First human demonstration of cardiac stimulation with transcutaneous ultrasound energy delivery: implications for wireless pacing with implantable devices.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a novel technology that uses energy transfer from an ultrasound transmitter to achieve cardiac stimulation without the use of a pacing lead in humans. BACKGROUND: To overcome the limitations of pacemaker leads, a new technology enabling stimulation without the use of a lead is desirable. METHODS: A steerable bipolar electrophysiology catheter incorporating a receiver electrode into the tip and circuitry to convert ultrasound energy to electrical energy was inserted transvenously into the heart. An ultrasound transmitting transducer was placed on the chest wall with ultrasound gel. Ultrasound energy was amplitude-adjusted and transmitted at 313 to 385 kHz. The output waveform of the receiver electrode was monitored while the transmitter was moved on the chest wall to target the receiver. The ultrasound transmission amplitude was limited to a mechanical index of 1.9, the maximum allowed for ultrasound imaging systems. Ultrasound-mediated pacing with minimum voltage but consistent capture was obtained for 12 s. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (48 +/- 12 years) were tested during or after completion of clinical electrophysiology procedures. A total of 80 pacing sites were tested (mean 3.3 sites/patient): 12 right atrial, 35 right ventricular, and 33 left ventricular (31 endocardial) sites. The transmit-to-receive distance was 11.3 +/- 3.2 cm (range 5.3 to 22.5 cm). Ultrasound-mediated pacing was achieved at all 80 test sites, with consistent capture at 77 sites. The mechanical index during pacing was 0.5 +/- 0.3 (range 0.1 to 1.5). The mean ultrasound-mediated capture threshold was 1.01 +/- 0.64 V. There was no adverse event related to ultrasound pacing. No patient experienced discomfort during pacing. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and safety of pacing usng ultrasound energy has been shown acutely.

Designation and distribution of events in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT).

Patients with coronary artery disease, depressed left ventricular ejection fraction, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) have a high mortality rate due to arrhythmic (arrhythmic death/cardiac arrest) and other cardiac causes. The Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT) investigated whether electrophysiologic study (EPS) was helpful in choosing drug or defibrillator therapy in patients induced into sustained VT. The events committee attempted to categorize follow-up events in patients in MUSTT and to present a detailed breakdown of events. A derivative of the Hinkle-Thaler classification was used, incorporating lessons from other multicenter studies. The committee was blinded to results of EPS and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or other antiarrhythmic therapy status of patients. The primary end point was cardiac arrest or death from arrhythmia. Secondary end points were death from all causes, cardiac causes, and spontaneous sustained VT. Classifications were death and cardiac arrest. Each was similarly divided as arrhythmic with 14 subcategories, e.g., unwitnessed or related to EPS and nonarrhythmic with 10 subcategories, e.g., ischemia. Terminal VF in progressive heart failure was considered nonarrhythmic. Events were reviewed by 2 members. Disagreements were resolved by the 2 members or, if needed, by the full committee. Of the 2,202 patients in MUSTT, there were 902 deaths. Sustained VT requiring cardioversion occurred in 182 patients. An additional 94 patients had resuscitated cardiac arrests. Events occurred in 1,027 patients, and all were reviewed. The 3 leading events were deaths that were classed as sudden/unwitnessed (23% of 902), due to progressive heart failure (22%), or due to noncardiovascular causes (18%). Arrhythmic deaths or cardiac arrests were highest in inducible patients randomized to no antiarrhythmic therapy; next were inducible patients receiving an ICD; and lowest were in patients who were noninducible. In conclusion, the classification system provided a detailed breakdown of events in consistent categories, showing utility for event analysis and interpretation and development of therapeutic strategies. The classifications assigned by the committee were used in all MUSTT outcomes reports, thus affecting all reported outcomes and overall interpretations of the MUSTT.