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 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources
PubMed1990

[The implantable automatic cardioverter-defibrillator].

In addition to medical treatment for ventricular tachyarrhythmias which has not proven to be sufficient, nonmedical modes of treatment are available such as electrophysiologically-guided surgical measures and catheter ablation, both of which are restricted to only a relatively small patient population and require further technical refinement. In 1980, Mirowski introduced the automatic implantable defibrillator and, to date, world-wide, this device has been implanted in 8000 patients. CHARACTERISTICS AND IMPLANTATION OF THE AUTOMATIC IMPLANTABLE CARDIOVERTER/DEFIBRILLATOR (AICD): The AICD continuously monitors the electrical activity of the heart, recognizes the onset of threatening ventricular tachycardias and terminates these according to the respectively programmed mode by delivering direct current shocks or stimuli. The currently used defibrillators consist of an impulse generator with lithium batteries and an electrode system. The batteries can charge a capacitor with about 700 volts in five to eight seconds which produces a current with an energy up to 30 Joules on discharge. The current is delivered either by two plate electrodes on the right and left ventricles or a plate electrode on the left ventricle and a spiral electrode inserted in the superior vena cava. The electrodes also serve the purpose of tachycardia detection by means of an electrical signal, the probability density function (PDF), that is, a significant decrease in the potentials to isoelectric. With this, it is only possible to terminate ventricular fibrillation. Additional electrical detection criteria are obtained and analyzed by two adjacently positioned epicardial screw electrodes or a bipolar endocardial electrode, enable identification of ventricular tachycardia as well. If the tachycardia detection criteria are fulfilled, the capacitor is discharged according to its programmed shock energy. In 1988, programmable defibrillators were introduced. Current defibrillator treatment also incorporates the possibility for antitachycardia stimulation. Attempts to use, instead of the monophase, square-wave impulse, a biphasic defibrillation impulse, to achieve a sequential impulse and to make use of the bidirectional impulse extension have rendered improved reliability for tachycardia termination and energy savings. After median sternotomy, the plate electrodes are usually sutured to the epicardium and the spiral electrode for the bipolar ECG is positioned at the anterior aspect of the right ventricle. The generator is implanted on the left side para-umbilically in subcutaneous or subfascial tissue. With the subxyphoid approach to avoid sternotomy, the plate electrode is sutured extrapericardially over the left ventricle and the spiral electrode is positioned at the epicardium. Alternatively, for those in whom prior cardiac surgery has been carried out, a lateral thoracotomy can be used. The defibrillation threshold, that is the lowest possible energy for defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia, should be determined intraoperatively after stimulation of the arrhythmia. The energy required for termination of a stable ventricular tachycardia is usually less than that for termination of ventricular fibrillation and can be determined postoperatively. A margin of security should be taken into consideration which, for defibrillation thresholds of up to 10 Joules, is about twice the amount of the defibrillation threshold itself.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Electric Countershock↗
PubMed1989

[Combination use of an automatic anti-tachycardia pacemaker and an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in sustained recurrent ventricular tachycardia resistant to drugs].

We used the combination of an antitachycardia automatic ventricular pacemaker with the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in two patients with sustained, recurrent, drug-resistant ventricular tachycardias in whom a surgical ablation was not indicated. The indications for the combined use of the two systems were the possibility to control: a) the ventricular tachycardias with ventricular programmed stimulation; b) the arrhythmias which might eventually degenerate into ventricular flutter or fibrillation (as a result of anti-tachycardia pacing) with the defibrillator. To avoid any possible interference between the two systems we used the following protocol: a) endocardial bipolar pacing; b) the sensing electrodes of the defibrillator were placed as far as possible from the endocardial one; c) a suitable programming of the pacemaker output; d) a careful selection of the anti-tachycardia pacing programme (burst rate inferior to the cut-off rate of the cardioverter-defibrillator and/or a duration of the burst pacing inferior to the arrhythmia sensing time of the defibrillator); e) use of cardioverter-defibrillators with a high cut-off rate. We never observed, during the follow-up (11 and 4 months, respectively), interference between the two systems. Both patients had ventricular tachycardia recurrences (51 and 3 episodes, respectively). The arrhythmias were correctly detected and interrupted by the pacemaker without the intervention of the defibrillator. These data confirm the feasibility of the combined use of the two systems in patients with ventricular tachycardias and, in selected cases, this approach is preferable. The anti-tachycardia pacemaker counteracts some limitations of the defibrillators available at present. It offers a protection against bradyarrhythmias and allows a more precise storage of arrhythmic events. The anti-tachycardia pacemaker often controls ventricular tachycardias without the intervention of the defibrillator, thus giving the same a longer life-span and allowing patients to avoid the shock.

Aged↗
PubMed1987

Automatic external defibrillators used by emergency medical technicians. A controlled clinical trial.

In a randomized controlled clinical trial, the effectiveness of emergency medical technician (EMT) use of automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) was compared with EMT use of standard defibrillators for patients in cardiac arrest. A total of 321 cardiac arrest patients were treated during the study: 116 were treated by EMTs using the AED (AUTO group), 158 were treated by EMTs using the standard defibrillators (standard group), and 47 were treated by EMTs using the standard defibrillator when they were assigned to use the AED. There was no significant differences in hospital admission or discharge rates between the AUTO group (54% admitted, 28% discharged) and the standard group (52% admitted, 23% discharged) for patients in ventricular fibrillation (VF), for patients in non-VF rhythms, or for all patients combined. The only significant difference observed was in the time from power ON to first shock: 1.1 minutes average AUTO group and 2.0 minutes average standard group. The treatment groups did not differ significantly in sensitivity for VF (78% AED, 76% standard), specificity for non-VF rhythms (100% AED, 95% standard), or rates of defibrillation to a non-VF rhythm (62% AED, 57% standard). We conclude that in clinical outcomes and device performance, AEDs are comparable with standard defibrillators and should be considered an acceptable alternative. Automatic external defibrillators appear to have advantages over standard defibrillators in training, skill retention, and faster operation. Such devices can make early defibrillation available for a much larger portion of the population. They are a major innovation for the prehospital care of cardiac arrest patients.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1987

Comparison of the efficacy of defibrillation with the damped sine and constant-tilt current waveforms in the intact animal.

The efficacy of defibrillation using the damped sine and constant-tile (60%) truncated exponential waveforms was determined in each of nine dogs. Two measures of efficacy were used to compare the two waveforms: 1) threshold defibrillation current and 2) percent successful defibrillation. For both measures of efficacy, shock strength was expressed in terms of delivered energy. Mean threshold energy was 0.98 J/kg for the damped sine wave and it was 1.24 J/kg for the truncated exponential waveform. Percent successful defibrillation versus energy/kg curves were constructed for each of the waveforms and were found to be essentially the same. Percent successful defibrillation increased with increasing shock intensity. For 50% success, the energy for the damped sine wave was 1.16 J/kg; for the truncated exponential wave, the corresponding value was 1.15 J/kg. A shock of threshold intensity successfully defibrillated in approximately 50% of the defibrillation attempts, i.e., defibrillation threshold corresponds to about 50% successful defibrillation.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Disposable defibrillator electrodes.

The transthoracic impedance to direct-current defibrillation discharge of the half-sinusoidal waveform was compared using recently marketed disposable defibrillator electrode pads (SAF-D-FIB and DEFIB-PADS) with electrode paste as the interfaces between the defibrillator paddle electrode and chest wall. Twenty-four mongrel dogs with an average weight of 17.3 kilograms were used. Half were shocked with the defibrillator meter setting at 100 watt-seconds (mean delivered energy, 59 watt-seconds) and half at 400 watt-seconds (mean delivered energy, 205 watt-seconds). Each animal received six shocks with both paste and one of the sets of disposable pads. The sequence of shocks was changed in alternate animals. At a meter setting of 100 watt-seconds, the mean impedance using SAF-D-FIB was 59 +/- 6 ohms compared to 46 +/- 6 ohms with paste (p less than 0.001), while that encountered with DEFIB-PADS was 57 +/- 5 ohms compared to 50 +/- 5 ohms with paste (p less than 0.01). At settings of 400 watt-seconds, the impedances encountered were also significantly higher with the disposable electrode (p less than 0.01). The output of many defibrillators in use today is inadequate for consistent defibrillation of adult patients weighing more than 50 to 80 kilograms. Since a minimal peak current per unit of body weight is required for ventricular defibrillation and since a higher transthoracic impedance results in a lower delivered peak current, one should use the paddle electrode-chest wall interface that results in the lowest impedance to defibrillator discharge. The impedance encountered with disposable electrodes is significantly higher than that encountered with electrode paste. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of these disposable electrodes for defibrillation or elective cardioversion.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Hemodynamic responses to two defibrillating trapezoidal waveforms.

The purpose of this study is to compare postdefibrillation hemodynamics following a 2-msec 80% tilt shock to those following a 10-msec 50% tilt shock. The waveforms can be generated by an automatic implantable defibrillator. In 18 mongrel dogs, a defibrillating catheter carrying two pairs of electrodes was lodged at the apex of the right ventricle. Every 15 min a fibrillation-defibrillation episode was initiated, alternating the two defibrillating waveforms in successive episodes. The peak current for the 10-msec defibrillating shock was twice the predicted threshold peak current; the 2-msec shock was of the same delivered energy as the 10-msec shock. In each episode, fibrillation lated for 30 sec, then defibrillation was accomplished with one of the two wave-form countershocks. Hemodynamic measurements were recorded at 2 min prior to fibrillation and 1 min after defibrillation of each episode. Data were obtained on heart rate, mean femoral arterial blood pressure, cardiac output, left ventricular dP/dt, right ventricular dP/dt, cardiac power, and the number of ventricular ectopic beats per minute. The data indicate that with superior restoration of circulation as the criterion, a low-peak-current, long-duration, low-tilt defibrillating waveform is preferable for catheter-electrode ventricular defibrillation.

Animals↗
PubMed2001

Survival benefit with an implanted defibrillator in relation to mortality risk in chronic coronary heart disease.

Although improved patient survival has been reported in several randomized trials with the implanted cardioverter-defibrillator, <15% of patients treated with defibrillators during trials receive life-saving benefit from this therapy. We evaluated the survival benefit from defibrillator therapy in relation to the severity of the mortality risk in patients with coronary heart disease. Using data from the Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial, we partitioned the study population into high- and low-risk subsets for each of 3 physiologically meaningful risk factors (ejection fraction, QRS duration, and history of heart failure requiring therapy). Risk of death was evaluated by Cox proportional-hazards regression analyses in patients with single and multiple risk factors. The defibrillator was associated with a significant (p = 0.002) reduction in mortality only in high-risk subsets with ejection fraction <0.26, QRS duration > or =0.12 second, and history of heart failure requiring treatment. The Cox hazard ratio for the risk of death progressively increased >1.0 as a function of the number of risk factors present. Defibrillator therapy was associated with a progressive reduction in the hazard ratio <1.0 (improved survival) at each increased level of mortality risk. Patients at the highest mortality risk (all 3 risk factors; hazard ratio 4.33) achieved the largest mortality reduction (hazard ratio 0.20) from defibrillator therapy. In patients with chronic coronary heart disease, the magnitude of the survival benefit from the implanted defibrillator is directly related to the severity of cardiac dysfunction and its associated mortality risk.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Role of proximal electrode position in transvenous ventricular defibrillation.

Transvenous defibrillation lead systems have been demonstrated to reduce operative morbidity and mortality associated with implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. To determine the best position for the proximal electrode in transvenous systems, defibrillation thresholds were compared for three positions in a single-pathway, two-lead system. Two defibrillation lead electrodes were transvenously inserted into seven dogs. The distal electrode was positioned in the right ventricular apex. The proximal electrode was randomized to one of three positions: (1) the superior (cranial) vena cava (SVC) at the junction of the right atrium, (2) the left innominate vein at the junction of the SVC, or (3) the external jugular vein. Biphasic defibrillation thresholds for converting electrically induced ventricular fibrillation were determined for the three positions of the proximal electrode in each dog. The innominate vein position resulted in the lowest defibrillation threshold (555 +/- 123 V) as compared to the SVC (640 +/- 126 V; p = 0.0612) and the jugular vein (709 +/- 117 V; p = 0.0013). Lead impedance gradually increased with increasing distance between the two shocking electrodes: 58.4 +/- 11.4 omega for SVC, 76.2 +/- 13.8 omega for innominate vein, and 94.9 +/- 10.2 omega for jugular vein proximal lead electrode position (p < 0.05 for all pairwise comparisons). In two-electrode transvenous defibrillation lead systems, positioning the proximal electrode in the left innominate vein produced the lowest defibrillation threshold.

Animals↗
PubMed1997

[Results of testing defibrillator function of implanted cardioverter/defibrillators].

Postoperative tests of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are routinely performed to ensure appropriate defibrillation by the device. However, efficacy and complications of this procedure are unknown. To scrutinize the currently accepted indications to test the defibrillation function of the ICD we retrospectively analyzed 844 ICD-tests in 439 ICD-systems and 409 patients. 755 ICD-tests (89.4%) were routinely performed (57% before discharge and 43% during follow-up); 58 tests (6.9%) were performed after a change of the antiarrhythmic drug regimen, 24 tests (2.9%) after a revision of a part of the ICD-system, and seven tests (0.8%) because of a suspected dysfunction of the ICD. During routine-tests six ICD-systems (0.8%) failed to defibrillate the patient. However, in all but one test abnormalities of the ICD-system had been observed before the test. After addition of antiarrhythmic drugs, three of 58 ICD-systems (5.2%) failed to defibrillate the patient during the test (amiodarone: n = 2, flecainide: n = 1). Four of seven ICD-systems (57%) tested due to a suspected dysfunction failed to defibrillate the patient. After revisions of parts of the ICD-systems, ICD-tests never revealed a failure of defibrillation. During 16 ICD-tests (1.9%) complications occurred. The most frequent complications was inappropriate shocks (n = 10; 1.2%), the most severe one (transient) neurologic symptoms (n = 4; 0.48%). Our experience demonstrates that postoperative tests of the defibrillation function of ICDs rarely reveal ICD-dysfunction. As testing is unpleasant for the patient and not free of complications, tests might be restricted to those patients in whom an ICD-dysfunction is suspected (based on clinical presentation, results of chest-x-ray, testing of sensing signal and stimulation threshold) or class I or class III antiarrhythmic drugs have been added to the antiarrhythmic drug regimen.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

[First responder defibrillation in the USA, Europe and Germany--prerequisites, experiences, perspectives].

Sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a leading cause of death and only 5-8% of patients survive such event. Defibrillation is the mose effective treatment and should performed within 5 minutes; however, its effectiveness diminishes with each passing minute. "Early defibrillation" is the use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs) by trained public-safety personnal ("first responder"), whereas "public access" defibrillation describes AED use by persons who have no specific AED training. Several studies in the US and in Europe show that first responder defibrillation will increase the number of survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared to paramedics. This is caused by a shorter "call-to-arrival-time" in first responders compared to paramedics. In Europe, programs for the use of automated external defibrillators exist only occasionally. Reasons for this are the lack of open-mindedness, logistic and legal problems. In Germany, there are only few AED programs with promising results. At the present time, placement of automated external defibrillators in public places frequented by a large number of susceptible people will increase overall survival. However, placement of AEDs in all public places is still debatable and further studies are necessary to estimate the potential impact of publicc access defibrillators.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed1995

Motor vehicle accidents in patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to examine driving safety in patients at risk for sudden death after implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. BACKGROUND: Cardioverter-defibrillators are frequently implanted in patients at high risk for sudden death. Despite concern about the safety of driving in these patients, little is known about their actual motor vehicle accident rates. METHODS: Surveys were sent to all 742 physicians in the United States involved in cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and follow-up. Physicians were questioned about numbers of patients followed up, numbers of fatal and nonfatal accidents, physician recommendations to patients about driving and knowledge of state driving laws. RESULTS: Surveys were returned by 452 physicians (61%). A total of 30 motor vehicle accidents related to shocks from implantable defibrillators were reported by 25 physicians over a 12-year period from 1980 to 1992. Of these, nine were fatal accidents involving eight patients with a defibrillator and one passenger in a car driven by a patient. No bystanders were fatally injured. There were 21 nonfatal accidents involving 15 patients, 3 passengers and 3 bystanders. The estimated fatality rate for patients with a defibrillator, 7.5/100,000 patient-years, is significantly lower than that for the general population (18.4/100,000 patient-years, p < 0.05). The estimated injury rate, 17.6/100,000 patient-years, is also significantly lower than that for the general public (2,224/100,000 patient-years, p < 0.05). Only 10.5% (30 of 286) of all defibrillator discharges during driving resulted in accidents. Regarding physician recommendations, most physicians (58.1%) ask their patients to wait a mean (+/- SD) of 7.3 +/- 3.4 months after implantation or a shock before driving again. CONCLUSIONS: The motor vehicle accident rate caused by discharge from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator is low. Although restricting driving for a short period of time after implantation may be appropriate, excessive restrictions or a total ban on driving appears to be unwarranted.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed1996

Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell on defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system.

Transvenous lead systems have become routine for defibrillator implantation. A reduction of pulse generator size has made pectoral placement possible and enabled the pulse generator shell to become an active part of the defibrillation pathway. To directly assess the effect of the addition of an active generator on defibrillation thresholds to a transvenous lead system, we prospectively measured paired, randomized defibrillation thresholds (DFTs) in 21 patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. A dual coil lead (Endotak C, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Corp., St. Paul, Minnesota) was used with the distal coil as the cathode for all shocks. The DFT was 8.4 +/- 3.2 J with the active shell, compared with 13.1 +/- 6.9 J with the lead alone (p < 0.01). This reduction was greatest in those patients with higher thresholds with the lead-alone configuration and resulted in DFT < or = 15 J with the active shell configuration in all patients. Shock impedance was reduced from 49 +/- 5 to 42 +/- 4 ohms (p < .001), but peak current at defibrillation threshold was unaffected by the addition of the active pectoral shell. We conclude that the addition of an active pectoral shell to a 2-coil transvenous lead system resulted in a marked reduction of defibrillation energy requirements. The uniformly low DFT ( < or = 15 J) observed suggests that an active pulse generator with a 25 J maximum output could be implanted in most patients while maintaining an adequate defibrillation safety margin.

Aged↗
PubMed2002

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias among medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator has been assessed in randomized trials, but the generalizability of trial results to broader clinical settings is unclear. Our purpose was to evaluate the outcomes and costs of defibrillator use in an unselected population. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We identified 125,892 Medicare patients who were discharged between 1987 and 1995 after hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, 7789 of whom (6.2%) received a defibrillator. We used a multivariable propensity score that included patient and hospital characteristics to match pairs of patients, in which one patient received a defibrillator and the other did not. We compared mortality and costs in these 7612 matched pairs during 8 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Patients who received a defibrillator were more likely to be younger, white, male, and urban dwelling, and to have ischemic heart disease, heart failure, or a history of ventricular fibrillation. In the matched-pairs analysis, those who received a defibrillator had significantly lower mortality: 11% versus 19% at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 to 0.63), 20% versus 30% at 2 years (OR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.72), and 28% versus 39% at 3 years (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.77). These patients also had lower mortality at 8 years (P = 0.0001), although this advantage over patients who received medical treatment only decreased over time. Expenditures among defibrillator recipients were consistently higher, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $78,400 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION: The use of implantable defibrillators was associated with significantly lower mortality and higher costs, whereas the cost-effectiveness was higher than many, but not all, generally accepted therapies.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Implantable defibrillators have become the dominant therapeutic modality for patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Current defibrillators are small (<60 mL) and implanted with techniques similar to standard pacemakers. They provide high-energy shocks for ventricular fibrillation and rapid ventricular tachycardia, antitachycardia pacing for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, as well as antibradycardia pacing. Newer devices incorporating an atrial lead allow dual-chamber pacing and better discrimination between ventricular and supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Randomized controlled trials have shown superior survival with implantable defibrillators than with antiarrhythmic drugs in survivors of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias and in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease. Complications associated with implantable defibrillator therapy include infection, lead failure, and spurious shocks for supraventricular tachyarrhythmias. Most patients adapt well to living with an implantable defibrillator, although driving often has to be restricted. Limited evidence suggests that implantable defibrillator therapy is cost-effective when compared with other widely accepted treatments. The use of implantable defibrillators is likely to continue to expand in the future. Ongoing clinical trials will define further prophylactic indications of the implantable defibrillator and clarify its cost-effectiveness ratio in different clinical settings.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1998

Shock timing lowers transvenous defibrillation energy requirement.

Previous studies suggested that time periods exist during ventricular fibrillation when defibrillation shocks are more effective. However, there is no agreement on the amount of energy that can be saved or whether an implantable defibrillator can time shocks to these time periods. We conducted a study having two parts to investigate if there was any advantage to synchronizing internal defibrillation shocks to morphological patterns in ventricular fibrillation (VF). VF electrograms were recorded from the same three-electrode lead system used for internal defibrillation. In Part 1, we found no difference in the probability of successful defibrillation between shocks that were delivered into coarse and fine VF (48% vs 46%). However, shocks that were delivered to the upslope of coarse VF electrograms were more efficacious than those to the downslope of the waveform (67% vs 39%, P < .001). In the second study, we developed a real time computer system to prospectively deliver shocks on the upslope feature we identified in the first study. We found that the energy requirements at E50 and E80 were significantly lower for shocks delivered on the upslope of coarse VF than those delivered randomly at the end of 10 sec. We estimated a probability of success (POS) defibrillation curve using a maximum likelihood method for the timed and random shocks. The POS curve width was significantly narrower for shocks that were delivered to the upslope feature than the control treatment (7.1 +/- 0.9 vs. 10.8 +/- 1.7 J, P < 0.01). If these findings extend to clinical defibrillation, they may allow programming of internal defibrillators at lower energies. This could reduce potential postshock cardiac dysfunction, allow production of smaller devices, and improve battery life.

Animals↗
PubMed1995

The impact of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators on mortality among patients on the waiting list for heart transplantation.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators were investigated for their impact on mortality in 228 consecutive heart transplant candidates on the waiting list for transplantation (207 patients without and 21 with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy). The mortality rate in 207 patients without implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy was 23.2% and in 21 patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy was 4.7%. In a Cox proportional hazards model for all 228 study patients (mortality while on the waiting list: 21.5%; transplantation rate: 54.8%), the absence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was only a marginally significant predictor of mortality (p = 0.079). However, the absence of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was a powerful predictor of mortality for a subgroup of 134 patients with high-grade ventricular arrhythmias on Holter electrocardiography (mortality while on the waiting list: 26.1%; transplantation rate: 54.5%; p = 0.022) and for a subgroup of 58 survivors of sudden cardiac death (mortality while on the waiting list: 22.4%; transplantation rate: 56.9%; p = 0.018). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy can be strongly recommended in transplant candidates with a history of sudden cardiac death. Recommendations for an expanded, prophylactic use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in heart transplant candidates cannot be given.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac↗
PubMed1996

Atrial defibrillation. New frontiers.

External electrical atrial defibrillation was developed in the early 1960s. Direct current electrical external shocks convert atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm in the majority of patients. Although much has been learned about the mechanisms of the arrhythmia and those responsible for successful external direct current atrial defibrillation, the technique has remained essentially unchanged since it was first described by Lown and colleagues. Animal and human studies have shown that atrial defibrillation can be terminated by shocks delivered by way of internal electrode catheters. The technique is most effective when biphasic waveform shocks are delivered by way of large surface area electrodes in the right atrium and the coronary sinus. Synchronization of shocks to R waves greater than 500 msec after the previous beat prevents induction of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Therefore, internal atrial defibrillation provides an effective and safe method for restoring sinus rhythm in patients who fail external direct current cardioversion. The success of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and the encouraging safety and efficacy data from studies of internal atrial defibrillation have generated considerable interest in developing an implantable atrial defibrillator. The efficacy of low-energy shocks to terminate the arrhythmia suggests that such a device might be tolerated by patients. Data about the pathogenesis of atrial fibrillation suggest that rapid detection and immediate termination of atrial fibrillation theoretically might prevent recurrence of the arrhythmia. These data support the development of an implantable atrial defibrillator and the initiation of clinical trials to determine its utility.

Animals↗
PubMed1999

Implantable atrial defibrillator with a single-pass dual-electrode lead.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the feasibility and efficacy of using a single-pass, dual-electrode (Solo) lead for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection and defibrillation. BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of an implantable atrial defibrillator (IAD) has been extensively studied; however, separate right atrial (RA) and coronary sinus (CS) defibrillation leads are used for the present system. METHODS: We studied the use of the Solo lead for AF detection and defibrillation in 17 patients who underwent cardioversion of chronic AF. The Solo lead with a proximal 6-cm RA electrode and a distal 6-cm spiral-shaped CS electrode were positioned into the CS with the RA electrode against the anterolateral RA wall. The RA-CS electrogram signal amplitudes were measured and the efficacy of the Solo lead for AF detection and defibrillation was assessed by using an external version of the IAD. RESULTS: The leads were inserted in all patients without complication (mean fluoroscopy time: 13.3+/-6.8 min). The mean RA-CS signal amplitude was 484+/-229 microV during sinus rhythm and 274+/-88 microV during AF (p < 0.05). All patients had satisfactory atrial signal amplitude to allow accurate detection of sinus rhythm. Successful cardioversion was achieved in 16/17 (94%) patients with an atrial defibrillation threshold of 320+/-70 V (5.5+/-2.7 J). Insufficient interelectrode spacing resulted in suboptimal electrode locations, associated with a lower atrial signal amplitude, a higher atrial defibrillation threshold and diaphragmatic stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a simplified lead configuration with optimal interelectrode spacing can be used with an IAD for AF detection and defibrillation.

Adult↗