### Abstract

Objectives. The goals of this study were to determine the probability of snccessful defibrillation at the upper limit of vulnerability and to evaluate a minimal safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks based solely on the upper limit of vulnerability. Background. The upper limit of vulnerability is the strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. It has been proposed as an estimate of defibrillation efficacy because it correlates with the defibrillation threshold and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation. Methods. We studied 40 patients prospectively at implantation of transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators. Defibrillation threshold was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that defibrillated after 10 s of ventricular fibrillation. The upper limit of vulnerability was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that did not induce ventricular fibrillation when given at 0, 20 and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave in ventricular paced rhythm at cycle length 500 ms. After determination of the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold, patients underwent six additional fibrillation-defibrillation episodes. The strength of five of the defibrillation shocks was equal to the upper limit of vulnerability; the strength of one of the six shocks was randomly selected to be equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was tested at the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J in 28 patients. Results. The defibrillation threshold was 8.8 ± 5.0 J (mean ± SD), and the upper limit of vulnerability was 11.3 ± 4.6 J; the defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability were highly correlated (r = 0.89, p <0.001). The success rate for the 200 defibrillation shocks with strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability was 90% (95% confidence intervals based on proportion of successes in 40 patients: 86% to 94%). All five defibrillation test shocks at the upper limit of vulnerability were successful in 24 patients (60%); four of five were successful in 12 patients (30%); and three of five were successful in 4 patients (10%). All 40 test shocks and 28 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks with a strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J were successful. Conclusions. The upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of the shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation (DFT90). A strength of 3 J above the upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimate of the minimal acute safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks.

Original language | English (US) |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 1112-1118 |

Number of pages | 7 |

Journal | Journal of the American College of Cardiology |

Volume | 27 |

Issue number | 5 |

DOIs | |

State | Published - Apr 1996 |

Externally published | Yes |

### Fingerprint

### ASJC Scopus subject areas

- Nursing(all)

### Cite this

*Journal of the American College of Cardiology*,

*27*(5), 1112-1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(95)00603-6

**Upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation in humans with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.** / Swerdlow, Charles D.; Ahern, Tom; Kass, Robert M.; Davie, Scott; Mandel, William J.; Chen, Peng-Sheng.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

*Journal of the American College of Cardiology*, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1112-1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(95)00603-6

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation in humans with transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

AU - Swerdlow, Charles D.

AU - Ahern, Tom

AU - Kass, Robert M.

AU - Davie, Scott

AU - Mandel, William J.

AU - Chen, Peng-Sheng

PY - 1996/4

Y1 - 1996/4

N2 - Objectives. The goals of this study were to determine the probability of snccessful defibrillation at the upper limit of vulnerability and to evaluate a minimal safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks based solely on the upper limit of vulnerability. Background. The upper limit of vulnerability is the strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. It has been proposed as an estimate of defibrillation efficacy because it correlates with the defibrillation threshold and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation. Methods. We studied 40 patients prospectively at implantation of transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators. Defibrillation threshold was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that defibrillated after 10 s of ventricular fibrillation. The upper limit of vulnerability was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that did not induce ventricular fibrillation when given at 0, 20 and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave in ventricular paced rhythm at cycle length 500 ms. After determination of the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold, patients underwent six additional fibrillation-defibrillation episodes. The strength of five of the defibrillation shocks was equal to the upper limit of vulnerability; the strength of one of the six shocks was randomly selected to be equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was tested at the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J in 28 patients. Results. The defibrillation threshold was 8.8 ± 5.0 J (mean ± SD), and the upper limit of vulnerability was 11.3 ± 4.6 J; the defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability were highly correlated (r = 0.89, p <0.001). The success rate for the 200 defibrillation shocks with strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability was 90% (95% confidence intervals based on proportion of successes in 40 patients: 86% to 94%). All five defibrillation test shocks at the upper limit of vulnerability were successful in 24 patients (60%); four of five were successful in 12 patients (30%); and three of five were successful in 4 patients (10%). All 40 test shocks and 28 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks with a strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J were successful. Conclusions. The upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of the shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation (DFT90). A strength of 3 J above the upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimate of the minimal acute safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks.

AB - Objectives. The goals of this study were to determine the probability of snccessful defibrillation at the upper limit of vulnerability and to evaluate a minimal safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks based solely on the upper limit of vulnerability. Background. The upper limit of vulnerability is the strength at or above which ventricular fibrillation is not induced when a stimulus is delivered during the vulnerable phase of the cardiac cycle. It has been proposed as an estimate of defibrillation efficacy because it correlates with the defibrillation threshold and can be determined with a single episode of fibrillation. Methods. We studied 40 patients prospectively at implantation of transvenous cardioverter-defibrillators. Defibrillation threshold was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that defibrillated after 10 s of ventricular fibrillation. The upper limit of vulnerability was defined as the weakest biphasic shock that did not induce ventricular fibrillation when given at 0, 20 and 40 ms before the peak of the T wave in ventricular paced rhythm at cycle length 500 ms. After determination of the upper limit of vulnerability and defibrillation threshold, patients underwent six additional fibrillation-defibrillation episodes. The strength of five of the defibrillation shocks was equal to the upper limit of vulnerability; the strength of one of the six shocks was randomly selected to be equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was tested at the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J in 28 patients. Results. The defibrillation threshold was 8.8 ± 5.0 J (mean ± SD), and the upper limit of vulnerability was 11.3 ± 4.6 J; the defibrillation threshold and upper limit of vulnerability were highly correlated (r = 0.89, p <0.001). The success rate for the 200 defibrillation shocks with strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability was 90% (95% confidence intervals based on proportion of successes in 40 patients: 86% to 94%). All five defibrillation test shocks at the upper limit of vulnerability were successful in 24 patients (60%); four of five were successful in 12 patients (30%); and three of five were successful in 4 patients (10%). All 40 test shocks and 28 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks with a strength equal to the upper limit of vulnerability plus 3 J were successful. Conclusions. The upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimator of the shock strength associated with 90% probability of successful defibrillation (DFT90). A strength of 3 J above the upper limit of vulnerability is a good estimate of the minimal acute safety margin for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator first shocks.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030005068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030005068&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00603-6

DO - 10.1016/0735-1097(95)00603-6

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 1112

EP - 1118

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 5

ER -