Literature DB >> 11835021

The Low Energy Safety Study (LESS): rationale, design, patient characteristics, and device utilization.

David E Mann1, Richard C Klein, Steven L Higgins, Roger A Freedman, Stephen J Hahn, Zak Z Huang.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A 10-J energy safety margin has traditionally been used in programming implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) tests the hypothesis that programming shocks to lower energy margins is safe and effective.
METHODS: Patients with standard ICD indications undergo defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) at the time of ICD implant, with reconfirmation of lowest successful energy twice (DFT++). Patients are randomized to 2 groups: the first has the initial 2 shocks for ventricular fibrillation conversion programmed at 2 energy steps above DFT++ (typically 4-6 J, maximum 10 J) with subsequent shocks at maximum energy, and the second has all shocks programmed at maximum energy. Patients are followed up every 3 months for 2 years to assess shock conversion efficacy of spontaneous arrhythmias. In a subgroup of patients, there is a second randomization to energy levels of 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4 steps above implant DFT++ for conversion testing of 3 induced ventricular fibrillation episodes at prehospital discharge, 3 months, and 12 months after implant.
RESULTS: Enrollment is complete (702 patients), but follow-up results are pending. There were no significant variations in implant indications and baseline antiarrhythmic drug use over the 3-year enrollment period, although an increase in the percentage of dual-chamber ICDs implanted occurred, with the majority (65%) of implanted ICDs being dual-chamber devices by the end of the enrollment period.
CONCLUSION: The results of LESS should facilitate the development of algorithms for programming ICD energy safety margins.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11835021     DOI: 10.1067/mhj.2002.120154

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  3 in total

1.  Is defibrillation testing of ICDs necessary?

Authors:  J Lacy Sturdivant; Michael R Gold
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  Shock or no shock - a question of philosophy or should intraoperative implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing be recommended?

Authors:  Andreas Keyser; Michael K Hilker; Sebastian Schmidt; Christian von Bary; Wolfgang Zink; Michael Ried; Christof Schmid; Claudius Diez
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-12-07

Review 3.  The Saga of Defibrillation Testing: When Less Is More.

Authors:  Marye J Gleva; Melissa Robinson; Jeanne Poole
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 2.931

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.