Literature DB >> 24486799

Role of defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement: data from the Israeli ICD Registry.

Yoav Arnson1, Mahmoud Suleiman2, Michael Glikson3, Ron Sela4, Michael Geist5, Guy Amit6, Jorge E Schliamser7, Ilan Goldenberg3, Shlomit Ben-Zvi3, Katia Orvin8, Shimon Rosenheck9, Nahum Adam Freedberg10, Boris Strasberg8, Moti Haim11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) has been considered mandatory. Accumulating data suggest a more limited role for DFT.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of ICD recipients who underwent DFT testing compared with those who did not.
METHODS: In this prospective cohort analysis of patients who received an ICD between July 2010 and March 2013, we compared patients who underwent DFT testing and those who did not. Primary end-points were death and malignant ventricular arrhythmias. Secondary end-points included the composite end-points and inappropriate ICD discharges.
RESULTS: Of the 3596 patients in the registry, 614 patients (17%) underwent DFT testing during ICD placement vs 2982 (83%) who did not. Variables associated with ICD testing were implantation for secondary prevention (relative risk [RR] 1.87), prior ventricular arrhythmias (RR 1.81), use of antiarrhythmic medication (RR 1.59), and sinus rhythm (RR 2.05). Factors predisposing against testing were cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implantation (RR 0.56) and concomitant diuretic use (RR 0.71). ICD testing was not associated with 1-year mortality (5.3% vs 5.1%, P = .74), delivery of appropriate shocks (8.6% vs 5.6%, P = .16), combined outcomes of ventricular arrhythmias and death (12.9% vs 11.3%, P = .45), or inappropriate ICD discharges (3.9% vs 2.1%, P = .2) compared to no DFT testing.
CONCLUSION: No significant differences in the incidence of mortality, malignant ventricular arrhythmias, or inappropriate ICD discharges were observed between patients who underwent DFT testing compared to those who did not. Our results may support avoiding DFT testing during ICD placement, but this requires confirmation by additional prospective studies.
Copyright © 2014 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Defibrillation threshold; Defibrillation threshold testing; Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator; Mortality; Outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24486799     DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.01.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Rhythm        ISSN: 1547-5271            Impact factor:   6.343


  2 in total

1.  Contemporary rates and outcomes of single- vs. dual-coil implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead implantation: data from the Israeli ICD Registry.

Authors:  Eran Leshem; Mahmoud Suleiman; Avishag Laish-Farkash; Yuval Konstantino; Michael Glikson; Alon Barsheshet; Ilan Goldenberg; Yoav Michowitz
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 5.214

2.  2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.

Authors:  Bruce L Wilkoff; Laurent Fauchier; Martin K Stiles; Carlos A Morillo; Sana M Al-Khatib; Jesœs Almendral; Luis Aguinaga; Ronald D Berger; Alejandro Cuesta; James P Daubert; Sergio Dubner; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; N A Mark Estes; Guilherme Fenelon; Fermin C Garcia; Maurizio Gasparini; David E Haines; Jeff S Healey; Jodie L Hurtwitz; Roberto Keegan; Christof Kolb; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Germanas Marinskis; Martino Martinelli; Mark McGuire; Luis G Molina; Ken Okumura; Alessandro Proclemer; Andrea M Russo; Jagmeet P Singh; Charles D Swerdlow; Wee Siong Teo; William Uribe; Sami Viskin; Chun-Chieh Wang; Shu Zhang
Journal:  J Arrhythm       Date:  2016-02-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.