Background
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) are widely medical devices used to prevent death from fatal cardiac arrhythmias. The development of these devices is mature and they yield successful outcomes in many cases, yet the standard use of these devices is ineffective in many patients at high risk for fatal arrhythmias, especially children and individuals with abnormal cardiac anatomy or congenital heart defects[1]. Furthermore, the standard implantation and development of defibrillators is based on a notion of delivering more energy and shocks than needed to ensure defibrillation, so that in many instances the lowest energy needed for a given patient is not explored. It is probable that many seemingly successful treatments in the normal patient range are being shocked with more energy than needed, causing unnecessary damage and increasing the mortality of the patient[2].
As a result, there is a need for an individualized approach to implanting and developing defibrillators and the research group to which I belong has developed new simulation technology that enables users to predict the effect the defibrillators on isolated hearts and full torsos. Isolated biophysical heart models use the anatomy and fiber structure of individual hearts to simulate fibrillation and subsequently the effect of a defibrillation pulse on the fibrillating tissue[3]. This model incorporates the active properties of the myocardial tissue to evaluate the effectiveness of the shock in eliminating reentrant pathways, circulating currents that develop into fibrillation, and consequently defibrillating the heart. Current torso models incorporate many tissue types in the static evaluation of an induced electric field. The resulting electric field through the heart is used to calculate the energy required for defibrillation[4]. Each type of model contains intrinsic limitations due to the nature of the model.
A biophysical heart model developed at Johns Hopkins University and a static torso model developed at the University of Utah have provided preliminary evidence that each are robust models for defibrillation. The isolated heart model have shown consistent prediction of defibrillation treatment with what is observed clinically[3]. Preliminary studies comparing a patient’s energy threshold yielded a promising correlation between the predicted and actual values[4]. Other preliminary findings show a similar distribution pattern of the predicted surface potentials and measured values (see research experience). Though the preliminary findings of each of the models show promising potential in the prediction defibrillation, a combination of both types of simulation would allow for more detail and the evaluation and optimization of more parameters than either method is able to do independently.
- 1. Kugler J, CC E: Nontransvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator systems: not just for small pediatric patients. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2006, 17:47-48.
- 2. Ristagno G, Wang T, Tang W, Sun S, Castillo C, Weil MH: High-energy defibrillation impairs myocyte contractility and intracellular calcium dynamics. Critical Care Medicine 2008, 36(11):S422-S427.
- 3. Aguel F, Eason JC, Trayanova NA, Siekas G, Fishler MG: Impact of transvenous lead position on active-can ICD defibrillation: a computer simulation study. PACE 1999, 22:158.
- 4. Jolley M, Stinstra J, Pieper S, MacLeod R, Brooks DH, Cecchin F, Triedman JK: A Computer Modeling Tool for Comparing Novel ICD Electrode Orientations in Children and Adults. Heart Rhythm 2008, 5:565-572.
