Utility of Predischarge and One-Month Transvenous Implantable Defibrillator Tests

Primary prevention trials have demonstrated that patients with coronary disease, reduced left ventricular function, and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) have improved survival with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, presumably secondary to effective termination of life-threatening arrhythmias. However, stored intracardiac electrograms were not always available and specific arrhythmias leading to ICD therapy were not always known. We examined the occurrence of ICD events in 51 consecutive patients who match the described patient profile to determine the frequency of appropriate and inappropriate ICD therapy. ICD detections were noted in 18 (35%) patients during a median follow-up period of 13.1 months. Appropriate therapy for sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurred in 11 (22%) patients, with appropriate shocks in 8 (16%) patients and appropriate antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in 4 (8%) patients. The time to first appropriate therapy occurred at a mean of 17 +/- 12 months (median 18 months, range 3-36 months). Inappropriate therapy occurred in 5 (10%) patients with inappropriate shocks in 4 patients and inappropriate ATP in 2 patients. Inappropriate therapy was delivered for supraventricular arrhythmias (SVAs) in 4 patients and for T wave oversensing in 1 patient. The reason for shock therapy was unknown in 1 patient (2%) due to ICD malfunction. The mean arrhythmia rate leading to appropriate therapy for VT/VF was 232 +/- 72 beats/min (range 181-400 beats/min), and the mean rate leading to inappropriate therapy for SVT was 168 +/- 10 beats/min (range 160-180 beats/min). Patients with coronary disease and asymptomatic NSVT commonly receive appropriate defibrillator therapy. These results support the need for ICD implantation for primary prevention, with attention to careful programming of the detection rate to prevent inappropriate therapy.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Events in Patients with Asymptomatic Nonsustained Ventricular Tachycardia:

Russo

Nayak

Verdino

et al. 2003

“…Noninvasive post‐operative testing of ICDs, either pre‐discharge or a few months after implant is an alternative to testing at implantation 221–226 . As noted previously, it may be preferred to implant testing in cardiac resynchronization ICDs 206 .…”

Section: Risks Of Assessing Defibrillation Efficacy At Implantmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Dilemma of ICD Implant Testing

Swerdlow

Russo

DeGroot

2007

130

112

Ventricular fibrillation (VF) has been induced at implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implant to ensure reliable sensing, detection, and defibrillation. Despite its risks, the value was self-evident for early ICDs: failure of defibrillation was common, recipients had a high risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or VF, and the only therapy for rapid VT or VF was a shock. Today, failure of defibrillation is rare, the risk of VT/VF is lower in some recipients, antitachycardia pacing is applied for fast VT, and vulnerability testing permits assessment of defibrillation efficacy without inducing VF in most patients. This review reappraises ICD implant testing. At implant, defibrillation success is influenced by both predictable and unpredictable factors, including those related to the patient, ICD system, drugs, and complications. For left pectoral implants of high-output ICDs, the probability of passing a 10 J safety margin is approximately 95%, the probability that a maximum output shock will defibrillate is approximately 99%, and the incidence of system revision based on testing is < or = 5%. Bayes' Theorem predicts that implant testing identifies < or = 50% of patients at high risk for unsuccessful defibrillation. Most patients who fail implant criteria have false negative tests and may undergo unnecessary revision of their ICD systems. The first-shock success rate for spontaneous VT/VF ranges from 83% to 93%, lower than that for induced VF. Thus, shocks for spontaneous VT/VF fail for reasons that are not evaluated at implant. Whether system revision based on implant testing improves this success rate is unknown. The risks of implant testing include those related to VF and those related to shocks alone. The former may be due to circulatory arrest alone or the combination of circulatory arrest and shocks. Vulnerability testing reduces risks related to VF, but not those related to shocks. Mortality from implant testing probably is 0.1-0.2%. Overall, VF should be induced to assess sensing in approximately 5% of ICD recipients. Defibrillation or vulnerability testing is indicated in 20-40% of recipients who can be identified as having a higher-than-usual probability of an inadequate defibrillation safety margin based on patient-specific factors. However, implant testing is too risky in approximately 5% of recipients and may not be worth the risks in 10-30%. In 25-50% of ICD recipients, testing cannot be identified as either critical or contraindicated.

“…Nine of these (four prospective and five retrospective) concluded that postoperative testing was not necessary 2–4,6,7,12,13,16,20 based on successful completion of the test protocol during operation and no detection of dysfunction in basic parameters postoperatively, i.e., low R wave, high pacing threshold, or undersensing. Five studies (two prospective and three retrospective) were in favor of performing the postoperative testing 5,9–11,31 . Delvecchio el al 22 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator After Implantation—Is It Necessary?

Sandstedt

Gottfridsson

Nyström

et al. 2007

The results of intraoperative and postoperative predischarge implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) testing of 211 consecutive patients, starting at 15 J and requiring two successful terminations of induced VT/VF with a relative defibrillation safety margin (DSM) of >10 J, were reviewed. The aim was to define the type of intraoperative response that would make postoperative predischarge testing unnecessary. The intraoperative responses were divided into three types: A, a DSM > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of < or =20 J; B, a DSM of > or =10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J; and C, a DSM <10 J and an absolute energy level of >20 J. At operation, the responses to defibrillation were A, 88.6%; B, 7.1%; and C, 4.3%. Accepting an A response only would leave 11.4% of the patients for postoperative testing. The positive and negative predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative C response were 0.78 and 0.97, respectively. Similarly, the predictive values for diagnosing a postoperative B or C response were 0.71 and 0.97, respectively. The postoperative testing responses were A, 89.1%; B, 4.3%; and C, 6.6%. In summary, an intraoperative A response was sufficient to make a postoperative defibrillation testing unnecessary, while it was found that intraoperative B and C responders should undergo postoperative testing. Applying these criteria, approximately 90% of the patients could be discharged without any postoperative induction test.