Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Systems-A Simple Issue?
- PMID: 27068637
- PMCID: PMC4943283
- DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003181
Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Systems-A Simple Issue?
Abstract
Background: The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S-ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard-of-care prospective single-center S-ICD registry.
Methods and results: In the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S-ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66-0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22-0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of <10 J was not attained. Nevertheless, in these 4 patients, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively terminated with an internal 80-J shock.
Conclusions: Although it has been shown that defibrillation testing is not necessary in transvenous ICD systems, it seems particular important for S-ICD systems, because in nearly 25% of the cases the primary intraoperative test was not successful. In most cases, a successful defibrillation could be achieved by changing shock polarity or by optimizing the shock vector caused by the pulse generator or lead repositioning.
Keywords: defibrillator testing; device complications; implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator, subcutaneous; sudden cardiac death.
© 2016 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.
Figures
References
-
- Connolly SJ, Hallstrom AP, Cappato R, Schron EB, Kuck KH, Zipes DP, Greene HL, Boczor S, Domanski M, Follmann D, Gent M, Roberts RS. Meta‐analysis of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator secondary prevention trials. AVID, CASH and CIDS studies. Antiarrhythmics vs Implantable Defibrillator Study. Cardiac Arrest Study Hamburg. Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:2071–2078. - PubMed
-
- Nanthakumar K, Epstein AE, Kay GN, Plumb VJ, Lee DS. Prophylactic implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator therapy in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a pooled analysis of 10 primary prevention trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:2166–2172. - PubMed
-
- Backhoff D, Muller M, Ruschewski W, Paul T, Krause U. ICD therapy for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death after Mustard repair for d‐transposition of the great arteries. Clin Res Cardiol. 2014;103:894–901. - PubMed
-
- Kolb C, Lennerz C, Semmler V, Jilek C. Primary prevention of sudden cardiac death with an entirely subcutaneous defibrillator in a patient with a large right atrial thrombus. Clin Res Cardiol. 2013;102:169–170. - PubMed
-
- Alcalde M, Campuzano O, Sarquella‐Brugada G, Arbelo E, Allegue C, Partemi S, Iglesias A, Oliva A, Brugada J, Brugada R. Clinical interpretation of genetic variants in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Clin Res Cardiol. 2015;104:288–303. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
