar Al Nimri
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2017-07-08
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.