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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: M Bahu; B P Knight; R Weiss; S J Hahn; R Goyal; E G Daoud; K C Man; F Morady; S A Strickberger Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 1.900