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 775 records · Page 43Linked to original sources

Defibrillation electrode configurations developed from cardiac mapping that combine biphasic shocks with sequential timing.

Previous canine mapping studies of the transvenous defibrillation lead configuration of right ventricle (RV) to left R2 patch (P) revealed regions of low potential gradient in the left ventricular apex (A) and the right ventricular outflow tract (O). Thus 16 new lead configurations were tested in eight dogs, which incorporated electrodes in A and O to raise the gradient. When used in conjunction with two sequential biphasic shocks, the average defibrillation threshold energy from these configurations was 57% lower than that produced by a single biphasic shock delivered through RV-->P (phase 1 cathode-->anode, p < 0.001). Of the 16 configurations tested, the most effective was RV-->P followed by A-->O. When the shocking order of this configuration was reversed in another eight dogs, no difference in defibrillation efficacy was noted. In individual configurations of RV-->P and A-->O that used a single biphasic shock, defibrillation was not effective. Finally, when two sequential biphasic shocks were delivered to the same two electrodes in seven other dogs, the defibrillation efficacy was low. Thus configurations that use two sequential biphasic shocks can produce low defibrillation thresholds when the shocks are delivered to two different sets of electrodes. The high efficacy may be caused by one shock increasing the potential gradient in regions of low potential gradient that are produced by the other shock.

Animals↗

Clinical efficacy of shock waveforms and lead configurations for defibrillation.

A randomized, prospective comparison of the defibrillation efficacy of various shock waveforms and nonthoracotomy lead configurations was performed in five distinct patient groups undergoing implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator. In the first group using a bidirectional lead configuration, there was no significant difference in the mean defibrillation threshold (DFT) between simultaneous and sequential monophasic shocks (17.8 +/- 5.8 joules versus 17.3 +/- 2.7 joules). In the second group using a bidirectional lead configuration, the mean DFT was 21.9 +/- 7.3 joules with monophasic shocks and 14.9 +/- 5.0 joules with biphasic shocks (p < 0.001). In the third group using a unidirectional lead configuration, the mean DFT was significantly higher (p < 0.001) with monophasic shocks (22.1 +/- 4.2 joules) compared with biphasic shocks (15.0 +/- 5.4 joules). In the fourth group, an intraindividual comparison with monophasic shock waveforms showed no significant differences in DFT using either a bidirectional (21.3 +/- 5.8 joules) or a unidirectional (21.7 +/- 2.6 joules) lead configuration. In the fifth group, a simplified unipolar transvenous defibrillation lead system ("active can") demonstrated significant lower DFTs (9.7 +/- 3.8 joules) compared with a standardized unidirectional lead configuration (18.0 +/- 6.8 joules). It is concluded that: (1) there seems to be no significant difference in the DFT between simultaneous and sequential monophasic shocks; (2) biphasic waveforms require significantly less energy for defibrillation than their corresponding monophasic waveforms; and (3) the unipolar single-electrode defibrillation system is easy to implant and provides DFTs at energies comparable with epicardial lead systems.

Adolescent↗

Antiarrhythmic drugs versus implantable defibrillators: the need for a randomized controlled study.

The implantable cardiac defibrillator was first used in 1980 and has gained widespread acceptance. However, no randomized controlled trials have been reported that compare the implantable cardiac defibrillator with antiarrhythmic drugs. Most published studies have used historical control subjects or nonrandomized concurrent patients for comparison with patients who received an implantable defibrillator. To reduce bias, studies are needed that compare therapies randomized between antiarrhythmic drugs and implantable defibrillators. The Antiarrhythmics Versus Implantable Defibrillators (AVID) Study was designed to evaluate the nonthoracotomy, tiered-therapy implantable defibrillator compared with drug therapy (amiodarone or sotalol). Patients are eligible for randomization if they have a history of recent cardiac arrest caused by ventricular fibrillation or have hemodynamically serious ventricular tachycardia. A pilot study to enroll 200 patients began on June 1, 1993, before the start of the main study of 1000 patients. Analysis of the main study by intention to treat will assess the primary endpoint of total mortality.

Amiodarone↗

Implantable defibrillators for high-risk patients with heart failure who are awaiting cardiac transplantation.

The objective of this study was to assess the operative risk and efficacy of implantable defibrillators for preventing sudden death in patients with heart failure awaiting transplantation. The average waiting time for elective cardiac transplantation is 6 months to 1 year. Sudden cardiac death is the major source of mortality in outpatients in stable condition awaiting cardiac transplantation. The efficacy of implantable defibrillator therapy in this population is not established. We analyzed the operative risk, time to appropriate shock, and sudden death in 15 patients determined to be at high risk of sudden death who were accepted onto the outpatient cardiac transplant waiting list. Nonfatal postoperative complications occurred in two (13%) subjects with epicardial defibrillating lead systems and in none with transvenous lead systems. Defibrillation energies were 16 +/- 2 J versus 24 +/- 2 J with epicardial and transvenous lead systems, respectively. Sudden death free survival until transplantation was 93%. Most of the patients (60%) had an appropriate shock during a mean follow-up of 11 +/- 12 months. The mean time to an appropriate shock was 3 +/- 3 months. Hospital readmission was required in three (20%) subjects to await transplantation on an urgent basis. However, two of these subjects had received appropriate shocks before readmission. In selected patients at high risk for sudden death while on the outpatient cardiac transplant waiting list, the operative risk is low and adequate defibrillation energies can be obtained to allow implantable defibrillator placement. Most subjects will have an appropriate shock as outpatients before transplantation, and sudden death free survival is excellent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Actuarial Analysis↗

Effect of sotalol on ventricular fibrillation and defibrillation in humans.

Antiarrhythmic drugs are frequently administered to patients receiving implanted cardioverter defibrillators. Some of these drugs may decrease the efficacy of defibrillation shocks from the defibrillator. Sotalol, a drug with beta-blocking and class III antiarrhythmic properties, lowers defibrillation energy requirements in experimental animals and may do so in humans. Oral sotalol 171 +/- 58 mg was administered before and after device implantation in 25 patients receiving implanted defibrillators. During sotalol therapy, the lowest energy required for successful defibrillation was 5.9 +/- 3.4 J (range 2-15J). In a concurrent nonrandomized comparison group of 23 patients, including 18 treated with amiodarone, the lowest successful energy was 16 +/- 10 J (p < 0.01). In 5 sotalol patients, ventricular fibrillation (VF) could not be induced at all (1 patient) or more than 2 or 3 times (4 patients) despite repeated 60 Hz stimulation. The induced VF had a pronounced tendency to terminate spontaneously, with the termination occurring at up to 23 seconds after the offset of 60 Hz stimulation. The cycle length of the VF was 236 +/- 34 msec, significantly greater than in patients not given drug therapy (191 +/- 21 msec, p < 0.01). In 10 patients, but none of the controls, intracardiac electrograms during surface electrocardiographic VF were regular, monoform, and without low-amplitude diastolic activity. In addition, monophasic action potentials during apparent VF showed maintenance of distinct and normal morphology. The ventricular effective refractory period increased after sotalol (249.4 +/- 19 to 278.4 +/- 24 msec; p < 0.03) and the maximum heart rate response to exercise was limited to 120 +/- 28 beats/min.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Administration, Oral↗

Do patients with an implantable defibrillator live longer?

OBJECTIVES: This study was done to provide information on the potential benefit of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy regarding sudden and arrhythmia-related deaths and to examine whether such therapy improves survival. BACKGROUND: Implantation of automatic cardioverter-defibrillators is reported to abort sudden cardiac death due to malignant tachyarrhythmias. METHODS: Between 1989 and 1992, 107 patients were screened for implantation of a third-generation implantable cardioverter-defibrillator combined with endocardial leads. Mean age was 57 +/- 13 years and mean ejection fraction was 40 +/- 15%. Sudden death, total arrhythmia-related death and total cardiac death were compared with the occurrence of fast ventricular tachyarrhythmias (> 240 beats/min), assuming that most of these arrhythmias would have been fatal without treatment by the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. RESULTS: The surgical mortality rate was 2.7% in all 107 patients and 1% in the 99 patients who qualified for endocardial leads. During a follow-up period of 12 +/- 8 months, actuarial survival rate free of events at 6 months as well as at 12 and 18 months was 100% for sudden death, 97% for total arrhythmia-related death and 95% for total cardiac death. In contrast, after 6, 12 and 18 months, the rate of survival free of fast ventricular tachycardia was only 83%, 74% and 69%, respectively, and the rate of survival free of any ventricular tachyarrhythmia was only 59%, 49% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of patients treated with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and endocardial defibrillation leads is excellent. For many patients, this treatment is probably lifesaving.

Adult↗

Electromagnetic interference from welding and motors on implantable cardioverter-defibrillators as tested in the electrically hostile work site.

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine the susceptibility of an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator to electromagnetic interference in an electrically hostile work site environment, with the ultimate goal of allowing the patient to return to work. BACKGROUND: Normal operation of an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator depends on reliable sensing of the heart's electrical activity. Consequently, there is concern that external electromagnetic interference from external sources in the work place, especially welding equipment or motor-generator systems, may be sensed and produce inappropriate shocks or abnormal reed switch operation, temporarily suspending detection of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. METHODS: The effects of electromagnetic interference on the operation of one type of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Medtronic models 7217 and 7219) was measured by using internal event counter monitoring in 10 patients operating arc welders at up to 900 A or working near 200-hp motors and 1 patient close to a locomotive starter drawing up to 400 A. RESULTS: The electromagnetic interference produced two sources of potential interference on the sensing circuit or reed switch operation, respectively: 1) electrical fields with measured frequencies up to 50 MHz produced by the high currents during welding electrode activation, and 2) magnetic fields produced by the current in the welding electrode and cable. The defibrillator sensitivity was programmed to the highest (most sensitive) value: 0.15 mV (model 7219) or 0.3 mV (model 7217). The ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation therapies were temporarily turned off but the detection circuits left on. CONCLUSIONS: None of the implanted defibrillators tested were affected by oversensing of the electric field as verified by telemetry from the detection circuits. The magnetic field from 225-A welding current produced a flux density of 1.2 G; this density was not adequate to close the reed switch, which requires approximately 10 G. Our testing at the work site revealed no electrical interference with this type of defibrillator. Patients were allowed to return to work. The following precautions should be observed by the patient: 1) maintain a minimal distance of 2 ft (61 cm) from the welding arc and cables or large motors, 2) do not exceed tested currents with the welding equipment, 3) wear insulated gloves while operating electrical equipment, 4) verify that electrical equipment is properly grounded, and 5) stop welding and leave the work area immediately if a therapy is delivered or a feeling of lightheadedness is experienced.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

Cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in high-risk patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are used with increasing frequency in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients of all ages for primary and secondary sudden death prevention. Concerns may arise regarding the safety of device implantation because of unique clinical and phenotypic expressions of HCM. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ICD placement in high-risk patients with HCM. METHODS: We analyzed the experience with ICDs and transvenous lead systems in 75 consecutive HCM patients at the Minneapolis Heart Institute from 1993 to 2004. RESULTS: The age of the study group patients was 12 to 79 years (mean 36 +/- 16). Patients received ICDs for secondary (n = 4, after cardiac arrest) or primary prevention (n = 71, with > or = 1 risk factor). Thirty-one patients demonstrated disease features that potentially impacted methodology and safety of the implant procedure, most commonly massive left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and outflow obstruction > or = 50 mmHg. There were no procedure-related deaths; defibrillator implants were successful and uneventful in 71 of 75 patients (95%). In 3 of the 75 patients (4%), defibrillation was unsuccessful because of high thresholds, associated with extreme hypertrophy (wall thickness > 45 mm) and/or ongoing amiodarone therapy. In two of these patients, thoracotomy with epicardial lead placement achieved successful defibrillation; ICD therapy was abandoned in the other patient. CONCLUSION: ICD placement in children and adults with HCM is generally safe and effective. However, in some patients with massive LV hypertrophy and/or prior administration of amiodarone, transvenous defibrillation proved difficult, and epicardial lead placement was required. High-energy ICD devices and defibrillation threshold testing are recommended for most high-risk HCM patients.

Adolescent↗

Coronary sinus electrode does not reduce atrial defibrillation thresholds.

BACKGROUND: Atrial defibrillation can be achieved with a conventional dual-coil, active pectoral implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead system. Shocking vectors that incorporate an additional electrode in the CS have been used, but it is unclear if they improve atrial DFTs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this prospective, randomized study was to determine if a coronary sinus (CS) electrode reduces atrial defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). METHODS: This was a prospective study of 36 patients undergoing initial ICD implant for standard indications. A defibrillation lead with superior vena cava (SVC) and right ventricular (RV) shocking coils was implanted in the RV. An active can emulator (Can) was placed in a pre-pectoral pocket. A lead with a 4 cm long shocking coil was placed in the CS. Atrial DFTs were determined in the following 3 shocking configurations in each patient, with the order of testing randomized: RV --> SVC + Can (Ventricular Triad), distal CS --> SVC + Can (Distal Atrial Triad), and proximal CS --> SVC + Can (Proximal Atrial Triad). RESULTS: The Proximal and Distal Atrial Triad configurations were both associated with significant reductions in peak current (p < 0.01), but this effect was offset by significant increases in shock impedance (p < 0.01), resulting in no net change in the peak voltage or DFT energy in comparison to the Ventricular Triad configuration (Ventricular Triad: 4.9 +/- 6.6 J, Proximal Atrial Triad: 3.3 +/- 4.1J, Distal Atrial Triad: 4.4 +/- 6.7 J, p > 0.2). CONCLUSION: Shocking vectors that incorporate a CS coil do not significantly improve atrial defibrillation efficacy. Since the Ventricular Triad shocking pathway provides reliable atrial and ventricular defibrillation, this configuration should be preferred for combined atrial and ventricular ICDs.

Atrial Fibrillation↗

Very high survival among patients defibrillated at an early stage after in-hospital ventricular fibrillation on wards with and without monitoring facilities.

BACKGROUND: The association between the interval between collapse and defibrillation and outcome is well described in out of hospital cardiac arrest but not as well in in-hospital cardiac arrest. We report the outcome among patients who suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest and were found in ventricular fibrillation (VF) with the emphasis on the delay to defibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients who suffered an in-hospital cardiac arrest at Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Göteborg between 1994 and 2002 there were 1.570 calls for the rescue team of which 71% had suffered a cardiac arrest. Among cardiac arrests 47% took place on monitored wards. The proportion of patients found in VF was 59% on wards with monitoring facilities and 45% on wards without (p<0.0001). Approximately 90% of these patients were defibrillated 12 min. On monitored wards, the survival was 63% if defibrillated 3 min after collapse (NS). The corresponding values for non-monitored wards were 72% and 35%, respectively (p=0.0003). Cerebral function among survivors at discharge appeared to be good among the majority of patients both in monitored and non monitored wards. CONCLUSION: If patients with in hospital VF were defibrillated early in both monitored and non monitored wards survival to hospital discharge was high. This highlights the importance of being prepared for the rapid defibrillation on wards without monitoring facilities.

Aged↗

Worldwide evaluation of a defibrillation lead with a small geometric electrode surface for high-impedance pacing.

BACKGROUND: Pacing leads with a small electrode surface for high-impedance stimulation have been shown to prolong pacemaker longevity, but no sufficient data is available on the safety and feasibility of a defibrillation lead with this novel design. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical performance of a tined, steroid-eluting defibrillation lead with a small electrode surface area (model 6944) in a prospective multicenter study. A total of 542 patients with conventional indications for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator were randomized 1:1 to receive either the model 6944 or a tined, steroid-eluting defibrillation lead with a conventional sized electrode surface area (model 6942). Device performance and electrical parameters were evaluated at implant and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter (mean follow-up 11.3 +/- 5.6 months). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, lead implant success rates, and defibrillation thresholds did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. While pacing thresholds did not differ significantly during follow-up, pacing impedance was approximately twice as high in the model 6944 as in the model 6942 lead (P <.0001). Mean R-wave amplitudes were smaller in patients with a 6944 (9.1 +/- 3.1 mV vs 9.8 +/- 3.6 mV for model 6942, P <.05), but remained stable within both groups throughout the observation period. The total number of ventricular lead-related adverse events and patient survival did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a defibrillation lead with a small electrode surface for high-efficiency pacing is safe and feasible and increases pacing impedance without significantly compromising clinical performance.

Aged↗

First experience with a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system.

The clinical efficacy and safety of a new nonthoracotomy defibrillation lead system (TVL lead system, Ventritex, inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.) was studied in patients with ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Implantation of the TVL lead system and a Cadence pulse generator (Ventritex, Inc.) was attempted in 27 patients. A subcutaneous patch lead was added if required to achieve adequate defibrillation energy. Patients were monitored for an average of 6 +/- 4 months (range 1 week to 14 months). Implantation was successful in 26 patients (96%). Twenty-three of those patients (88%) were implanted in a lead-alone configuration; the remaining three (12%) required a subcutaneous patch lead. The mean defibrillation threshold was 401 +/- 120 V (12 +/- 7 J) at implantation, 467 +/- 134 V (15 +/- 8 J) at predischarge testing, and 452 +/- 151 V (14 +/- 9 J) at 4-month follow-up. The mean defibrillation threshold at 4 months was not significantly different from that at implant. No deaths, sensing anomalies, infections, lead fractures, or lead dislodgments occurred. One patient required addition of a subcutaneous patch 4 months after device implantation because of an elevated defibrillation threshold. Eight patients (31%) experienced 545 spontaneous arrhythmic episodes, and all episodes were successfully terminated by the device. In conclusion, the TVL lead system combined with Cadence tiered-therapy defibrillator has a high success rate and low complication rate, and it can be recommended for treatment of patients with life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmias.

Adult↗

Effect of parenteral d-sotalol on transvenous atrial defibrillation threshold in a canine model of atrial fibrillation.

In an effort to reduce energy requirements for atrial defibrillation to a level low enough to perform painless electrical cardioversion with an implantable atrial defibrillator, we tested the hypothesis that drug therapy with the class III agent d-sotalol, when used concurrently with a low-energy shock, reduces atrial defibrillation threshold. In a nonthoracotomy canine model of atrial fibrillation, intracardiac shocks were delivered between the distal coronary sinus and the mid-right atrium. Based on a step-up energy delivery protocol the atrial defibrillation threshold was defined as the least amount of energy that resulted in a >10% and <90% rate of successful defibrillation. At a dose associated with class III antiarrhythmic effects (5 mg/kg), d-sotalol significantly reduced atrial defibrillation threshold from 1.72 +/- 1.12 J to 0.59 +/- 0.60 J (p < 0.01). These results support the feasibility of using antiarrhythmic drug therapy with d-sotalol to minimize energy requirements for intracardiac electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation.

Animals↗

Transvenous biventricular defibrillation.

The recent success of biventricular pacing with transvenously implantable left ventricular leads suggests that left ventricular leads may be useful for other modes of therapy. Animal studies showed small leads inserted into a left ventricular vein dramatically reduced defibrillation strength requirements. This article describes a human investigation of the feasibility of biventricular defibrillation. Fifty-one patients undergoing implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation were enrolled. After insertion of a standard ICD lead, a prototype over-the-wire left ventricular defibrillation lead was inserted through the coronary sinus and into a vein on the left ventricle. Lead insertion was guided by retrograde venography. The left ventricular lead's location was randomized to the anterior or posterior vein. Randomized, paired defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed to compare a standard ICD shock configuration (Control: right ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+) to 1 of 3 biventricular shock configurations. In the anterior vein, the left ventricular lead was tested with either a single biphasic shock from right ventricle + left ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+ or a dual biphasic shock. In the posterior vein, the left ventricular lead was tested with a dual biphasic shock. Dual shocks consisted of a 40% tilt biphasic shock from right ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+ followed by another 40% tilt biphasic shock from left ventricle- --> superior vena cava+ + CAN+, delivered from a single 225 microF capacitance. Left ventricular lead positioning was successful in 41 of 46 patients (89%). Mean left ventricular lead insertion time was 17 +/- 17 minutes and 13 +/- 15 minutes for anterior and posterior locations, respectively. Mean DFTs were not statistically lower for the left ventricular shock configurations, but retrospective analysis showed a well-defined region of the posterolateral left ventricle where consistent DFT reduction was achieved with dual shocks (14.0 +/- 2.7 J vs 7.8 +/- 0.9 J; n = 5; p = 0.04). There were no adverse events requiring intervention due to the use of the left ventricular lead. Biventricular defibrillation is feasible and safe under the conditions used in this study. Additional studies are needed to verify whether dual shocks with posterolateral left ventricular lead positions consistently reduce DFTs.

Aged↗

[The current status of implantable automatic defibrillators].

The implantable cardioverter defibrillator has become an important therapy for patients with sustained or life threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Although the concept for the implantable cardioverter defibrillator originated in the late 1960s, the first device was implanted in humans in 1980. Since then, the technology has improved rapidly the design, function and reliability of the devices have been greatly modified. There are currently five companies dealing with defibrillators in Spain incorporating multiple options in defibrillation, pacing and sensing capabilities. New devices with atrioventricular pacing and atrial defibrillation possibilities will soon become available. The purpose of this article is to review the principal functions of implantable cardioverter defibrillators currently available.

Arrhythmias, Cardiac↗

[The absence of interference between GSM mobile telephones and implantable defibrillators: an in-vivo study. Groupe Systèmes Mobiles].

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The electromagnetic field created by mobile telephones can cause pacemaker dysfunction. Although implantable cardioverter defibrillators are also susceptible to electromagnetic interference, few studies have addressed this issue and compatibility with the GSM mode has not been tested. This study was developed to detect possible "in vivo" interference between GSM mobile telephones and implantable cardioverter defibrillators. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study group is composed of 30 patients with 8 different models of defibrillators. Twenty six had endocardial leads and 4 epicardial. Three GSM mobile phones were used: Siemens S3 COM and Motorola 6200 in all cases and Ericsson GA 318 in one. The tests were performed under continuous electrocardiographic monitoring. All therapies were deactivated and sensitivities were set to maximal parameters. The telephones were positioned in close contact to the defibrillator can and precordium, in two different angles. Three situations were evaluated: calling, established contact for 15 seconds and ringing. The protocol was repeated during pacing to assess the possibility of pacemaker mode inhibition. RESULTS: No cases of electromagnetic interference were observed. One patient presented non-sustained ventricular tachycardia episodes during the tests that were detected by the defibrillator. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that electromagnetic interference by GSM mobile phones are not a probable cause of implantable defibrillators dysfunction.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

Optimal Response to Cardiac Arrest study: defibrillation waveform effects.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in early defibrillation access, key to the "Chain of Survival", will depend on innovations in defibrillation waveforms, because of their impact on device size and weight. This study compared standard monophasic waveform automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) to an innovative biphasic waveform AED. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Impedance-compensated biphasic truncated exponential (ICBTE) and either monophasic truncated exponential (MTE) or monophasic damped sine (MDS) AEDs were prospectively, randomly assigned by date in four emergency medical services. The study design compared ICBTE with MTE and MDS combined. This subset analysis distinguishes between the two classes of monophasic waveform, MTE and MDS, and compares their performance to each other and to the biphasic waveform, contingent on significant overall effects (ICBTE vs. MTE vs. MDS). Primary endpoint: Defibrillation efficacy with < or =3 shocks. Secondary endpoints: shock efficacy with < or =1 shock, < or =2 shocks, and survival to hospital admission and discharge. Observations included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), refibrillation, and time to first shock and to first successful shock. RESULTS: Of 338 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, 115 had a cardiac aetiology, presented with ventricular fibrillation, and were shocked by an AED. Defibrillation efficacy for the first "stack" of up to 3 shocks, for up to 2 shocks and for the first shock alone was superior for the ICBTE waveform than for either the MTE or the MDS waveform, while there was no difference between the efficacy of MTE and MDS. Time from the beginning of analysis by the AED to the first shock and to the first successful shock was also superior for the ICBTE devices compared to either the MTE or the MDS devices, while again there was no difference between the MTE and MDS devices. More ICBTE patients achieved ROSC pre-hospital than did MTE patients. While the rates of ROSC were identical for MTE and MDS patients, the difference between ICBTE and MDS was not significant. Rates of refibrillation and survival to hospital admission and discharge did not differ among the three populations. CONCLUSIONS: ICBTE was superior to MTE and MDS in defibrillation efficacy and speed and to MTE in ROSC. MTE and MDS did not differ in efficacy. There were no differences among the waveforms in refibrillation or survival.

Adult↗

Effect of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator lead placement in the right ventricle on defibrillation energy requirements. A combined experimental and clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) lead placement in the right ventricle (RV) on defibrillation efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the goal of this combined experimental and clinical study was to evaluate the effect of a septal and a non-septal position of the right ventricular endocardial spring lead on defibrillation energy. METHODS: In 12 isoflurane-anaesthetized swine and subsequently in 8 patients who underwent ICD implantation, two different positions of the distal spring lead in the RV were investigated in randomized order: non-septal position (free wall of the RV) and septal position (interventricular septum). For each position, separate 50% probability determinations of energy (E50), peak voltage (V50) and peak current (A50) were calculated using the three reversal up/down defibrillation procedure. The E50, V50, A50 and impedance (I) were averaged and compared using the two-sided t-test for paired samples. RESULTS: Both the experimental study and the clinical study demonstrated that placing the distal defibrillation lead near to the septum rather than near to the ventricular free wall resulted both in the swine and in the patients in significantly lower E50-31.6%/ - 37.1%, V50-16.1%/-20.9% and A50 -10.0%/ - 24.2%, respectively. Defibrillation impedances were significantly reduced only in the experimental study. CONCLUSIONS: Defibrillation efficacy depends on the position of the distal spring electrode in the RV. A septal position significantly reduces the energy requirements compared to a non-septal position. The decrease in energy requirements might be explained by an increase in current flow through the septum and the posterolateral wall of the left ventricle. reserved

Animals↗