Why the study?
Do biphasic 90 microF-50% tilt pulses reduce stored energy defibrillation threshold compared to 120 microF-65% tilt pulses in patients at defibrillator implantation?
Do biphasic 90 microF-50% tilt pulses reduce stored energy defibrillation threshold compared to 120 microF-65% tilt pulses in patients at defibrillator implantation?
Biphasic 90 microF-50% tilt pulses reduce stored energy defibrillation thresholds compared to conventional 120 microF-65% tilt pulses without increasing voltage requirements.
May enable smaller ICD capacitors; hypothesis-generating for waveform optimization pending randomized trials.
For defibrillation between right ventricular and retropectoral patch electrodes using truncated exponential pulses, the stored energy defibrillation threshold (DFT) is lower for short pulses from small 60-microF capacitors than for conventional pulses from 120-microF capacitors, but 60-microF pulses frequently require higher voltages than are currently used. The goal of this study was to determine if DFT could be reduced by intermediate size 90-microF capacitors. This study compared biphasic waveform DFTs for 120 microF-65% tilt pulses, 90 microF-65% tilt pulses, and 90 microF-50% tilt pulses in 20 patients at defibrillator implantation. The 90 microF-50% tilt pulses were selected because their duration is half that of 120 microF-65% tilt pulses. The stored energy DFT for 90 microF-50% tilt pulses (9.1 +/- 4.3 J) was less than both the DFT for 120 microF-65% tilt pulses (12.0 +/- 5.5 J, P < 0.005) and the DFT for 90 microF-65% tilt pulses (11.6 +/- 5.8 J, P < 0.005). There was no significant difference between the latter two values. The voltage DFTs for 90 microF-50% pulses (436 +/- 113 V) and 120 microF-65% tilt pulses (436 +/- 104 V) were not statistically different; the voltage DFT for 90 microF-65% tilt pulses was higher than for either of the other two pulses (490 +/- 131, P < 0.005). The DFT was 20 J or greater in three patients for both 120 microF-65% tilt pulses and 90 microF-65% tilt pulses, but it was 16 J or less in all patients for 90 microF-50% tilt pulses. When pathways were dichotomized by the median resistance of 71 omega, 90 microF-50% tilt pulses significantly reduced DFTs compared to 120 microF-65% tilt pulses for higher resistance pathways (9.2 +/- 4.0 J vs 13.0 +/- 6.2 J, P = 0.002), but not lower resistance pathways (9.0 +/- 4.8 J vs 10.9 +/- 4.6 J, P = NS). For the electrode configuration tested, biphasic 90 microF-50% tilt pulses reduce stored energy DFT in comparison with 120 microF-65% tilt pulses without increasing voltage DFT. However, 90 microF-65% tilt pulses provide no benefit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Swerdlow et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: