PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15234413

Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation?

Abstract

The assessment of defibrillation (DFT) efficacy has long been the standard of care during defibrillator implantation. To ensure an acceptable DFT safety margin, early defibrillator systems frequently required that the shock polarity and the location, type, or number of electrodes had to be altered. Advances in defibrillator and lead technology have resulted in lower and more consistent DFT thresholds in the range of 10 J, with an infrequent requirement to modify the DFT system. Yet, one can make an argument for and against continuation of DFT testing at the time of defibrillator implantation. The goal of this paper is to address both the data that do support and the data that do not support continuation of DFT testing at the time of device implantation. Scientifically, DFT testing should be abandoned only when prospective evidence demonstrates that defibrillator implantation without testing is as safe and has the same mortality benefits as implantation with testing. The most attractive aspect of eliminating DFT efficacy testing is that more patients may have the opportunity to be treated with this life-saving therapy. Perhaps there are alternative strategies to improve accessibility to defibrillator therapy without possibly eroding its effectiveness. In the end, will lives be saved or lost if we discontinue DFT efficacy testing and lower the barriers to implantable defibrillator therapy?

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Adam Strickberger, George J Klein. 2004-07-07. Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation?. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.11.068

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Does the rate of inappropriate therapy differ in implantable cardioverter-defibrillators from different manufacturers?

OBJECTIVE: We conducted this study to compare the rate of >/=1 inappropriate therapy between ICDs from two manufacturers which use different discriminatory protocols. METHOD: One hundred sixty two patients (mean age 58 +/- 13 years, 126 male) who received ICDs between January 2001 and 2005 were included in the study. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and ICD stored data and electrograms were collected and analyzed. Immediately after implantation all the detection and discrimination criteria were activated with the nominal values in order to compare the two discriminatory protocols under the default manufacturer's settings. RESULTS: During the follow up period of 14.3 +/- 10 months, 49 (30%) patients received >/=1 inappropriate ICD therapy. The rate of >/=1 inappropriate ICD therapy in manufacturer A and B ICDs was 26% (n = 29) and 41% (n = 20), respectively. Comparing the rate of >/=1 inappropriate ICD therapy between the two groups by Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log rank test resulted in P = 0.04. CONCLUSION: Having all discriminatory variables activated with the nominal values, discriminatory performance differs between the two manufacturers. Further larger-scale studies are warranted to prospectively compare the performance of various available ICDs' discriminatory protocols, and define the optimum combination of discriminators in each ICD to decrease the rate of inappropriate therapy.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗

Cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: in vitro magnetic resonance imaging evaluation at 1.5-tesla.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) performed at 1.5-Tesla on current generation pacemakers and ICDs to identify safe parameters for MRI examinations. METHODS: Pacemakers (Identity ADx XL DR+ 5386 and Identity ADx DR + 5380 generators; 1688T/52-cm atrial and ventricular leads) and ICDs (Atlas + V-243, Epic + V-236, and Epic + HF V-350 generators; Riata 1581/65-cm and QuickSite 1056K/75-cm leads; St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, California, USA) were evaluated for magnetic field interactions. MRI-related heating was assessed using various levels of RF power (SARs) and conditions that included scans on different body regions. Functional aspects of the devices were evaluated immediately before and after MRI procedures utilizing nine different pulse sequences. Induced currents were measured using a custom built system. RESULTS: Magnetic field interactions will not create a hazard for these pacemakers and ICDs. All scans of the "head" and "lumbar" regions resulted in temperature changes < or =0.5 degrees C at SARs ranging from 2.0 to 3.0-W/kg. For the "chest" area, temperature increases ranged from 0.4 degrees C to 3.6 degrees C at an SAR of 2.0-W/kg. No memory corruption, hardware changes, or changes in device parameters were seen. Magnetic field gradients have a low likelihood of inducing currents that would stimulate the heart. CONCLUSIONS: No hazardous magnetic field interactions or physiologically significant heating occurred for certain conditions. There was no permanent effect on device function. By following specific conditions, these pacemakers and ICDs may be safe for patients scanned at 1.5-Tesla.

Defibrillators, Implantable↗