Literature DB >> 17470697

Inductionless or limited shock testing is possible in most patients with implantable cardioverter- defibrillators/cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators: results of the multicenter ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of Vulnerability: Risk Reduction Evaluation With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantations).

John D Day1, Rahul N Doshi, Peter Belott, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green, Mahnaz Behboodikhah, Peter Ott, Kathryn A Glatter, Serge Tobias, Howard Frumin, Byron K Lee, John Merillat, Isaac Wiener, Samuel Wang, Harlan Grogin, Sung Chun, Rob Patrawalla, Brian Crandall, Jeffrey S Osborn, J Peter Weiss, Donald L Lappe, Stacey Neuman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators have relied on multiple ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction/defibrillation tests at implantation to ensure that the device can reliably sense, detect, and convert VF. The ASSURE Study (Arrhythmia Single Shock Defibrillation Threshold Testing Versus Upper Limit of Vulnerability: Risk Reduction Evaluation With Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Implantations) is the first large, multicenter, prospective trial comparing vulnerability safety margin testing versus defibrillation safety margin testing with a single VF induction/defibrillation. METHODS AND
RESULTS: A total of 426 patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator underwent vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin screening at 14 J in a randomized order. After this, patients underwent confirmatory testing, which required 2 VF conversions without failure at < or = 21 J. Patients who passed their first 14-J and confirmatory tests, irrespective of the results of their second 14-J test, had their devices programmed to a 21-J shock for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF > or = 200 bpm and were followed up for 1 year. Of 420 patients who underwent 14-J vulnerability safety margin screening, 322 (76.7%) passed. Of these, 317 (98.4%) also passed 21-J confirmatory tests. Of 416 patients who underwent 14-J defibrillation safety margin screening, 343 (82.5%) passed, and 338 (98.5%) also passed 21-J confirmatory tests. Most clinical VT/VF episodes (32 of 37, or 86%) were terminated by the first shock, with no difference in first shock success. In all observed cases in which the first shock was unsuccessful, subsequent shocks terminated VT/VF without complication.
CONCLUSIONS: Although spontaneous episodes of fast VT/VF were limited, there was no difference in the odds of first shock efficacy between groups. Screening with vulnerability safety margin or defibrillation safety margin may allow for inductionless or limited shock testing in most patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17470697     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.663112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  9 in total

Review 1.  [Implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. How much anesthesia is necessary?].

Authors:  T Sellmann; M Winterhalter; U Herold; P Kienbaum
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  An observational registry on efficacy and safety of the right ventricular outflow tract as a site for ICD leads: results of the EFFORT (EFFicacy Of Right ventricular outflow Tract as site for ICD leads) registry.

Authors:  Giosuè Mascioli; Gianpaolo Gelmini; Albino Reggiani; Vittorio Giudici; Alfredo Spotti; Alessandro Mocini; Renato Marconi; Franco Ruffa; Gabriele Zanotto
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 1.900

3.  [Single- and dual-chamber ICDs: Are there still significant differences compared to pacemakers with regard to implantation and follow-up?].

Authors:  M Stockburger
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2008-12

4.  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

5.  Defibrillation threshold testing fails to show clinical benefit during long-term follow-up of patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Yoav Michowitz; Nicolas Lellouche; Tahmeed Contractor; Tara Bourke; Isaac Wiener; Eric Buch; Noel Boyle; Malcolm Bersohn; Kalyanam Shivkumar
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 5.214

6.  Transient local injury current in right ventricular electrogram after implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock predicts heart failure progression.

Authors:  Larisa G Tereshchenko; Mitchell N Faddis; Barry J Fetics; Karl E Zelik; Igor R Efimov; Ronald D Berger
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  The relationship between defibrillation threshold and total mortality.

Authors:  Jason C Rubenstein; Michael H Kim; Fred Morady; S Adam Strickberger
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Upper limit of vulnerability and heterogeneity.

Authors:  Peng-Sheng Chen; Shien-Fong Lin
Journal:  Heart Rhythm       Date:  2008-12-03       Impact factor: 6.343

9.  Significance of intraoperative testing in right-sided implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Authors:  Andreas Keyser; Michael K Hilker; Ekrem Ucer; Sigrid Wittmann; Christof Schmid; Claudius Diez
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 1.637

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.