Technological advances in implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads and waveforms: paving the way for smaller ICDs

  • Seah Nisam
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 183)

Abstract

Dr. Michel Mirowski’s initial conception of the implantable defibrillator envisioned a pacemaker type implantation, i.e. a device small enough to permit comfortable implantation in the chest and via the use of transvenous leads [1, 2]. Even after demonstrating that intrathoracic defibrillation decreased the required energies ten-fold, to approximately 25 Joules, this still meant that the device would have to provide pulses a million times greater than the 25µ-J. required by pacemakers! The realities of technology available in the early 1970s, when he, Dr. Morton Mower, and their colleagues began their project, led to prototypes having a volume of 150 cc and weighing nearly 300g. Figure 1 illustrates the comparison with the early pacemakers of that period, and the evolution over the 15 years since Mirowski’s initial device was implanted in a human being [3]. Their goal of an endocardial system had to be postponed nearly a decade, until defibrillator leads were developed which permitted reliable ICD therapy without resorting to epicardial “patches”, requiring a thoracotomy. In terms of energy delivery, the key components of an ICD are the batteries and the capacitors. Curiously, in this past decade characterized by tremendous technological evolution, these basic components have evolved very little. The only real contributions to the goal of a simple, pacemaker-like implantation are due to progress in ICD leads and waveforms, our two areas of focus in this chapter.

Keywords

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Defibrillation Threshold Biphasic Waveform Minimize Energy Loss Transvenous Lead 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Mirowski M, Mower M, Staewen W et al. Standby automatic defibrillator. An approach to prevention of sudden coronary death. Arch Intern Med 1970; 126: 158–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mirowski M, Mower M, Staewen W et al. Ventricular defibrillation through a single intravascular catheter electrode system. Clin Res 1971; 19: 328 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mirowski M, Reid P, Mower M et al. Termination of malignant ventricular arrhythmias with an implanted automatic defibrillator in human beings. N Engl J Med 1980; 303: 322–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou X, Daubert J, Wolf P et al. Epicardial mapping of ventricular defibrillation with monophasic and biphasic shocks in dogs. Circ Res 1993; 72: 145–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lang D, Heil J, Hahn S et al. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead technology: Improved performance and lower defibrillation thresholds. PACE 1995; 18: 548–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Usui M, Walcott G, KenKnight B et al. Influence on defibrillation efficacy of the malpositioning of transvenous leads with and without a subcutaneous array. PACE 1994; 17: 784 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winter J, Heil J, Lin Y et al. Effect of endocardial lead position in the right ventricular on defibrillation energy requirements. PACE 1995; 18: 802 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winter Jm Ganschow U, Schumann C et al. Repositioning of the endocardial lead system: a potential method to lower high intraoperative defibrillation thresholds. PACE 1995; 18: 873 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alt E, Fotuhi P, Callihan R et al. Improved defibrillation thresholds with a new epicardial carbon electrode compared with a standard epicardial titanium patch. Circulation 1995; 91: 445–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Revishbili A. Future Indications for treatment of tachyarrhythmias with defibrillation fractal electrodes. 1995; Cardiostim St. Petersburg (Oral presentaion).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Troup P, Chapman P, Olinger G et al. The implanted defibrillator: relation of defibrillating lead configuration and clinical variables to defibrillation thresholds. JACC 1985; 6: 1315–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singer I, Goldsmith, Malonado C. Electrode surface area is an important variable for defibrillation. PACE 1995; 18: 233–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kühlkamp V, O’Connor S et al. A new downsized transvenous combined rate sensing and defibrillation electrode, ENDOTAK DSP. PACE 1995; 18: 886 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Halperin B, Reynolds B, Fain E et al. Influence of proximal electrode size on transvenous defibrillation. Circulation 1994; I-227 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bardy G, Johnson G, Poole J et al. A simplified, single-lead unipolar transvenous cardioversion-defibrillation system. Circulation 1993; 88: 543–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jung W, Manz M, Schmidinger H et al. Permanent pectoral implantation of a unipolar single electrode defibrillation system (“active can ”). PACE 1994; 17: 756 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gold M, Foster A, Shorofsky S. Enhanced defibrillation efficacy with an active pectoral pulse generator. JACC 1995; (Special Issue Feb. 1995): 407A.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Block M, for the European Jewel Investigators. Acute defibrillation thresholds with an active can ICD. PACE 1995; 18: 887 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Markewitz A, Schroeckel M, Müller D et al. Vorteile und Grenzen der Active Can. (Oral presentation) 7. Schrittmacher Jahrestagung Berlin 24 Feb 1995.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heil J. Personal Communication (CPI Research Study PCS 360); 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newby K, Moredock L, Rembert J et al. Impact of the defibrillating surface area of an additional superior vena cava electrode on the unipolar right ventricular coil/defibrillator can system. JACC 1995, (Special Issue Feb. 1995): 407 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jordaens L, Vertongen P, van Belleghem Y. A subcutaneous lead array for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. PACE 1995; 16: 1429–33.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Higgins S, Alexander D, Kuyers C et al. The subcutaneous array: A new lead adjunct for the transvenous ICD to lower defibrillation thresholds. PACE 1994; 17: 784 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mirowski M, Mower M, Langer A et al. Implanted defibrillators. Proceedings of the Purdue Cardiac Defibrillating Conference, Oct 1–3, 1975: 93–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Strickberger S, Hummel J, Horwood L et al. Effect of shock polarity on ventricular defibrillation threshold using a transvenous lead system. JACC 1994; 24: 1069–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dixon Em Tang A, Wolf P et al. Improved defibrillation thresholds with large contoured epicardial electrodes and biphasic waveforms. Circulation 1987; 76: 1176–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Block M, Breithardt G. Optimizing defibrillation through improved waveforms. PACE 1995; 18: 526–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Natale A, Newby K, Moredock L et al. Reverse polarity biphasic waveforms using a unipolar defibrillation system. JACC 1995; (Feb. 1995 Special Issue): 278A (Abstract).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Natale A, Newby K, Sra J et al. Defibrillation efficacy of biphasic pulses in humans: Importance of duration and peak voltage of the negative phase. PACE 1995; 18: 82.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shoforsky S, Foster A, Gold M, The effect of polarity reversal on biphasic defibrillation threshold with an integrated transvenous lead system. Circulation 1994; 90: I-228 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stellbrink C, Schauerte P, Schöndube F et al. Biphasic shocks of “reversed” polarity are superior to those of “initial” polarity in defibrillation of the heart in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter/defibrillator implantation. JACC 1995; (Feb 1995 Special Issue): 278A (Abstract).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hahn S, Heil J, Lin Y et al. Improved defibrillation with small capacitance and optimized biphasic waveform. Circulation 1194; 90: I-175 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bardy G, Poole J, Kudenchek P et al. A prospective randomized comparison of 60 µF vs 120 µF 65% Tilt biphasic defibrillation using a unipolar transvenous defibrillation system. JACC 1994; 23: 13A (Abstract).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Block M, Hammel D, Böcker D et al. ICD device size can be reduced by large output capacitance. Eur Heart J 1994; 15 (Suppl.): 79 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jung W, Moosdorf R, Korte T et al. Effect of capacitance on the defibrillation threshold in patients using a new unipolar defibrillation system. Circulation 1994; 90:1–229 (Abstract).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hahn S, Heil J, Lang D. Large capacitor defibrillation waveform reduces peak voltages without increasing energies. PACE 1995; 18: 203–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Coumel P, Thomas O, Leenhardt A. Holter functions of the implantable cardiover defibrillator: What is still missing? PACE 1995; 18: 560–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marchlinski F. The importance of diagnostic-quality stored electrograms. AICD Advances (Spring) 1995: 12–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seah Nisam

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations