Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Defibrillators”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 379 records · Page 21Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

Prospective, randomized comparison in humans of a unipolar defibrillation system with that using an additional superior vena cava electrode.

BACKGROUND: A unipolar defibrillation system using a single right ventricular (RV) electrode and the active shell or "CAN" of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator itself situated in a left infraclavicular pocket has been shown to be as efficient in defibrillation as an epicardial lead system. The purpose of this study was to determine whether defibrillation efficacy can be improved further by adding a superior vena cava (SVC) electrode to this already efficient defibrillation system. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively and randomly compared the defibrillation efficacy of a simplified unipolar defibrillation system, RV-->CAN, with that of one incorporating a high SVC electrode, RV-->SVC + CAN, in 15 consecutive cardiac arrest survivors undergoing implantation of a presently available transvenous defibrillation system. The RV defibrillation electrode was a 5-cm coil located on a 10.5F lead used as the anode in both lead configurations examined. The active CAN was a 108-cm2 surface area shell of a titanium alloy pulse generator used as the cathode in both configurations and placed in a left infraclavicular pocket. The SVC electrode was a 6F 5-cm-long coil and was used as an additional cathode positioned at the junction of the SVC and the left innominate vein. The defibrillation pulse used was a 65% tilt, asymmetric biphasic waveform delivered from a 120-microF capacitor. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) stored energy, leading edge voltage, current, and pulsing resistance were measured for both lead systems. The single-lead unipolar system, RV-->CAN, resulted in a stored energy DFT of 7.4 +/- 5.2 J, and the three-electrode dual pathway system, RV-->SVC + CAN, resulted in a DFT of 6.0 +/- 3.4 J (P = .20). There was no difference in defibrillation efficacy with the more complicated three-electrode system over the unipolar system despite a decrease in pulsing resistance to 48.6 +/- 3.5 omega compared with 61.2 +/- 5.9 omega for the unipolar system (P < .0001) and a slight rise in delivered current to 6.3 +/- 1.8 A compared with 5.5 +/- 2.0 A for the unipolar system (P = .062). CONCLUSIONS: The unipolar single-lead transvenous defibrillation system provides defibrillation at energy levels comparable to that reported with present epicardial lead systems. Coupling of this lead system to a third SVC electrode increases system complexity but offers little defibrillation advantage despite a large decrease in pulsing resistance and a modest increase in delivered current.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Rectilinear biphasic waveform defibrillation of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: The rectilinear biphasic (RLB) waveform has been shown to effectively defibrillate short-duration ventricular fibrillation (VF) at significantly lower energies than a monophasic damped sine (MDS) waveform. This article reports RLB waveform defibrillation effectiveness for patients presenting in VF during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when compared with historical MDS effectiveness. METHODS: External RLB defibrillators were deployed in the Omaha Fire Department's emergency medical services (EMS) system. The RLB defibrillators delivered an escalating three-shock sequence of 120, 150, and 200 J. The results observed during the first year of full deployment were compared with the results observed during the previous year when only MDS defibrillators were deployed in the system. The MDS defibrillators delivered an escalating three-shock sequence of 200, 300, and 360 J. Defibrillation was defined as termination of VF for at least 5 seconds after a defibrillation shock. RESULTS: There were 141 adult patients presenting in VF without trauma during the first year using RLB defibrillators. By comparison, there were 153 adult patients during the comparable year using MDS defibrillators. The 120-J RLB shocks had a significantly higher first-shock rate of successful VF termination (67%, 95% CI: 59%-75%) compared with the initial 200-J MDS shocks (48%, 95% CI: 40%-57%, p < 0.0025; odds ratio 2.14 [1.33-3.42]). The number of patients who were defibrillated to a return of spontaneous circulation with a sinus rhythm was significantly greater (25%, 95% CI: 18%-33%) when using the RLB defibrillator compared with using the MDS defibrillator (15%, 95% CI: 10%-22%, p = 0.05; odds ratio 1.85 [1.04-3.31]). CONCLUSION: The RLB defibrillator terminated the VF of patients in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with superior rates using significantly less energy compared with historical rates for a higher-energy MDS defibrillator.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

Mechanism of cardiac defibrillation in open-chest dogs with unipolar DC-coupled simultaneous activation and shock potential recordings.

The automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator has been shown to dramatically improve survival. The future refinement of these devices requires a clear understanding of their mechanism of action. We performed the following study to test two hypotheses: 1) When defibrillation is successful, fibrillating activity must be annihilated in a critical mass of both ventricles; and 2) when defibrillation is unsuccessful, at least one area of the ventricular mass has been left fibrillating. Unipolar Ag/AgCl sintered electrodes were directly coupled from triangular arrays at 40 epicardial locations (total, 120 recording sites) that covered both right and left ventricular surfaces and were designed to measure the voltage gradient generated by the shock at each triangular array as well as the underlying myocardial electrical activity before and immediately after the shock. An algorithm was developed and tested that reliably scored whether a postshock activation was a continuation of the immediately previous fibrillating activity. This technique was applied to 203 defibrillation attempts in six open-chest dogs during electrically induced ventricular fibrillation. There were 139 successful defibrillation attempts and 64 unsuccessful attempts. Monophasic truncated exponential 10-msec defibrillation shocks (0.5-35 J) were delivered through an anodal patch on the right atrium and a cathodal patch on the left ventricular apex. In all cases of unsuccessful defibrillation, at least one ventricular site could be clearly identified that failed to be defibrillated. In cases of successful defibrillation two distinct patterns were observed: 1) complete annihilation of fibrillating activity at all sites or 2) nearly complete cessation of fibrillating activity with a single area of persistent fibrillation that subsequently self-extinguished within one to three activations. This single site in the second form of successful defibrillation was located in the region of minimum voltage gradient produced by the defibrillating waveform and was occasionally accompanied by dynamic encapsulation with refractory tissue as a result of a wavefront emanating from a region that had undergone successful defibrillation. These results support the hypothesis that a critical mass of myocardium must be affected for successful defibrillation and that unsuccessful defibrillation is always accompanied by residual fibrillating activity in at least one site. The results also demonstrate that the size of the critical mass required for successful defibrillation can be less than 100%.

Animals↗
PubMed1991

Electrode system influence on biphasic waveform defibrillation efficacy in humans.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical studies have demonstrated a general superiority of biphasic waveform defibrillation compared with monophasic waveform defibrillation using epicardial lead systems. To test the breadth of utility of biphasic waveforms in humans, a prospective, randomized evaluation of defibrillation efficacy of monophasic and single capacitor biphasic waveform pulses was performed for two distinct nonthoracotomy lead systems as well as for an epicardial electrode system in 51 cardiac arrest survivors undergoing automatic defibrillator implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The configurations tested consisted of a right ventricular-left ventricular (RV-LV) epicardial patch-patch system, an RV catheter-chest patch (CP) nonthoracotomy system, and a coronary sinus (CS) catheter-RV catheter nonthoracotomy system. For each configuration, the defibrillation current and voltage waveforms were recorded via a digital oscilloscope to measure defibrillation threshold voltage, current, resistance, and stored energy. Biphasic waveform defibrillation proved more efficient than monophasic waveform defibrillation for the epicardial RV-LV system (4.8 +/- 4.1 versus 6.7 +/- 4.9 J, p = 0.047) and the nonthoracotomy RV-CP system (23.4 +/- 11.1 versus 34.3 +/- 10.4 J, p = 0.0042). Biphasic waveform defibrillation thresholds were not significantly lower than monophasic waveform defibrillation thresholds for the CS-RV nonthoracotomy system (15.6 +/- 7.2 versus 20.0 +/- 11.5 J, p = 0.11). Biphasic waveform defibrillation proved more efficacious than monophasic waveform defibrillation in 13 of 20 patients (65%) with RV-LV epicardial patches, 10 of 15 patients (67%) with an RV-CP nonthoracotomy system, and nine of 16 patients (56%) with an RV-CS nonthoracotomy system. CONCLUSIONS: Biphasic pulsing was useful with nonthoracotomy lead systems as well as with epicardial lead systems. However, the degree of biphasic waveform defibrillation superiority appeared to be electrode system dependent. Furthermore, for a few individuals, biphasic waveform defibrillation proved less efficient than monophasic waveform defibrillation, regardless of the lead system used.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

Effects of waveform and polarity on defibrillation thresholds in humans using a transvenous lead system.

Minimizing defibrillation thresholds is important to allow for implantation of downsized pulse generators with reduced outputs while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin. Recent studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in monophasic defibrillation thresholds with a transvenous lead when the polarity was reversed (proximal coil = cathode). However, conflicting data exist concerning the effect of polarity reversal on biphasic defibrillation thresholds. The present study was designed to evaluate prospectively the effect of waveform shape and polarity on defibrillation thresholds in humans. The group studied consisted of 26 patients undergoing cardioverter-defibrillator implantation for standard indications. All data were obtained with a transvenous lead alone configuration. Defibrillation thresholds were determined using a step-down protocol with the initial waveform and polarity randomized. Reversing polarity significantly decreased the delivered energy at defibrillation threshold with monophasic waveforms (14.8 +/- 7.1 vs 20.4 +/- 8.9 J; p < 0.001), but had no effect on the overall efficacy of biphasic waveforms (11.1 +/- 5.5 vs 12.2 +/- 6.5 J). In the subgroup of patients with high biphasic defibrillation thresholds (> or = 15 J), reversing polarity decreased the defibrillation threshold from 18.2 +/- 5.1 to 13.3 +/- 5.8 J (p < 0.001). Similarly, the improvement in defibrillation thresholds with reversing polarity of monophasic waveforms was confined to the subgroup of patients with higher defibrillation thresholds. Therefore, the lack of group effect of polarity on biphasic defibrillation thresholds may be simply due to the overall lowering of defibrillation thresholds by this waveform.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

d-Sotalol decreases defibrillation energy requirements in humans: a novel indication for drug therapy.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed the effect of d-sotalol on defibrillation voltage and energy requirements in patients undergoing automatic defibrillator implantation. Drugs that primarily prolong cardiac refractoriness generally decrease the energy requirements for defibrillation in animal models. Despite the widespread use of antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators, the effect of such drugs on defibrillation energy requirements in humans has not been well studied. Sotalol (in the d,l racemic form) is an antiarrhythmic with beta-blocking and cardiac refractoriness prolonging effects. The d-isomer of sotalol is largely devoid of beta-blocking effects; both forms decrease defibrillation energy requirements in animals. We hypothesized that d-sotalol would decrease defibrillation voltage and energy requirements in humans. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifteen patients undergoing implanted cardioverter defibrillator implantation were studied before and 20 minutes after d-sotalol infusion (2 mg/kg IV in 15 min, followed by 1 mg/kg per hour). The estimated energy (E50) and voltage (V50) for 50% success in defibrillation (estimated from two successive defibrillation "threshold" measurements), ventricular effective refractory period, monophasic action potential duration, and mean cycle length of ventricular fibrillation were measured, along with heart rate, blood pressure, and plasma concentration of d-sotalol. There was a significant decrease in defibrillation energy (E50 = 12.4 +/- 5.0 J before and 8.4 +/- 4.0 J after d-sotalol, P < 0.003) and voltage (V50 = 440 +/- 77 V before and 354 +/- 93 V after d-sotalol, P < 0.001). Consistent with the Class III effect of d-sotalol, ventricular effective refractory period increased from 284 +/- 21 to 330 +/- 24 msec (P < 0.001), and action potential duration was prolonged from 296 +/- 28 to 340 +/- 22 msec (P < 0.001). Following d-sotalol, there was a tendency for induced tachyarrhythmia to self-terminate (23/102 episodes before vs 74/150 after sotalol, P < 0.001), and ventricular fibrillation cycle length was increased from 216 +/- 20 msec before to 274 +/- 23 msec (P < 0.001) after d-sotalol, despite the persistence of a rapid, disorganized rhythm of the surface ECG. No patient suffered adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: d-Sotalol lowers defibrillation energy by a mean 32% +/- 27% at concentrations producing a 16% +/- 7% increase in ventricular effective refractory period. Along with its other antiarrhythmic effects, d-sotalol may increase the safety margin for defibrillation or allow lower programmed energies in patients with implanted defibrillators.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗
PubMed1995

A prospective randomized comparison in humans of biphasic waveform 60-microF and 120-microF capacitance pulses using a unipolar defibrillation system.

BACKGROUND: Improving unipolar implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) effectiveness has favorable implications for ICD safety, efficacy, and size. Advances in defibrillation efficacy would accelerate ICD ease of use by decreasing device size and by minimizing morbidity and mortality related to an improved defibrillation safety margin. The specific purpose of the present study was to determine whether unipolar defibrillation efficacy could be improved further in humans by lowering biphasic waveform capacitance. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively and randomly compared the defibrillation efficacy of a 60-microF and a 120-microF capacitance asymmetrical 65% tilt biphasic waveform using a unipolar defibrillation system in 38 consecutive cardiac arrest survivors before implantation of a presently available standard transvenous defibrillation system. The right ventricular defibrillation electrode had a 5-cm coil located on a 10.5F lead and was used as the anode. The system cathode was the electrically active 108-cm2 surface area shell (or "can") of a prototype titanium alloy pulse generator placed in a left infraclavicular pocket. The defibrillation pulse was derived from either a 60-microF or a 120-microF capacitance and was delivered from RV-->CAN. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) stored energy, delivered energy, leading-edge voltage and current, pulse resistance, and pulse width were measured for both capacitances examined. The 60-microF capacitance biphasic pulse resulted in a stored-energy DFT of 8.5 +/- 4.1 J and a delivered-energy DFT of 8.4 +/- 4.0 J. In 34 of 38 patients (89%), the stored-energy DFT was < 15 J. Leading-edge voltage at the DFT was 517 +/- 128 V. Mean pulse impedance for the 60-microF waveform was 60.6 +/- 7.1 omega. The 120-microF capacitance biphasic pulse resulted in a stored-energy DFT of 10.1 +/- 7.4 J and a delivered-energy DFT of 10.0 +/- 7.2 J (P = .13 and .13, respectively). In 28 of 38 patients (74%), the stored-energy DFT was < 15 J (P = .052). Leading-edge voltage at the DFT with the 120-microF capacitance pulse was 386 +/- 142 (P < .00001). Mean pulse impedance for the 120-microF waveform was 60.7 +/- 7.0 omega (P = .80). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that a relatively small capacitance, 60 microF, can be used for unipolar defibrillation systems without compromising defibrillation energy requirements compared with more typical ICD capacitance values, but this will require a higher circuit voltage. The use of lower capacitance also provides a modest increase in the percent of patients who have very low energy defibrillation requirements, an important issue should maximum ICD energy be decreased from the present level of 34 J. Such a move to smaller output devices could allow significant decreases in device size, a necessary feature of making cardioverter-defibrillator implantation comparable to that of standard pacemaker surgery.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Truncated biphasic pulses for transthoracic defibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Early defibrillation is the single most important factor for improving out-of-hospital ventricular fibrillation resuscitation rates. To achieve the earlier response times required for survival, typically < 6 minutes from time of collapse, it will be necessary to equip a far wider network of first responders (firefighters, police, and other individuals with responsibility for public safety) with small, lightweight, and inexpensive automatic external defibrillators (AEDs). An important step in reducing the size and cost of AEDs will be to improve defibrillation efficacy. Because biphasic waveform defibrillation has had a favorable impact on implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), there are reasons to believe that biphasic waveforms would also improve transthoracic defibrillators. Our purpose, therefore, was to examine the efficacy of two different low-energy biphasic truncated waveforms referenced to a standard damped sine waveform for transthoracic defibrillation in humans. METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively and randomly compared the transthoracic defibrillation efficacy of two different truncated biphasic waveforms, 115 J (70 microF) and 130 J (105 microF), with that of a standard 200-J (36-microF, 28-mH) damped sine wave pulse using right anterior and left lateral thoracic pads (R2 Medical Systems) in 30 cardiac arrest survivors during transvenous ICD surgery. The right anterior patch electrode was used as the cathode and the left lateral thoracic pad as the anode. Transthoracic ventricular defibrillation rescue shocks were tested after a failed transvenous defibrillation shock delivered in the course of ICD testing. Each of the three different rescue shocks was tested in random order in each patient. All shocks were delivered at end expiration. The investigators responsible for determining transthoracic shock efficacy were blinded throughout the study to the transthoracic rescue waveform used. A total of 33 patients were considered for study, but three patients failed to satisfy all entry criteria or did not have a sufficient number of ventricular fibrillation inductions to allow for testing of all three waveforms. Percent efficacy for the three waveforms was then compared in the 30 patients who satisfied entry criteria and completed the protocol. The study population had a mean age of 61 +/- 11 years, with 22 (73%) being men. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.39 +/- 0.14. Coronary artery disease was present in 22 (73%). The 115-J (70-microF) biphasic pulse, the 130-J (105-microF) biphasic pulse, and the 200-J (36-microF, 28-mH) damped sine wave pulse were equally effective, resulting in a 97% first-shock ventricular defibrillation efficacy rate. Each waveform failed to defibrillate once, with each waveform failing in a different patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that biphasic truncated transthoracic shocks of low energy (115 and 130 J) are as effective as 200-J damped sine wave shocks used in standard transthoracic defibrillators. This finding may contribute significantly to the miniaturization and cost reduction of transthoracic defibrillators, which could enable the development of a new generation of AEDs appropriate for an expanded group of out-of-hospital first responders and, eventually, layperson use.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Ventricular defibrillating threshold: strength-duration and percent-success curves.

The term defibrillation threshold is usually understood to mean the shock intensity just enough to defibrillate a specified cardiac chamber (atria or ventricles). With the advent of so many different types of defibrillator, it is important to be able to specify the defibrillation threshold, which has frequently been described by the classical strength-duration curve. Another method of representing defibrillation plots the percent-successful defibrillation against shock-strength area. The mechanism of defibrillation is discussed, and the concepts of the strength-duration curve and percent-success against shock-strength curves are compared. Because defibrillation is associated with a time-varying spectrum of cellular excitability, a given shock strength will not always achieve defibrillation, and this produces the sigmoid shape for the curve that relates percent-successful defibrillation to shock strength. Therefore it is important to recognise two concepts: first, there is a family of strength-duration curves for defibrillation, each curve representing a given percent-successful defibrillation, and, secondly, there is a family of percent-success against shock-strength curves, one for each pulse duration. Canine ventricular defibrillation data are used to bring these two concepts together. Most importantly, the concepts adduced in the paper apply to transventricular, intracardiac and transchest defibrillation; the only difference in these applications is a scale factor that represents electrode location with respect to the heart.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

Defibrillation with a minimally invasive direct cardiac massage device.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined (1) the defibrillation efficacy of using a minimally invasive direct cardiac massage (MID-CM) device as one electrode of the defibrillation electrical circuit and (2) the effect on external defibrillation of defibrillating when the MID-CM device is in place and a pneumothorax is present. METHODS: Part 1: in seven pigs, defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) were determined with a truncated exponential biphasic waveform. DFTs were determined for five electrode configurations: standard transthoracic defibrillation with electrodes on the left and right chest walls (1), with the MID-CM as one of the defibrillation electrodes pressed gently (2) or firmly (3) against the heart with the right chest wall patch as the second electrode, the same as (1) with the MID-CM device in place and the lungs at end-inspiration (4) or at end-expiration (5). Part 2: in six pigs, DFTs were determined with a monophasic damped sinusoidal waveform with external defibrillation electrodes (1) and with the device as one defibrillation electrode and the other electrode on either the anterior (2), lateral (3), or posterior right chest wall (4). RESULTS: Part 1: the DFTs for (2) or (3) were not different (18.7+/-12.4 vs. 17.0+/-8.3 J), but both DFTs were lower than that for (1) (155+/-45 J). The DFT was elevated for (4) (205+/-69 J) compared with (1). For (5) only one animal could be defibrillated with shocks up to 360 J. Part 2: the DFTs for (2), (3) or (4) were not different (19.5+/-11.0, 25.4+/-9.4, 27.4+/-9.0 J), but all three were lower than the DFT for (1) (198+/-70 J). CONCLUSIONS: Using the MID-CM device as one electrode of the defibrillation circuit markedly lowers the DFT compared with that for standard transthoracic defibrillation for both a monophasic and biphasic waveform. Defibrillation with the device in place and the chest opened elevates the DFT for external defibrillation much more during end-expiration than during end-inspiration.

Animals↗
PubMed1994

Efficacy of a single-lead unipolar transvenous defibrillator compared with a system employing an additional coronary sinus electrode. A prospective, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Recent development of a prototype single-lead unipolar transvenous defibrillator offers the possibility of device implantation with the ease of a permanent pacemaker. Lowering defibrillation energy requirements would allow for a further reduction in defibrillator generator size and enhance the feasibility of pacemaker-like placement. However, if achieving a lower defibrillation energy requires placing additional intracardiac leads, the potential advantage of a smaller generator may be offset by the disadvantages of a more complex lead system. The purpose of this study was to compare defibrillation energy requirements of a single-lead unipolar defibrillator with a three-electrode system employing an additional lead in the coronary sinus. METHODS AND RESULTS: Testing of a single-lead unipolar biphasic pulse defibrillation system versus a three-electrode system with an additional coronary sinus lead was performed in prospective, randomized fashion in 15 patients with a history of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with alternating current, and defibrillation threshold was measured by a pulse given 10 seconds after arrhythmia induction. The mean defibrillation threshold stored energy and mean leading edge voltage did not significantly differ between the two systems (11.3 +/- 5.9 J versus 9.9 +/- 5.2 J and 418 +/- 118 V versus 390 +/- 112 V, respectively; P > .4). Using either defibrillation system, all patients were successfully defibrillated by < 24 J and over half of patients by < 10 J. CONCLUSIONS: A unipolar transvenous biphasic defibrillation system is an effective means of treating ventricular fibrillation. The added complexity of additional leads is not offset by any significant improvement in defibrillation efficacy or energy requirements. Given the simplicity and effectiveness of a single-lead system coupled with a small generator, placement of defibrillation systems may now approach the ease of pacemaker implantation.

Adult↗
PubMed1976

Electrical ventricular defibrillation.

Ventricular fibrillation is the condition in which all of the muscle fibers in the ventricles of the heart contract and relax randomly and do not propel blood from the heart. This condition, which is the major cause of sudden death from a heart attack, can be reversed by passage of a single pulse of current through the heart using electrodes applied to the chest wall; this technique is known as ventricular defibrillation. World-wide clinical experience has shown that with existing defibrillators, successful defibrillation of subjects weighing over 100 kg is infrequent. It should not be concluded, however, that defibrillation cannot be achieved in such subjects. To illustrate this point, data will be presented to show that it is possible to establish a dose concept in which the output required from a defibrillator can be specified in terms of the weight of the subject. This dose concept evolved slowly from studies reported by investigators in various countries. For example, the present-day techniques of ventricular defibrillation are due to the investigations of researchers all over the world. Prevost and Battelli (1898) in Switzerland first showed that electric current can both induce ventricular fibrillation and achieve defibrillation. The studies of Kouwenhoven in the 1930's in the USA showed that 60 Hz alternating current can be used for defibrillation. The first human defibrillations in 1947 and 1952 used this type of current; these studies were reported by Beck and Zoll in the USA. The present-day technique for defibrillation derives from the animal studies reported by Gurvich and Yuniev 1946 in Russia. Finally, Lown et al. in the early 1960's applied the technique to man. Exciting new developments are underway in ventricular defibrillation. Not only are higher output defibrillators beginning to appear, but automatic and fully implantable defibrillators are being involved. In this paper, the present state of the art of defibrillation will be reported and future trends will be described.

Animals↗
PubMed2005

Internal defibrillation: where we have been and where we should be going?

Internal cardioversion has been developed as an alternative technique for patients who are resistant to external DC cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (AF) and was found to be associated with higher success rates. It used initially high energies (200-300 J) delivered between an intracardiac catheter and a backplate. Subsequent studies have shown that it is possible to terminate with energies of 1 to 6 Joules, paroxysmal or induced AF in 90 percent of patients and persistent AF in 75 percent of patients, using biphasic shocks delivered between a right atrium-coronary sinus vectors. Consequently, internal atrial defibrillation can be performed under sedation only without the need for general anesthesia. Recently developed external defibrillators, capable of delivering biphasic shocks, have increased the success rates of external cardioversion and reduced the need for internal cardioversion. However, internal defibrillation is still useful in overweight or obese patients, in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma who are more difficult to defibrillate, and in patients with implanted devices which may be injured by high energy shocks. Low energy internal defibrillation has also proven to be safe and this has prompted the development of implantable devices for terminating AF. The first device used was the Metrix system, a stand-alone atrial defibrillator (without ventricular defibrillation) which was found to be safe and effective in selected groups of patients. Unfortunately, this device is no longer being marketed. Only double chamber defibrillators with pacing capabilities are presently available: the Medtronic GEM III AT, an updated version of the Jewel AF and the Guidant PRIZM AVT. These devices can be patient-activated or programmed to deliver automatically ounce atrial tachyarrhythmias are detected, therapies including pacing or/and shocks. Attempts to define the group of patients who might benefit from these devices are described but the respective role of atrial defibrillators versus other non-pharmacologic therapies for AF, such as surgery and radiofrequency catheter ablation, remains to be determined. Advantages and limitations or atrial defibrillators and approaches to reduce shock related discomfort which may be a concern in some patients, are reviewed. Studies have shown that despite shock discomfort, quality of life was improved in patients with atrial defibrillators and the need for repeated hospitalizations was reduced. The cost of these devices remains a concern for the treatment of a non-lethal arrhythmia. Attention that atrial defibrillators will receive from cardiologists and from the industry in the future, will depend of the long-term results of other non-pharmacological options and of the identification of the group of AF patients which will require restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm. But there is no doubt that selected subsets of patients with AF could benefit from atrial defibrillation.

Atrial Fibrillation↗
PubMed2006

Disparities in the use of primary prevention and defibrillator therapy among blacks and women.

OBJECTIVES: This study determines whether there are racial or gender disparities in the use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. BACKGROUND: Primary prevention of sudden death with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy has been shown to improve survival for high-risk patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. METHODS: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare database from the year 2002 was used to identify patients who were potential candidates for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy on the basis of a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes that reflected the presence of an ischemic cardiomyopathy. This cohort was analyzed to determine which patients received implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy during the same year. The clinical characteristics of the potential implantable cardioverter-defibrillator candidates were compared with those who actually received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. RESULTS: A total 132565 Medicare patients hospitalized during 2002 were identified as having an ischemic cardiomyopathy; 10370 (8%) of these patients underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation during the same year. The percentage of patients who underwent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was higher for men compared with women (10.2% vs 3.5%; P<.001) and whites compared with blacks (8.1 vs 5.4; P<.001). After multivariate analysis, age, gender, and race remained independent predictors of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. Women with an ischemic cardiomyopathy were 65% less likely to receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy compared with men (P<.001), and black patients were 31% less likely to receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy compared with patients of other races (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of sudden death among the elderly population identified as having an ischemic cardiomyopathy was significantly lower among women compared with men, and among blacks compared with whites. Further exploration of gender and racial barriers to appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use for primary prevention is needed.

Black or African American↗
PubMed2004

Automated external defibrillation by untrained deaf lay rescuers.

INTRODUCTION: The use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by lay rescuers can reduce the time to defibrillation, improving survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. However, some people have hearing defects that can prevent them from understanding the AED verbal prompts. Moreover, even rescuers with normal hearing function may not easily understand the AED verbal prompts when operating in a noisy environment. This study was designed to assess the capability of rescuers to defibrillate effectively using an AED which included visual prompts. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine deaf employees with no previous experience in basic life support (BLS) or defibrillation were asked to defibrillate a manikin following the text prompts of a Heartstart FR2+ AED. Subjects were tested before and after a 6 h BLS-AED course carried out with the help of a sign language interpreter. Before training, seven out of nine deaf subjects (78%) were able to defibrillate, eight out of nine subjects (89%) placed the pads correctly, and the mean time to defibrillation was 101.3 +/- 28.4 s. After the course, all subjects were able to complete the defibrillation sequence and place the pads correctly. The mean post-course time to defibrillation was 47.8 +/- 5.4 s (P < 0.001). None of the nine subjects touched the manikin during charging of the defibrillator and shock delivery before or after the course. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that untrained deaf rescuers can use AEDs appropriately providing that the defibrillator has visual instructions. Training improves defibrillator use and reduces time to defibrillation.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation↗
PubMed1994

Biphasic waveform defibrillation using a three-electrode transvenous lead system in humans.

INTRODUCTION: Biphasic waveform defibrillation is not always more efficacious than monophasic waveform defibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Waveform efficacy appears to vary with the lead system used. In this prospective, randomized study, defibrillation efficacy with biphasic and monophasic single capacitor 120-microF, 65% tilt pulses was compared for a lead system consisting of right ventricular (RV), chest patch (CP), and superior vena cava (SVC) electrodes. Although this lead system is commonly used with monophasic pulses in transvenous defibrillators, few studies have examined the defibrillation efficacy of this lead system in man for biphasic waveform defibrillation. Fourteen cardiac arrest survivors undergoing defibrillator implantation were included in the study using pulses delivered from a cathodal RV electrode simultaneously to anodal SVC and CP electrodes. Biphasic and monophasic waveforms were recorded oscilloscopically to acquire defibrillation threshold (DFT) data on leading edge voltage requirements and for stored energy. The monophasic DFT voltage was 661 +/- 177 V compared to the biphasic DFT voltage of 451 +/- 185 V (P < 0.0001). The monophasic DFT stored energy was 28.0 +/- 13.4 J compared to the biphasic DFT stored energy of 14.1 +/- 12.4 J (P < 0.0001). The stored energy DFT was < or = 15 J in only 2 of 14 patients (15%) with monophasic defibrillation but < or = 15 J in 10 of 14 (71%) patients with biphasic defibrillation. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that biphasic defibrillation with an RV, SVC, CP transvenous electrode system is substantially more efficient than monophasic defibrillation, allowing for higher numbers of patients to receive transvenous defibrillators with a relatively simple lead system at a satisfactory cutoff DFT safety margin of 15 J.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

A prospective randomized cross-over comparison of mono- and biphasic defibrillation using nonthoracotomy lead configurations in humans.

INTRODUCTION: For current implantable defibrillators, the nonthoracotomy approach to implantation fails in a substantial number of patients. In a prospective randomized cross-over study the defibrillation efficacy of a standard monophasic and a new biphasic waveform was compared for different lead configurations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Intraoperatively, in 79 patients receiving nonthoracotomy defibrillation leads, the defibrillation threshold was determined in the initial lead configuration for the mono- and biphasic waveform. In each patient, both waveforms were used alternately with declining energies (20, 15, 10, 5 J) until failure of defibrillation occurred. Three different initial lead configurations were tested in different, consecutive, nonrandomized patients using a bipolar endocardial defibrillation lead alone (A; n = 36) or in combination with a subcutaneous defibrillation patch (B; n = 24) or array (C; n = 19) lead. The lowest successful defibrillation energy with the biphasic waveform was less than, equal to, or higher than with the monophasic waveform in 64%, 28%, and 8% of patients, respectively, and on average significantly lower with the biphasic waveform for all three lead configurations (A: 11.3 +/- 4.4 J vs 14.5 +/- 4.5 J; B: 9.7 +/- 4.7 J vs 15.1 +/- 4.5 J; C: 7.9 +/- 4.5 J vs 12.4 +/- 4.9 J). Defibrillation efficacy at 20 J was significantly improved by the biphasic waveform (91% vs 76%). CONCLUSION: In combination with nonthoracotomy defibrillation leads, the biphasic waveform of a new implantable cardioverter defibrillator showed superior defibrillation efficacy in comparison to the standard monophasic waveform. Defibrillation thresholds were improved for lead systems with and without a subcutaneous patch or array lead.

Adult↗
PubMed1997

Prospective evaluation of the effect of biphasic waveform defibrillation on ventricular pacing thresholds.

INTRODUCTION: Significant increases in ventricular pacing threshold have been observed following monophasic waveform ventricular defibrillation shocks. High-output pacing is recommended to ensure consistent capture, particularly in pacemaker-dependent patients who are likely to be defibrillated. Whether biphasic waveform defibrillation compounds this problem is not known. The purpose of this prospective study was to examine serial changes in ventricular pacing thresholds following single, multiple, low- and high-energy biphasic defibrillation shocks from an implanted defibrillator. METHODS AND RESULTS: Bipolar pacing thresholds before and after defibrillation, and the adequacy of pacing capture at three times preshock threshold in the immediate aftermath of ventricular defibrillation, were prospectively evaluated in 67 consecutively tested recipients of a biphasic implanted cardioverter defibrillator. Overall, serial pacing thresholds following successful defibrillation were completely unchanged after 141 of 177 (80%) ventricular fibrillation inductions. In no case did the threshold pulse width increment > 0.06 msec from its baseline value after shock, nor did pacing at a pulse width of three times preshock threshold from dedicated bipolar pacing electrodes fail to result in successful ventricular capture. Changes in threshold were not related to when measured from the time of shock, defibrillation energy, number of shocks, electrode system, chronicity of leads, shock orientation, or to clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically important changes in pacing threshold were observed after biphasic waveform defibrillation. Bradycardia pacing at conventional pacemaker outputs of three times baseline pulse width threshold from bipolar electrodes dedicated exclusively to pacing or sensing (but not defibrillation) consistently allowed for an adequate safety margin following defibrillation.

Adult↗