Present understanding of shock polarity for internal defibrillation: the obvious and non-obvious clinical implications.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Uncertainty about the best electrode configuration has combined with the programming flexibility in modern implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) to result in routine polarity reversal during an implant to deal with a high defibrillation threshold (DFT). We feel that this practice is not always supported by the clinical data and the present scientific understanding of defibrillation. METHOD A meta-analysis of the clinical studies on ICD shock polarity was performed. Subgroup analyses were also performed to test the impact of high DFTs, various tilts, and the use of the hot can electrode. A review of the basic research surrounding the effects of polarity in defibrillation is also presented. RESULTS A total of 224 patients were studied. The use of an anodal right ventricular (RV) coil lowers the mean DFT by 14.8% (P = 0.00001). It provides thresholds equal to or lower than cathodal defibrillation in 83% of patients. The fraction of patients with lower anodal DFTs was 94/224 versus 38/224 for cathodal polarity. This phenomenon may be explained by virtual electrode effects. In particular, anodal electrodes tend to produce collapsing wavefronts while cathodal electrodes tend to produce expanding proarrhythmic wavefronts. CONCLUSION In an ICD implant, the RV coil should be the anode. Furthermore, DFT testing beginning with cathodal defibrillation is most likely unnecessary and needlessly extends the procedure's duration and increases the risks for the patient.

Cite this paper

@article{Kroll2006PresentUO, title={Present understanding of shock polarity for internal defibrillation: the obvious and non-obvious clinical implications.}, author={Mark W. Kroll and Igor R. Efimov and Patrick Tchou}, journal={Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE}, year={2006}, volume={29 8}, pages={885-91} }