(Circulation. 1997;96:1217-1223.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
Probability of Successful Defibrillation at Multiples of the Defibrillation Energy Requirement in Patients With an Implantable Defibrillator
From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Ctr, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Correspondence to S. Adam Strickberger, MD, University of Michigan Medical Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0022.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background The probability of successful defibrillation has been determined in normal animals but not in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the probability of successful defibrillation in humans on the basis of a step-down defibrillation energy requirement.
Methods and Results Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent five separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation after the defibrillation energy requirement was determined with the use of small decrements and a step-down protocol (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0.8 J). The first shock energy for defibrillation was either 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, or 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement, and the likelihoods of successful defibrillation were 70±27%, 84±12%, 86±25%, 80±29%, and 88±32%, respectively (P=.03). The frequencies of uniformly successful defibrillation (5 of 5 defibrillation attempts) were 30%, 27%, 60%, 64%, and 73%, respectively (P=.01). Seven patients in whom the defibrillation energy requirement was <4 J had an overall rate of successful defibrillation of 54±20% compared with 86±20% in the remaining 47 patients (P=.002). The likelihood of successful defibrillation at twice the defibrillation energy requirement was 98% in the 46 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of >4 J and 67% in the 7 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of <4 J (P=.17). An absolute safety margin of 7 J was associated with a 96% probability of successful defibrillation.
Conclusions The probability of successful defibrillation is 70% at the defibrillation energy requirement. The probability plateaus at 88%, at twice the defibrillation energy requirement. A 96% probability of successful defibrillation is achieved at an absolute safety margin of 7 J, and a 98% success rate is achieved at energies that are twice the defibrillation energy requirement if the defibrillation energy requirement is >4 J. If the defibrillation energy requirement is <4 J, larger multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement are needed to achieve a high probability of successful defibrillation.
Key Words: fibrillation • defibrillation • implantable defibrillator • arrhythmias
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Implantable defibrillators commonly are used to treat lethal ventricular arrhythmias. Defibrillation efficacy is assessed by various methods at the time of device implantation to ensure an adequate defibrillation safety margin.1 2 3 4 Successful defibrillation is not associated with a clearly demarcated threshold but is a probability function.1 2 3 4 Curves of the probability of successful defibrillation have been determined in animals but never in humans undergoing defibrillator implantation.5 6 7 8 Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the probability of successful defibrillation in humans on the basis of a step-down defibrillation energy requirement.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Study Design Rationale
This study was designed to determine the probability of successful defibrillation in patients with an implantable defibrillator. Construction of a probability of successful defibrillation curve in experimental studies requires as many as 40 inductions of ventricular fibrillation,2 which is not feasible in the clinical setting. Experimental data suggest that a step-down defibrillation energy requirement is associated with
70% successful defibrillation.1 8 9 10 In animals,
multiples of this measurement have been used to construct a probability
of successful defibrillation curve.1 6 8 Therefore, in the
present study, after determination of the step-down defibrillation
energy requirement, patients were assigned to shock strengths for
defibrillation that were a multiple of the defibrillation energy
requirement, and ventricular fibrillation was induced five
times. The multiples were 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, and 2.0 times the
defibrillation energy requirement. The data were then pooled and a
probability of successful defibrillation curve was constructed.
Patient Population
The study population consisted of 53 patients undergoing
evaluation of the defibrillation energy requirement before hospital
discharge after the implantation of a transvenous implantable
defibrillator. Their mean age was 59±13 years, and 36 were men.
Thirty-seven patients had coronary artery disease, 9 patients
had idiopathic cardiomyopathy, 5 patients had other
forms of cardiomyopathy, and 2 patients had no
structural heart disease. The mean left ventricular
ejection fraction was 0.30±0.12. The presenting symptom was
cardiac arrest in 19 patients, and the remaining patients
presented either with syncope or ventricular
tachycardia. All patients underwent baseline
electrophysiological testing.
Defibrillator System and Implantation
The patients provided written informed consent under a protocol
approved by the Human Research Committee at the University of Michigan.
All patients came to the operating room in a postabsorptive state.
Therapy with antiarrhythmic medications was discontinued at least 5
half-lives before device implantation except in 14 patients in whom
amiodarone therapy had been ineffective.
A transvenous defibrillation lead with a distal electrode of 295 mm2 and a proximal electrode of 617 mm2, separated by a distance of 11.5 cm, was used in this study (Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc, St Paul, Minn, Endotak model 0074 or 125). The defibrillation lead was positioned in the right ventricular apex through the subclavian vein under fluoroscopic guidance. The distal shocking coil was placed in the right ventricular apex, and the proximal shocking coil was positioned in the right atrium or at the junction of the right atrium and the superior vena cava. After an adequate defibrillation energy requirement was determined (see below), the defibrillator was implanted.
Each patient in this study received a defibrillator with a truncated, fixed-tilt biphasic waveform with a first-phase tilt of 60% and a second-phase tilt of 50% (Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc, defibrillator model 1625, 1635, 1715, 1720, or 1740).
During the implantation procedure, a step-down defibrillation protocol
was used to determine the defibrillation energy requirement. The
defibrillation energy requirement was defined as the lowest energy
successful at converting ventricular fibrillation to sinus
rhythm. A defibrillation energy requirement adequate for device
implantation was 
10 J less than the maximum output of the
defibrillator. Shock energies of 20, 15, 10, 5, 3, and 1.0 J were
delivered until ventricular fibrillation failed to convert
to sinus rhythm. The shocks were either delivered from an external
defibrillator (CPI, ECD II) or directly from the implantable
defibrillator. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with 1
to 2 seconds of alternating current or with ventricular
pacing with a 15-V pulse delivered every 30 ms with a duration of 1.1
ms for 1 to 3 seconds. Shocks were delivered after
ventricular fibrillation was sensed and the device (either
the external defibrillator or the implantable defibrillator) charged.
At least 5 minutes were allowed to elapse between each induction of
ventricular fibrillation.
Study Protocol
Within 48 hours of implantation, the patients were brought to
the electrophysiology laboratory in a postabsorptive state. All
inductions of ventricular fibrillation, arrhythmia
sensing, and shock delivery were performed by the implanted
defibrillator. Ventricular fibrillation was induced with 1
to 3 seconds of ventricular pacing at an amplitude of 15 V
and delivered every 30 ms with a duration of 1.1 ms. At least 5 minutes
was allowed to elapse between each induction of ventricular
fibrillation. The defibrillation energy requirement was determined in
small decrements using a step-down protocol. The delivered energies
were 25, 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0.5 J. The energy
level selected for the first ventricular fibrillation
induction was the energy equal to the defibrillation energy requirement
at the time of device implantation. The step-down defibrillation energy
requirement was then determined using the decrements described above.
In the unusual event that the first shock energy selected was not
effective in terminating ventricular fibrillation, the
shock energy selected for the next induction of ventricular
fibrillation was two steps above the defibrillation energy requirement
determined during device implantation. The step-down defibrillation
energy requirement was then determined from that point. The
defibrillation energy requirement was again defined as the lowest
energy successful at converting ventricular fibrillation to
sinus rhythm. After determination of the defibrillation energy
requirement in the study protocol, patients underwent the
investigational protocol, which required five inductions of
ventricular fibrillation. At least 5 minutes were allowed
to elapse between each induction of ventricular
fibrillation. Patients were assigned to a first shock energy for each
of these ventricular fibrillation inductions of either 1.0,
1.3, 1.5, 1.7, or 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement. The
success of each of the five shocks at the assigned multiple of the
defibrillation energy requirement was noted. The programmed energy
after a failed shock was selected at the discretion of the
investigator.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables are expressed as mean±1 SD and were
compared with the use of the Student's t test. Multiple
continuous variables were compared by ANOVA and nominal
variables were compared by 
2 analysis. A
Kendall's Tau test was used to examine the association of the multiple
of the defibrillation energy requirement with the rate of successful
defibrillation. For the purposes of this study, a low defibrillation
energy requirement was defined as a defibrillation energy requirement
that was 1 SD less than the mean defibrillation energy requirement,
and a high defibrillation energy requirement was defined as a
defibrillation energy requirement 1 SD greater than the mean
defibrillation energy requirement. An attempt was also made to identify
results that were outliers relative to the population means. Outliers
in each multiplier group were identified by subtracting 2 SD of the
mean probability of successful defibrillation for a particular multiple
from the mean probability of successful defibrillation for that
multiple group.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Major Findings
The mean defibrillation energy requirement was 8.7±4.9 J in the entire population of 53 patients. Ten patients each were assigned to receive shocks that were 1.0 and 1.5 times the defibrillation energy requirement, and 11 patients each were assigned to receive shocks that were 1.3, 1.7, and 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement. There were no identifiable differences in the clinical characteristics between patients assigned to receive shocks at the various multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement (Table
).
|
The results are shown in Fig 1. The overall likelihood of
successful defibrillation was 70±27% in the patients assigned to
defibrillation testing at 1.0 times the defibrillation energy
requirement, 84±12% in patients assigned to defibrillation testing at
1.3 times the defibrillation energy requirement, 86±25% in patients
assigned to defibrillation testing at 1.5 times the defibrillation
energy requirement, 80±29% in patients assigned to defibrillation
testing at 1.7 times the defibrillation energy requirement, and
88±32% in patients assigned to defibrillation testing at 2.0 times
the defibrillation energy requirement (P=.03).
|
Among the 53 patients tested, successful defibrillation was achieved
with each of five shocks in 27 patients (Fig 1
). Specifically, the
frequencies of uniformly successful defibrillation for patients
assigned to 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, and 2.0 times the defibrillation energy
requirement were 30%, 27%, 60%, 64%, and 73%, respectively. The
likelihood of five successful defibrillation attempts was statistically
different between groups (P=.01). Additional
analysis demonstrated that compared with the patients tested at
1.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement, the likelihood of
100% successful defibrillation was significantly greater only in the
patients tested at twice the defibrillation energy requirement
(P=.02).
Successful Defibrillation With a Low Defibrillation Energy
Requirement
There were 7 patients who had a low defibrillation energy
requirement, that is, <3.8 J (Fig 1). Among these 7 patients, no
patients were assigned to 1.0 times the defibrillation energy
requirement, 1 each was assigned to 1.3 and 1.5 times the
defibrillation energy requirement, 2 patients were assigned to 1.7
times the defibrillation energy requirement, and 3 patients were
assigned to 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement
(P=.3). The overall rate of successful defibrillation was
54±20% in the 7 patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement
compared with 86±20% in the other 46 patients (P=.002).
The likelihoods of successful defibrillation in patients with and
without a low defibrillation energy requirement were 80% and 82±12%,
respectively, at 1.3 times the defibrillation energy requirement, 20%
and 93±10%, respectively, at 1.5 times the defibrillation energy
requirement, 40±0% and 87±28%, respectively, at 1.7 times the
defibrillation energy requirement (P=.052), and 67±58% and
98±8%, respectively, at 2.0 times the defibrillation energy
requirement (P=.17).
For 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, and 2.0 times the defibrillation energy
requirement, outliers were defined to be patients with probabilities of
successful defibrillation of less than 16%, 60%, 36%, 22%, and
24%, respectively. Only three patients, who had a mean defibrillation
energy requirement of 3.0±2.6 J, were outliers (Fig 1). The mean
defibrillation energy requirement in the outliers was significantly
less than in the remainder of the patients (9.0±4.8 J;
P=.04). Furthermore, patients with a low defibrillation
energy requirement, that is, <3.8 J, were statistically more likely to
be outliers (P=.04).
Probability of Successful Defibrillation With a 15-J or 20-J
Defibrillation Energy Requirement
There were four patients who had a defibrillation energy
requirement of 15 J and four patients who had a defibrillation energy
requirement of 20 J. These eight patients were tested at energies of 20
to 34 J. Overall, successful defibrillation was achieved in 90% of the
induced episodes. Two of the four patients with a defibrillation energy
requirement of 15 J were tested at a multiple of 1.3 times the
defibrillation energy requirement, or 20 J, and two of the patients
were tested at 25 J, a multiple of 1.7 times the defibrillation energy
requirement. Successful defibrillation was observed in 9 of 10
defibrillation attempts in the two patients tested at 20 J. The other
two patients who had a defibrillation energy requirement of 15 J were
tested at 25 J and were always successfully defibrillated. One of the
four patients with a 20-J defibrillation energy requirement was tested
at 20 J (1.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement), one patient
was tested at 30 J (1.5 times the defibrillation energy requirement),
and two patients were tested at 34 J (1.7 times the defibrillation
energy requirement). The 20-J shocks were always effective. A single
failed defibrillation attempt was noted in the patient tested at 30
J. In the two patients tested at 34 J, one patient had three
successful defibrillation attempts and one patient had five successful
defibrillation attempts.
Absolute Safety Margins
Fig 2 illustrates the relationship between the absolute safety
margin, defined as the tested energy minus the defibrillation energy
requirement, and successful
defibrillation. There were 10
patients tested at an energy of 7 J or more above the defibrillation
energy requirement, and a 96% probability of successful defibrillation
was achieved. Two failed defibrillation attempts were observed in a
patient with a 20-J defibrillation energy requirement who was tested at
34 J.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Major Findings
The results of this study demonstrate that the defibrillation energy requirement identifies the energy level associated with a 70% probability of successful defibrillation. As energy levels increase from the defibrillation energy requirement to twice the defibrillation energy requirement, the probability of successful defibrillation plateaus but does not reach 100%. Energies of twice the defibrillation energy requirement are associated with a 98% probability of successful defibrillation if the defibrillation energy requirement is >4 J. Larger safety margins relative to the defibrillation energy requirement are needed to achieve a high probability of successful defibrillation if the defibrillation energy requirement is <4 J. An absolute safety margin of 7 J is associated with a 96% probability of successful defibrillation. In clinical scenarios in which a 10-J safety margin is used, failed defibrillation attempts should be expected occasionally in patients with a 20-J defibrillation energy requirement who receive shocks at 1.7 times the defibrillation energy requirement, that is, 34 J, and in patients with a 20-J defibrillation energy requirement who are tested at 30 J, or 1.5 times the defibrillation energy requirement.
Safety Margins and Defibrillation Energy Requirement
Curves
In clinical practice, establishment of a 20-J defibrillation
energy requirement ordinarily is considered adequate for implantation
of a device that has a maximum output of 30 J. Data from the
present study demonstrate that in this situation, failed
defibrillation shocks will occasionally be observed. For example, in
the present study, a total of 15 shocks with energies of 30 or 34 J
were administered, and 80% were effective. Furthermore, these data
suggest that the probability of successful defibrillation will most
often be achieved when using energies that are twice the defibrillation
energy requirement. These data do not address the issue of using
energies that are greater than twice the defibrillation energy
requirement.
Defibrillation at Twice the Defibrillation Energy
Requirement
The likelihood of successful defibrillation was significantly
greater at energies that were twice the defibrillation energy
requirement, and the likelihood of uniformly successful defibrillation
was more likely at twice the defibrillation energy requirement. These
data are consistent with the concept that doubling the
defibrillation energy requirement should result in an energy on the
plateau portion of the defibrillation energy requirement
curve.9 10 In fact, only one patient who was tested at
twice the defibrillation energy requirement did not achieve uniformly
successful defibrillation. This patient had a defibrillation energy
requirement of only 2 J. However, as discussed below, patients with low
defibrillation energy requirements may not reach the plateau of the
probability curve when the defibrillation energy requirement is
doubled. If patients with low defibrillation energy requirements are
excluded, the likelihood of successful defibrillation at twice the
defibrillation energy requirement would be 98% and hence well onto the
plateau portion of the curve. This observation has important
implications as defibrillation energy requirements continue to decrease
and low defibrillation energy requirements become more common.
Programming the first shock energy of defibrillators to twice the defibrillation energy requirement may offer advantages, including a more rapid charge time, which may prevent syncope and prolong battery life. In addition, while the results regarding the effect of defibrillation on cardiac function are mixed,11 12 13 14 15 lower energy shocks may be less deleterious hemodynamically.
Absolute Safety Margin Energy
This study was not designed to determine if an absolute safety
margin is associated with a high degree of successful defibrillation.
However, the data suggest that a 7-J safety margin is associated with a
high probability of successful defibrillation. In clinical practice, a
10-J safety margin has been associated with very low incidence of
sudden death.16 17 18 19 First-, second-, and third-generation
defibrillators had maximum outputs of approximately 30 to 34 J. These
data suggest a 10-J safety margin, or 1.4 or 1.5 times the
defibrillation energy requirement, would be expected to be associated
with approximately an 85% probability of successful defibrillation.
Similarly, with defibrillation energy requirements in the 10-J range,
as is often the case today, a 7-J safety margin also might be expected
to be associated with a probability of successful defibrillation in the
range of 85%.
Low Defibrillation Energy Requirements
There were 7 patients with a low defibrillation energy
requirement. In this study, that corresponded to <4 J. The overall
probability of successful defibrillation was less in these patients
than for the population as a whole. When trying to understand why these
patients are different, it is important to realize that the
physiological and anatomic variables that
determine how the defibrillation energy requirement curve will be
shaped in any given patient are poorly understood. However, there are
at least three possible explanations for this finding. The first is
that there may be autonomic differences in patients with a low
defibrillation energy requirement. For instance, some clinical data
suggest that epinephrine can decrease the likelihood of a
successful shock, although some animal studies have found that high
adrenergic tone may not alter the defibrillation energy
requirement.20 21
An alternative explanation could be that the probability of a successful defibrillation curve may have a steeper slope in patients with a low defibrillation energy requirement. In fact, a steeper curve would be expected.9 10 As noted above, animal experiments and the data contained herein suggest that twice the step-down defibrillation energy requirement will identify the plateau portion of the probability of successful defibrillation curve.9 10 For example, if the actual defibrillation energy requirement, or the 70% probability of successful defibrillation is 10 J, then the plateau of the curve is 20 J. If by chance 8 J and not 10 J was identified as the defibrillation energy requirement, then 16 J would be tested and would be 1.6 times the actual 70% probability of successful defibrillation energy (10 J). In this instance, an energy of 1.6 times the defibrillation energy requirement should still be highly efficacious. However, in a patient in whom 2 J corresponds to the actual 70% likelihood of successful defibrillation, then the plateau would be expected at 4 J. If by chance one additional successful defibrillation occurred, then 1 J would have been identified as the defibrillation energy requirement. Doubling it would be 2 J, which is actually the defibrillation energy requirement associated with 70% successful defibrillation. In this example, failed defibrillation attempts would be expected and likely.
A third reason may be a methodological consideration. The energies were decremented in steps of 17% to 25% between 25 and 3 J. From 3 J downward, the steps were proportionately larger, ranging from 33% to 50%, and this represents only 1 J at the lower energy levels. Hence, the larger percentage steps may have decreased the accuracy of this measurement at low energies. Alternatively, the smaller 1-J steps used in patients with low defibrillation energy requirements may have biased the defibrillation energy requirement toward lower values of successful defibrillation. In either case, reconfirmation of the step-down defibrillation energy requirement with an additional shock or shocks would probably increase the defibrillation energy requirement toward the actual energy associated with 70% successful defibrillation in some cases and verify the previously established defibrillation energy requirement in other cases. Hence, reconfirmation of the defibrillation energy requirement may be reasonable for patients with low defibrillation energy requirements.
Successful Defibrillation With a 20-J Defibrillation Energy
Requirement
A "high" defibrillation energy requirement is not an
absolute number but clinically is defined as one that precludes
implantation of a defibrillation system. Conventionally, the safety
margin for defibrillator implantation is thought of as being 10 J.
Therefore, an adequate defibrillation energy requirement for
implantation of a 30-J defibrillator would be 20 J and would be 25 J
for a 35-J defibrillator. In the present study there were three
patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of 20 J who were
tested at 30 J or 34 J. Two of these three patients had at least one
failed defibrillation attempt. This finding demonstrates that in
patients treated with present-day defibrillator technology and a
defibrillation energy requirement of 20 J, an occasional failed
defibrillation attempt will occur at the maximum output. Clinically,
this does not seem to be a frequent occurrence. This statement is
supported by the fact that multiple shocks for ventricular
fibrillation and sudden cardiac death are uncommon in patients with an
implantable defibrillator.16 17 18 19 This may be true for
several reasons. Most patients do not have a "high"
defibrillation energy requirement, and even when they do, there is
usually at least a reasonable probability that the defibrillation
attempt will work. Next, while the results of studies evaluating the
effects of prolonged ventricular fibrillation on the
defibrillation energy requirement are variable,22 23 24 25
the second and subsequent shocks should have the same reasonably high
probability of successful defibrillation as the first shock, especially
if the additional shocks are delivered relatively quickly. Finally,
ventricular tachycardia often may be the
successfully treated arrhythmia, and the energy required for
defibrillation of ventricular tachycardia is
usually less than for ventricular fibrillation.
Previous Studies
In clinical practice, an acceptable defibrillation safety margin
for implantable defibrillators has been arbitrarily defined as 10 J.
Neither clinical research or animal experimentation has directly
addressed the issue of absolute energy margins. However, two previous
retrospective clinical studies evaluated the clinical efficacy of
defibrillator therapy in patients with elevated defibrillation energy
requirements. Less than a 10-J safety margin in patients treated with
defibrillators with maximum outputs of 25 to 35 J were effective, but
sudden death was still an important clinical problem.26 27
The devices in these studies did not allow determination of the
ventricular rhythm responsible for the delivered
therapy.26 27
A significant amount of animal experimentation and a minimal number of human studies have addressed the issue of defibrillation energy requirement curves and safety margins. The results of animal studies suggest that a step-down defibrillation energy requirement identifies the energy associated with a 70% probability of successful defibrillation but with a range from 25% to 88%.1 8 9 10 If the energy is doubled, then a 100% successful defibrillation, or close to it, should be expected.1 8 9 10 The data from these reports suggest that the defibrillation energy requirement curve for an animal with a low defibrillation energy requirement will be narrower and steeper than for an animal with a high defibrillation energy requirement.9 10
An intraoperative open chest study in humans that used a monophasic waveform and an epicardial patch electrode defibrillation system found that 100% successful defibrillation could be achieved with an energy that was 2.6 times the step-up defibrillation energy requirement.28 This previous report is different than the present study in several important ways. First, the present study used a completely different defibrillation system, including a biphasic waveform and a transvenous lead system. Next, 98% of the patients in the study by Jones et al28 did not have structural heart disease and were not undergoing implantation of an implantable defibrillator. In the present study, all the patients were undergoing implantation of a defibrillator. Third, the previous study used a step-up defibrillation energy requirement protocol and not a step-down defibrillation energy requirement protocol.28 On the basis of statistical considerations alone, one would expect the step-up defibrillation energy requirement to identify a lower point on the probability of successful defibrillation curve than would a step-down defibrillation energy requirement.6 9 10 Therefore, as previously reported, a larger multiple of the defibrillation energy requirement would be expected to reach the plateau of the curve.28 From a clinical standpoint, the results of the present study may be more relevant than those of the previous study because when a threshold protocol is performed, step-down protocols and not step-up protocols are usually employed.10 28
The data contained herein add significantly to the previous literature. First, these data demonstrate that the step-down defibrillation energy requirement is associated with 70% successful defibrillation but with a wide interpatient range of 20% to 100%. This range is wider than observed with defibrillation studies in normal animals.1 Next, if the entire study population is considered, doubling the defibrillation energy requirement does not result in uniformly successful defibrillation. Specifically, the patients with low defibrillation energy requirements tend to fall off the probability of successful defibrillation curve. While low defibrillation energy requirements are believed to be associated with steeper defibrillation energy requirement curves,9 10 it was not previously appreciated that larger multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement are required to reach the plateau of the curve.
Limitations
A limitation of this study is that the data were obtained using
only one defibrillation system and hence these data may not be
applicable to other defibrillation systems. Second, the patients were
not randomly assigned to be tested at a multiple of the defibrillation
energy requirement. This was not feasible because of the limited energy
levels available with defibrillators. For example, a patient with a
defibrillation energy requirement of 20 J could not be tested at twice
the defibrillation energy requirement. The third limitation is that
energy levels greater than twice the defibrillation energy requirement
were not tested. Because of previous animal studies suggesting that the
plateau of the probability of successful defibrillation curve should be
achieved with twice the defibrillation energy
requirement,1 6 8 9 10 and because current clinical practice
allows a safety margin of 10 J with a defibrillation energy requirement
of 25 J, larger multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement were
not studied. Fourth, the step-down defibrillation energy requirement
protocol used in this study used the smallest possible decrements.
Clinically, larger steps are often used. If larger steps were used
during defibrillation energy requirement testing, then the
defibrillation energy requirement would likely be higher. Therefore,
relative to the results in the present study, higher success rates
at the various multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement would
be expected. Last, clinical follow-up to assess the efficacy of twice
the defibrillation energy requirement to successfully convert
spontaneous ventricular fibrillation was not performed.
Review of the patients at the University of Michigan who received a
defibrillator that allows retrieval of ventricular
electrograms suggests that spontaneous ventricular
fibrillation occurs in <3% of patients, and hence assessment of
clinical efficacy would be difficult.
Clinical Implications
The results of this study support the concept that successful
defibrillation is a statistical phenomenon and that failed
defibrillation attempts will occasionally be observed with the maximum
energy that the defibrillator can deliver. Determination of the
step-down defibrillation energy requirement and programming of the
first shock in the ventricular fibrillation zone at twice
the step-down defibrillation energy requirement and subsequent shocks
at the maximum energy may be a rational approach to programming the
shock energy for treatment of ventricular fibrillation.
However, a patient with a defibrillation energy requirement <4 J may
require a safety margin greater than twice the defibrillation energy
requirement. When an energy of twice the defibrillation energy
requirement exceeds the output of the defibrillator, then the maximum
energy should be programmed. This approach may offer an alternative to
the clinical practice of always programming the defibrillator to the
maximum output, or at least to a 10-J safety margin. However, the
clinical efficacy of programming the energy to twice the defibrillation
energy requirement has not been documented, and prospective studies to
evaluate the efficacy of this approach are needed.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The authors would like to thank Allyson Navyac for her secretarial support and Seema Sonnad, PhD, from the Consortium for Health Outcomes, Innovations and Cost Effectiveness Studies, at the University of Michigan Medical Center.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Dr Strickberger is a paid consultant to Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.
Received October 14, 1996; revision received March 7, 1997; accepted March 18, 1997.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Rattes MF, Jones DL, Sharma AD, Klein GJ. Defibrillation threshold: a simple and quantitative estimate of the ability to defibrillate. PACE. 1987;10:70-77.
2. Lehmann MH, Steinman RT, Schuger CD, Jackson K. Defibrillation threshold testing and other practices related to AICD implantation: do all roads lead to Rome? PACE. 1989;12:1530-1537.
3.
Jones DL, Irish WD, Klein GJ. Defibrillation
efficacy: comparison of defibrillation threshold versus dose-response
curve determination. Circ Res. 1991;69:45-51.
4. Singer I, Lang D. Defibrillation threshold: clinical utility and therapeutic implications. PACE. 1992;15:932-949.
5. Rattes MF, Jones DL, Sohla A, Sharma AD, Jarvis E, Klein GJ. Defibrillation with the sequential pulse technique: reproducibility with repeated shocks. Am Heart J. 1986;111:874-878.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. McDaniel WC, Schuder JC. The cardiac ventricular defibrillation threshold: inherent limitations in its application and interpretation. Med Instrum. 1987;21:170-176.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. McDaniel WC, Schuder JC. An up-down algorithm for estimation of the cardiac ventricular defibrillation threshold. Med Instrum. 1988;22:286-292.
8. Davy JM, Fain ES, Dorian P, Winkle RA. The relationship between successful defibrillation and delivered energy in open-chest dogs: reappraisal of the defibrillation threshold concept. Am Heart J. 1987;113:77-84.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Jones DL. The defibrillation threshold: a reliable method for rapid determination of defibrillation efficacy. In: Estes NAM, Manolis AS, Wang PJ, eds. Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1994:29-54.
10. Lang DJ, KenKnight BH. Implant support devices. In: Singer I, ed. Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator. Armonk, NY: Futura Publishing Co, Inc; 1994:223-253.
11. Antunes ML, Spotnitz HM, Livelli FD, Steinberg JS, Bigger JT. Effect of electrophysiological testing on ejection fraction during cardioverter/defibrillator implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1988;45:315-318.[Abstract]
12. Hachenberg T, Hammel D, Mollhoff T, Brussel T, Block M, Borggrefe M, Haberecht H, Scheld HH, Wendt M. Cardiopulmonary effects of internal cardioverter/defibrillator implantation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1991;35:626-630.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Keyl C, Tassani P, Kemkes B, Markewitz A, Hoffman E, Steinbeck G. Hemodynamic changes due to intraoperative testing of the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator: implications for anesthesia management. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1993;7:442-447.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Steinbeck G, Dorwarth U, Mattke S, Hoffman E, Markewitz A, Kaulbach H, Tassani P. Hemodynamic deterioration during ICD implant: predictors of high risk patients. Am Heart J. 1994;127:1064-1067.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Meyer J, Mollhoff T, Seifert T, Brunn J, Rotker J, Block M, Prien T. Cardiac output is not affected during intraoperative testing of the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 1996;7:211-216.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. Mirowski M, Reid P, Winkle R, Mower MM, Watkins L, Stinson EB, Griffith LS, Kallman CH, Weisfeldt ML. Mortality in patients with implanted automatic defibrillators. Ann Intern Med. 1983;98:585-588.
17.
Echt D, Armstrong K, Schmidt P, Oyer PE, Stinson EB,
Winkle RA. Clinical experience, complications and survival in 70
patients with the automatic implantable
cardioverter/defibrillator. Circulation. 1985;71:289-296.
18. Winkle R, Mead R, Ruder M, Gaudiani VA, Smith NA, Buch WS, Schmidt P, Shipman T. Long-term outcome with the automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillator. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;13:1353-1361.[Abstract]
19. Nisam S, Mower M, Thomas A, Hauser R. Patient survival comparison in three generations of automatic implantable cardioverter defibrillators: review of 12 years, 25,000 patients. PACE. 1993;16:174-178.
20. Sousa J, Kou W, Calkins H, Rosenbeck S, Radish A, Morady F. Effect of epinephrine on the efficacy of the internal cardiac defibrillator. Am J Cardiol. 1992;69:509-512.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Morillo CA, Jones DL, Klein GJ. Effects of autonomic manipulation on ventricular fibrillation and internal cardiac defibrillation thresholds in pigs. PACE. 1996;19:1355-1362.
22. Babbs CF, Whistler SJ, Yim GK. Temporal stability and precision of ventricular defibrillation threshold data. Am J Physiol. 1978;235(Heart Circ Physiol. 4):H553-H558.
23. Echt DS, Barbey JT, Black JN. Influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation energy in dogs using bidirectional pulse discharges. PACE. 1988;11:1315-1323.
24. Bardy GH, Ivey TD, Allen M, Johsnon G. A prospective randomized evaluation of effects of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation thresholds in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1989;13:1362-1366.[Abstract]
25. Fujimura O, Jones DL, Klein GJ. Effects of time to defibrillation and subthreshold preshocks on defibrillation success in pigs. PACE. 1989;12:358-365.
26. Pinski SL, Vanerio G, Castle LW, Morant VA, Simmons TW, Trohman RG, Wilcoff BL, Maloney JD. Patients with a high defibrillation threshold: clinical characteristics, management, and outcome. Am Heart J. 1991;122:89-95.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
27.
Epstein AE, Ellenbogen KA, Kirk KA, Kay GN, Dailey SM,
Plumb VJ, and the High Defibrillation Threshold Investigators. Clinical
characteristics and outcome of patients with high defibrillation
thresholds. Circulation. 1992;86:1206-1216.
28.
Jones DL, Klein GJ, Guiraudon GM, Sharma AD, Yee R,
Kallok MJ. Prediction of defibrillation success from a single
defibrillation threshold measurement with sequential pulses and two
current pathways in humans. Circulation. 1988;78:1144-1149.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  B. Lemke, T. Lawo, M. Zarse, A. Lubinski, U. Kreutzer, J. Mueller, A. Schuchert, S. Mitzenheim, D. Danilovic, T. Deneke, et al. Patient-tailored implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing using the upper limit of vulnerability: the TULIP protocol Europace, August 1, 2008; 10(8): 907 - 913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Day, B. Olshansky, S. Moore, S. Brown, K. Q. Stolen, D. R. Lerew, and for the INTRINSIC RV Study Investigators High defibrillation energy requirements are encountered rarely with modern dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems Europace, March 1, 2008; 10(3): 347 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Hohnloser, P. Dorian, R. Roberts, M. Gent, C. W. Israel, E. Fain, J. Champagne, and S. J. Connolly Effect of Amiodarone and Sotalol on Ventricular Defibrillation Threshold: The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) Trial Circulation, July 11, 2006; 114(2): 104 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A.M.J. Theuns, T. Szili-Torok, and L. J. Jordaens Defibrillation efficacy testing: Long-term follow-up and mortality Europace, January 1, 2005; 7(6): 509 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Strickberger and G. J. Klein Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 7, 2004; 44(1): 88 - 91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Rashba, M. R. Olsovsky, S. R. Shorofsky, M. M. Kirk, R. W. Peters, and M. R. Gold Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2001; 38(4): 1150 - 1155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Schulte, J. Sperzel, J. Carlsson, T. Schwarz, W. Ehrlich, H. F. Pitschner, and J. Neuzner Dual-coil vs single-coil active pectoral implantable defibrillator lead systems: defibrillation energy requirements and probability of defibrillation success at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirements Europace, January 1, 2001; 3(3): 177 - 180. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Windecker, R. E. Ideker, V. J. Plumb, G. N. Kay, G. P. Walcott, and A. E. Epstein The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 1999; 33(1): 33 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. Gold, S. Higgins, R. Klein, F. R. Gilliam, H. Kopelman, S. Hessen, J. Payne, S. A. Strickberger, D. Breiter, and S. Hahn Efficacy and Temporal Stability of Reduced Safety Margins for Ventricular Defibrillation: Primary Results From the Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) Circulation, April 30, 2002; 105(17): 2043 - 2048. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||