Caroline Mendonca Costa

The standard implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator (can) is placed in the left pectoral area; however, in certain circumstances, right-sided cans may be required which may increase defibrillation threshold (DFT) due to suboptimal shock vectors. We aim to quantitatively assess whether the potential increase in DFT of right-sided can configurations may be mitigated by alternate positioning of the right ventricular (RV) shocking coil or adding coils in the superior vena cava (SVC) and coronary sinus (CS). A cohort of CT-derived torso models was used to assess DFT of ICD configurations with right-sided cans and alternate positioning of RV shock coils. Efficacy changes with additional coils in the SVC and CS were evaluated. A right-sided can with an apical RV shock coil significantly increased DFT compared to a left-sided can [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P < 0.001]. Septal positioning of the RV coil led to a further DFT increase when using a right-sided can [26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J, P < 0.001], but not a left-sided can [12.1 (8.1, 17.6) J vs. 13.3 (11.7, 19.9) J, P = 0.099). Defibrillation threshold of a right-sided can with apical or septal coil was reduced the most by adding both SVC and CS coils [19.5 (16.4, 27.1) J vs. 6.6 (3.9, 9.9) J, P < 0.001, and 26.7 (18.1, 36.1) J vs. 12.1 (5.7, 13.5) J, P < 0.001]. Right-sided, compared to left-sided, can positioning results in a 50% increase in DFT. For right-sided cans, apical shock coil positioning produces a lower DFT than septal positions. Elevated right-sided can DFTs may be mitigated by utilizing additional coils in SVC and CS. Abbreviations: DFT: defibrillation threshold; SVC: Superior Vena Cava; CS: Coronary Sinus; NS: not significant.

Funding Acknowledgements: WT 203148/Z/16/Z; MR/N011007/1; RE/08/003; PG/15/91/31812; PG/16/81/32441 Background: Endocardial pacing has been shown to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in comparison to conventional epicardial pacing and the physiological activation, endocardium to epicardium, is proposed to make it less arrhythmogenic. However, the relative arrhythmic risk of endocardial and epicardial pacing has not been systematically investigated. Pacing in proximity to scar increases susceptibility to arrhythmogenesis during epicardial pacing. Whether this is also the case during endocardial pacing is currently unknown. Purpose: We investigate 1) whether endocardial pacing is less arrhythmogenic than epicardial pacing, 2) whether pacing location relative to scar plays a role in arrhythmogenesis during endocardial pacing, and 3) whether these findings could be explained by the direction of the transmural action potential duration (APD) gradient. Methods: We used computational models of ischemic heart failure and patient-specific (n = 24) left ventricular anatomy and scar morphology to simulate repolarization during endocardial and epicardial pacing. Pacing locations were selected 0.2-3.5cm from a scar. We ran simulations with a 20ms transmural APD gradient, as found in heart failure, from the epicardium to endocardium (physiological) and with this gradient inverted. We computed the volume of high (>3ms/mm) repolarization gradients (HRG) within 1cm around a scar, as a surrogate for arrhythmia risk, and analysed these with ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc tests. Results: Simulations with a physiological APD gradient predict that endocardial pacing creates a smaller (34%) volume of HRG around (1cm) a scar compared to epicardial pacing when pacing 0.2cm from scar (Figure 1-A). The volume of HRG decreases (P < 0.05) with distance from scar for epicardial pacing but not endocardial pacing (Figure 1-A). Inverting the transmural APD gradient, inverts the trend observed with a physiological gradient. In this case, the volume of HRG is unaffected by pacing location during epicardial pacing, whereas it decreases (19%) with the distance from scar for endocardial pacing. This is illustrated in the regions highlighted in yellow in Figure 1 for endocardial pacing at 0.2 and 3.5cm from a scar with a physiological (B) and an inverted (C) gradient. Conclusions: Endocardial pacing is less arrhythmogenic (purpose 1) than conventional epicardial pacing when pacing in proximity to scar and is also less susceptible to pacing location relative to scar (purpose 2). The direction of the transmural APD gradient offers a mechanistic explanation for reduced susceptibility to arrhythmogenesis during endocardial pacing compared to epicardial pacing (purpose 3). Endocardial pacing is an attractive alternative to conventional epicardial pacing in patients with scar, as it allows pacing in proximity to scar while avoiding increasing arrhythmogenic risk in patients with ischemic heart failure. Abstract Figure.

Objective: Interstitial fibrosis is a pathological expansion of the heart's inter-cellular collagen matrix. It is a potential complication of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), a class of diseases involving electrical and or mechanical dysfunction of cardiac tissue not caused by atherosclerosis. Patients with NICM and interstitial fibrosis often suffer from life threatening arrhythmias, which we aim to simulate in this study. Methods: Our methodology builds on an efficient discrete finite element (DFE) method which allows for the representation of fibrosis as infinitesimal splits in a mesh. We update the DFE method with a local connectivity analysis which creates a consistent topology in the fibrosis network. This is particularly important in nonischemic disease due to the potential presence of large and contiguous fibrotic regions and therefore potentially complex fibrosis networks. Results: In experiments with an image-based model, we demonstrate that our methodology is able to simulate reentrant electrical events associated with cardiac arrhythmias. These reentries depended crucially upon sufficient fibrosis density, which was marked by conduction slowing at high pacing rates. We also created a 2D test-case which demonstrated that fibrosis topologies can modulate transient conduction block, and thereby reentrant activations. Conclusion: Ventricular arrhythmias due to interstitial fibrosis in NICM can be efficiently simulated using our methods in medical image based geometries. Furthermore, fibrosis topology modulates transient conduction block, and should be accounted for in electrophysiological simulations with interstitial fibrosis. Significance: Our study provides methodology which has the potential to predict arrhythmias and to optimize treatments non-invasively for nonischemic cardiomyopathies.