Intraoperative defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion: do we really need it?

BACKGROUND: The assessment of defibrillation efficacy using a safety margin of 10 J has long been the standard of care for insertion of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), but physicians are concerned about complications related to induction test. Therefore, the need for testing has been recently questioned. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing of ICD on the efficacy of ICD therapy.
METHODS: We analyzed data obtained from follow-up visits of 122 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation at our institute from April 1996 to June 2008, with (n = 42) or without (n = 80) DFT testing. Patients in the DFT group were less likely to be men (83.3% vs 96.3%, P < .031) than those in the non-DFT group. Conversely, the 2 groups were similar in age, left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline, functional class, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Results during a 12-month follow-up, 13 (31.0%) and 30 (37.5%) ventricular tachyarrhythmic episodes were recorded in the DFT and non-DFT groups, respectively (P = .472). Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) terminated most of episodes, reducing the need of defibrillation at 7.7% in the DFT group and 3.3% in the non-DFT group (P = .533). Similar percentages of inappropriate ATP interventions (7.1% vs 3.8%, P = .413) and shock deliveries (2.4% vs 5.0%, P = .659) were recorded between DFT and non-DFT groups.
CONCLUSIONS: At 1-year follow-up, the performance of DFT testing does not seem to add any significant efficacy advantage in patients undergoing ICD implantation. Prospective randomized trials and long-term follow-up are warranted to clarify whether routine DFT testing may be safely abandoned leading to a revision of current guidelines. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.