Margaret M. Kearney

Impact on ventricular function and quality of life of transcatheter ablation of the atrioventricular junction in chronic atrial fibrillation with a normal ventricular response

We assessed left ventricular function and quality of life after atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker implant in 14 patients with chronic atrial fibrillation and normal ventricular response. A significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction, fractional shortening, and functional capacity were observed at follow-up, suggesting that in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation a regular heart beat may be preferable over rate control.

Testing different biphasic waveforms and capacitances: Effect on atrial defibrillation threshold and pain perception

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to compare the effect of different tilts and capacitances for biphasic shocks on atrial defibrillation efficacy and pain threshold. BACKGROUND Although biphasic shocks have been shown to be superior to monophasic shocks, the effect of tilt and capacitance on atrial defibrillation success and pain perception has not been studied in patients. METHODS Atrial defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed using a right atrial appendage/coronary sinus lead configuration in 38 patients with a history of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing an invasive electrophysiologic study. Biphasic waveforms with 40%, 50%, 65%, 80%, 30%/50% and 40%/50% were tested randomly in 22 patients (Group 1). In 16 patients (Group 2), a 65% tilt waveform with 50- and 120-microF capacitance was tested. Before sedation, pain sensation was graded by 15 patients in Group 1 after delivery of a 0.5-J shock and by 10 patients in Group 2 after two 1.5-J shocks with 50- and 120-microF capacitance were delivered. RESULTS The DFT energy for the 50% tilt waveform was significantly lower than the 65%, 80% and 30%/50% tilt waveforms. The 40%/50% tilt waveform provided slightly lower energy requirements than the 50% tilt waveform. Nine patients (60%) described the 0.5-J shock as very painful, and four (26.6%) complained of slight pain. The 50-microF capacitor lowered energy requirements compared with the 120-microF capacitor. Six patients (60%) perceived the 1.5-J 50-microF capacitor shock as more painful, whereas three (30%) perceived both shocks as equally painful. CONCLUSIONS Biphasic waveforms with 50% tilt in both phases and a smaller tilt in the positive phase than that in the negative phase (40%/50%) provided a decrease in energy requirements at atrial DFT. In addition, stored energy was reduced by biphasic shocks with 50-microF capacitance compared with 120-microF capacitance. Despite the reduction in energy requirements, shocks < 1 J continued to be perceived as painful in the majority of patients.

Prospective Evaluation of New and Old Criteria to Discriminate Between Supraventricular and Ventricular Tachycardia in Implantable Defibrillators

This study was designed to evaluate the ability to distinguish between supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) and ventricular tachycardias (VTs) based on onset, stability, and width criteria in an implantable defibrillator. Inappropriate detection of atrial fibrillation and sinus tachycardia is a common problem in patients with implantable defibrillators. The onset, stability, and width criteria were studied in 17 patients who underwent implantation of a Medtronic 7218C implantable defibrillator by inducing sinus tachycardia and atrial fibrillation. Additional data on the width criteria was obtained by pacing at separate sites in both the left and right ventricle. Patients were studied at different times for up to 6 months to determine any changes in the criteria. The onset and stability criteria caused inappropriate detections in 36% and 12% of the episodes, respectively. The addition of the width criteria decreased the inappropriate detection using the onset and stability criteria to 5% and 2%, respectively. Pacing from the RV apex, RV outflow tract, and LV apex was appropriately detected as wide in 76%, 41%, and 94%, respectively. The width criteria changed over time in individual patients, but was stable by 6 months in all but one patient. No single criterion is satisfactory for distinguishing between SVT and VT in this patient population, but the combination of criteria seems to provide better discrimination. The width criteria can change dramatically over time and needs to be monitored carefully. Newer algorithms will need to be developed to allow better detection of supraventricular tachycardias.

Undetected Ventricular Fibrillation in Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Prospective Comparison of Different Lead System–Device Combinations

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to prospectively analyze redetection problems after unsuccessful shock with different lead systems and devices. METHODS AND RESULTS We prospectively analyzed detection and redetection characteristics among transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) using standard bipolar and integrated bipolar sensing. Monophasic and biphasic ICDs were included. Subthreshold shocks were intentionally delivered, and redetection of ventricular fibrillation (VF) was assessed before discharge and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months later. Sensing of VF resulting from antitachycardia pacing and low-energy cardioversion ( < or = 2 J) also was analyzed. Before inclusion in the study, each patient underwent subthreshold shock testing at three different time intervals. Among the 160 ICDs with standard bipolar sensing, 530 VF inductions were analyzed. After the failed shocks, undersensing was more frequent (3% versus 20%, P<.01) but did not remarkably prolong redetection (3.1 +/- 0.8 versus 3.3 +/- 1.1 seconds). Among the 201 ICDs with integrated bipolar sensing, 80 were connected to a CPI device (60 Ventak 1600-Endotak 60 series and 20 PRx II 1715-Endotak 70 series) and 121 to the Ventritex defibrillator (91 Endotak 60 series, 14 TVL systems, and 16 Endotak 70 series). After 252 failed shocks, redetection was prolonged with the CPI system (3.1 +/- 1.4 versus 4.6 +/- 3.6 seconds, P<.05) but did not change after 396 failed shocks with the Ventritex ICD (5.4 +/- 1.9 versus 4.9 +/- 2.2 seconds). This may reflect different nominal settings for detection and redetection. In 9 of 121 patients with Ventritex and 1 of 80 with the CPI ICDs, the devices failed to redetect VF. However, redetection malfunction was never observed in patients with integrated bipolar systems with >6-mm electrode separation. After antitachycardia pacing in 1 patient and a 2-J shock in 1 patient, ventricular tachycardia turned into VF, which was undetected. Both patients used the Endotak 60 series-Cadence combination. None of the patients showing VF undersensing had sudden death at follow-up. Only 3 of the 12 patients with sensing malfunction were on antiarrhythmia drugs at the time of testing. Analysis of endocardial electrograms showed that failure to redetect VF is not associated with a uniform reduction but with a rapid and repetitive change of electrogram amplitude. CONCLUSIONS Standard bipolar sensing redetects VF more effectively than integrated bipolar sensing. Endocardial electrogram analysis provides insights into the understanding of the mechanism of undersensing, and certain lead-device combinations result in a higher occurrence of VF undersensing. The clinical relevance of this phenomenon remains unknown.

Safety of nurse-administered deep sedation for defibrillator implantation in the electrophysiology laboratory

ICD and Sedation. Implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in the electrophysiology (EP) laboratory has been shown to be safe. However, general endotracheal anesthesia and/or administration of sedatives is mostly performed by anesthesiologists. In 53 patients undergoing ICD implantation in the EP laboratory, we prospectively assessed whether deep sedation without endotracheal intubation can be administered by nursing personnel under medical supervision. The mean patient age was 67 ± 7 years, and the mean ejection fraction was 32 ± 8%. All ICDs were placed in the abdomen requiring lead tunneling. Patients were monitored with pulse oximetry and noninvasive blood pressure recordings. The level of consciousness and vital signs were evaluated at 5‐minute intervals. Deep sedation was induced with phenergan and midazolam and maintained with either meperidine or fentanyl. The mean doses given were as follows: phenergan 0.33 ± 0.15 mg/kg, midazolam 0.05 ± 0.03 mg/kg, meperidine 0.46 ± 0.10 mg/kg per hour, and fentanyl 1.94 ± 0.71 μg/kg per hour. None of the patients required intubation during or after the procedure. No death occurred and no patient had any recollection of the procedure. In three patients, O2 desaturation was easily managed by transient reversion of the effects of meperidine or fentanyl with naloxone. No patient experienced prolonged hospitalization after the implant (mean 2.4 ± 0.5 days). In conclusion: (1) adequate sedation for ICD implantation and testing can be administered safely by nursing staff in the EP lab; (2) optimum sedation protocols should include drugs easy to reverse in case of excessive respiratory depression; and (3) this may represent a more cost‐effective approach to ICD implantation.

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of deep sedation for electrophysiology procedures administered in the absence of an anesthetist.

Several procedures performed in the electrophysiology laboratory (EP lab) require surgical manipulation and are lengthy. Patients undergoing such procedures usually receive general anesthesia or deep sedation administered by an anesthesiologist. In 536 consecutive procedures performed in the EP lab, we assessed the safety and efficacy of deep sedation administered under the direction of an electrophysiologist and in the absence of an anesthetist. Patients were monitored with pulse oximetry, noninvasive blood pressure recordings, and continuous ECGs. The level of consciousness and vital signs were evaluated at 5‐minute intervals. Deep sedation was induced in 260 patients using midazolam, phenergan, and meperidine, then maintained with intermittent dosing of meperidine at the following mean doses: midazolam 0.031 ± 0.024 mg/kg; phenergan 0.314 ± 0.179 mg/kg; and meperidine 0.391 ± 0.167 mg/kg per hour. In the remaining 276 patients, deep sedation was induced with midazolam and fentanyl and maintained with a continuous infusion of fentanyl at a mean dose of 2.054 ± 1.43 μg/kg per hour. Fourteen patients experienced a transient reduction in oxygen saturation that was readily reversed following administration of naloxone. An additional 11 patients desaturated secondary to partial airway obstruction, which resolved after repositioning the head and neck. Fourteen patients experienced hypotension with fentanyl. All but one returned to baseline blood pressures following an infusion of normal saline. No patient required intubation and no death occurred. Only three patients had recollection of periprocedure events. No patient remembered experiencing pain with the procedure. Hospital stays were not prolonged as a result of the sedation used. In conclusion: (1) deep sedation during EP procedures can be administered safely under the guidance of the electrophysiologist without an anesthetist present; (2) the drugs used should be readily reversible in case of respiratory depression; and (3) this approach may reduce the overall cost of the procedures in the EP lab, maintaining adequate patient comfort.

SAFETY OF SLOW PATHWAY ABLATION IN PATIENTS WITH LONG PR INTERVAL : FURTHER EVIDENCE OF FAST AND SLOW PATHWAY INTERACTION

Whether the presence of abnormal PR before selective slow pathway ablation for AV node reentrant tachycardia increased the risk of complete heart block remains controversial. We report our experience in seven patients with prolonged PR intervals undergoing catheter ablation for AV reentry tachycardia. Their mean age was 66 ± 12 years; four patients were female and three were male. RF ablation was performed using an anatomically guided stepwise approach. In six patients, common type AV node reentry was induced and uncommon type was observed in the remaining patient. In all seven patients, successful selective slow pathway ablation was associated with no occurrence of complete heart block and was followed by shortening of the AH interval in five patients. In all seven patients, successful ablation was achieved at anterior sites (M1 in two patients and M2 in five patients). Despite AH shortening after ablation, the 1:1 AV conduction was prolonged after elimination of the slow pathway, excluding either sympathetic tone activation or parasympathetic denervation. In conclusion, selective slow pathway ablation can be performed safely in the majority of patients with prolonged PR interval before the procedure. Because successful ablation is achieved at anterior sites in most patients, careful selection and monitoring of catheter position is required.

Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Flutter and Atrial Tachycardias in Patients with Permanent Indwelling Catheters

The presence of chronic indwelling leads in the area targeted for RF ablation may pose a technical challenge and reduce the chance of success of the ablation. In addition, application of lesions in close proximity to pacemaker leads or other permanent catheters could affect their function. Fourteen patients referred for RF ablation of atrial flutter/fibrillation and atrial tachycardia, who had a permanent dual chamber pacemaker (10 patients), ICD (1 patient), or both (3 patients) were studied to assess the safety, efficacy, and effects of the ablative procedure on device function. Lead impedance, R and P wave amplitude, and pacing threshold of the defibrillator and pacemaker were measured before and after ablation. The procedure was successful in all patients. In one patient who underwent both atrial flutter and atrial fibrillation ablation, the atrial pacing threshold increased from 1.0 preablation to 2.0 V postablation. No P wave was detectable after ablation. In another patient, the P wave amplitude went from 4.0 to 2.0 mV postablation. In both patients the device converted to the power reset mode. No changes were observed in the remaining patients. Postablation defibrillator testing showed no malfunction. Follow‐up reinterrogation of the devices revealed no alterations. In conclusion: (1) RF ablation of atrial flutter and/or tachycardia is feasible even in patients with multiple chronic atrial and ventricular indwelling catheters; and (2) RF applications in close proximity of defibrillator and pacing catheters does not appear to alter their function unless lesions are produced in the area surrounding the distal pacing electrode.