Literature DB >> 19422577

Primary prevention implantation of cardioverter defibrillator without defibrillation threshold testing: 2-year follow-up.

Stefano Bianchi1, Renato P Ricci, Francesco Biscione, Fabrizio Sgreccia, Natale Di Belardino, Pietro Rossi, Silvia Giuli, Andrea Grammatico, Tiziana De Santo, Elisabetta Santi, Monica Merico, Gianfranco Piccirillo, Paolo Azzolini, Massimo Santini, Andrea Puglisi.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Even though the intraoperative threshold testing of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) may cause hemodynamic impairment or be unfeasible, it is still considered required standard practice at the time of implantation. We compared the outcome of ICD recipients who underwent defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) with that of patients in whom no testing was performed.
METHODS: A total of 291 subjects with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy received transvenous ICDs between January 2000 and December 2004 in five Italian cardiology centers. In two centers, DFT was routinely performed in 137 patients (81% men; mean age 69+/-9 years; mean ejection fraction 26+/-4%) (DFT group), while three centers never performed DFT in 154 patients (90% men; mean age 69+/-9 years; mean ejection fraction 27+/-5%) (no-DFT group).
RESULTS: We compared total mortality, total cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), and spontaneous episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (sustained ventricular tachycardia, VT, and ventricular fibrillation, VF) between these groups 2 years after implantation (median 23 months, 25th-75th percentile, 12-44 months). On comparing the DFT and no-DFT groups, we found an overall mortality rate of 20% versus 16%, cardiovascular mortality of 13% versus 10%, SCD of 3% versus 0.6%, VT incidence of 8% versus 10%, and VF incidence of 6% versus 4% (no significant difference in any comparison).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in the incidence of clinical outcomes considered emerged between no-DFT and DFT groups. These results should be confirmed in larger prospective studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19422577     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02329.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol        ISSN: 0147-8389            Impact factor:   1.976


  5 in total

1.  [Is intraoperative ICD-testing still necessary?].

Authors:  C Mewis; H-R Neuberger; A Buob
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2010-06

2.  ICD implantation without intraoperative testing does not increase the rate of system modifications and does not impair defibrillation efficacy tested in follow-up.

Authors:  Dirk Bastian; Stefan Kracker; Matthias Pauschinger; Konrad Göhl
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2013-06-07

3.  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

4.  Defibrillation Testing During Defibrillator Implantation.

Authors:  Dietmar Bänsch
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2012-09

5.  High defibrillation threshold: the science, signs and solutions.

Authors:  Sony Jacob; Victorio Pidlaoan; Jaspreet Singh; Aditya Bharadwaj; Mehul B Patel; Antonio Carrillo
Journal:  Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J       Date:  2010-01-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.