Literature DB >> 9786072

Long-term evaluation of the ventricular defibrillation energy requirement.

T Tokano1, F Pelosi, M Flemming, L Horwood, J J Souza, A Zivin, B P Knight, R Goyal, K C Man, F Morady, S A Strickberger.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Defibrillation energy requirements in patients with nonthoracotomy defibrillators may increase within several months after implantation. However, the stability of the defibrillation energy requirement beyond 1 year has not been reported. The purpose of this study was to characterize the defibrillation energy requirement during 2 years of clinical follow-up. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Thirty-one consecutive patients with a biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillation system underwent defibrillation energy requirement testing using a step-down technique (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 J) during defibrillator implantation, and then 24 hours, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years after implantation. The mean defibrillation energy requirement during these evaluations was 10.9+/-5.5 J, 12.3+/-7.3 J, 11.7+/-5.6 J, 10.2+/-4.0 J, and 11.7+/-7.4 J, respectively (P = 0.4). The defibrillation energy requirement was noted to have increased by 10 J or more after 2 years of follow-up in five patients. In one of these patients, the defibrillation energy requirement was no longer associated with an adequate safety margin, necessitating revision of the defibrillation system. There were no identifiable clinical characteristics that distinguished patients who did and did not develop a 10-J or more increase in the defibrillation energy requirement.
CONCLUSION: The mean defibrillation energy requirement does not change significantly after 2 years of biphasic nonthoracotomy defibrillator system implantation. However, approximately 15% of patients develop a 10-J or greater elevation in the defibrillation energy requirement, and 3% may require a defibrillation system revision. Therefore, a yearly evaluation of the defibrillation energy requirement may be appropriate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9786072     DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.1998.tb00132.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  4 in total

1.  Evaluation of defibrillation safety margin in modern implantable cardioverter defibrillators after administration of amiodarone.

Authors:  Julia Köbe; Florian Reinke; Dirk G Dechering; Günter Breithardt; Lars Eckardt
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2011-11-05       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 2.  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.  Prospective evaluation of defibrillation threshold and postshock rhythm in young ICD recipients.

Authors:  Andrew E Radbill; John K Triedman; Charles I Berul; Edward P Walsh; Mark E Alexander; Gregory Webster; Frank Cecchin
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 1.976

4.  Clinical implications of left superior vena cava persistence in candidates for pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator implantation.

Authors:  Mauro Biffi; Matteo Bertini; Matteo Ziacchi; Cristian Martignani; Cinzia Valzania; Igor Diemberger; Angelo Branzi; Giuseppe Boriani
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 2.037

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.