Is Defibrillation Testing Necessary?

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation with or Without Defibrillation Testing

Defibrillation testing (DFT) during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is still considered standard of care in some, but in increasingly fewer centers. The goal is to ensure that the device system functions as intended by testing in the controlled laboratory setting. Although safe, complications can occur and DFT is associated with an increased procedural time and cost. DFT is useful in assessing device function when programming changes or patient characteristics raise concerns regarding ICD efficacy. DFT remains standard of practice following implantation of subcutaneous ICDs and other specific circumstances. Implanting physicians should remain familiar with the process of DFT and situations where it is useful for individual patients.

Evaluation and Management of Maternal Cardiac Arrhythmias

Pregnant women often complain of palpitations. The differential diagnosis for new-onset palpitations in pregnancy ranges from benign conditions to life-threatening arrhythmias. Maternal arrhythmias can occur in isolation or in the setting of underlying structural heart disease. Optimal management of maternal cardiac arrhythmias includes identification of the specific arrhythmia, diagnosis of comorbid conditions, and appropriate intervention. In general, management of maternal cardiac arrhythmias is similar to that of the general population. Special consideration must be given as to the effects of medications and procedures on both the mother and fetus to optimize outcomes. The importance of multidisciplinary care with cardiology, obstetrics, and anesthesia is emphasized.

The Effect of Direct Current Stimulation versus T-Wave Shock on Defibrillation Threshold Testing

INTRODUCTION

There are several methods to induce ventricular fibrillation (VF) during defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing. Delivering a shock at a critical time during the T wave (T-shock) is the conventional approach, while delivering a constant direct current voltage (DC stim) from the implantable cardioverter defibrillator is an alternative method. Only a few reports compare VF induction methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects and safety of DC stim versus T-shock.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 414 consecutive patients undergoing DFT testing. We compared the two groups (DC stim and T-shock) with respect to clinical characteristics, electrocardiogram (ECG) changes, and complications.

RESULTS

Ventricular arrhythmia, including ventricular tachycardia (VT) and VF, was induced by DC stim in 93 patients or T-shock in 321 patients. No more than three attempts were performed during one procedure. There was no significant difference in the baseline ECG, induced tachycardia cycle length (TCL), or complications between the two groups. However, the induced TCL was significantly shorter than the clinical TCL regardless of induction method (P = 0.001). Five patients suffered major complications (i.e., electromechanical dissociation or incessant VT). A history of atrial fibrillation was significantly greater in patients with major complications than the others (80% vs 24%, P = 0.004), and was an independent predictor on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in induced TCL or complications between the DC stim and T-shock. The induced TCL is significantly shorter than clinical TCL regardless of induction method.

Intra-operative defibrillation testing and clinical shock efficacy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the NORDIC ICD randomized clinical trial

AIMS

This trial was designed to test the hypothesis that shock efficacy during follow-up is not impaired in patients implanted without defibrillation (DF) testing during first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between February 2011 and July 2013, 1077 patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to first time ICD implantation with (n = 540) or without (n = 537) DF testing. The intra-operative DF testing was standardized across all participating centres, and all ICD shocks were programmed to 40 J irrespective of DF test results. The primary end point was the average first shock efficacy (FSE) for all true ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes during follow-up. The secondary end points included procedural data, serious adverse events, and mortality. During a median follow-up of 22.8 months, the model-based FSE was found to be non-inferior in patients with an ICD implanted without a DF test, with a difference in FSE of 3.0% in favour of the no DF test [confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to 9.0%, Pnon-inferiority <0.001 for the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -10%). A total of 112 procedure-related serious adverse events occurred within 30 days in 94 patients (17.6%) tested compared with 89 events in 74 patients (13.9%) not tested (P = 0.095).

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation efficacy during follow-up is not inferior in patients with a 40 J ICD implanted without DF testing. Defibrillation testing during first time ICD implantation should no longer be recommended for routine left-sided ICD implantation.