Defibrillation testing in everyday medical practice during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation in France: Analysis from the LEADER registry

Routine DFT testing in patients undergoing ICD implantation does not improve mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing has been an integral part of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation to confirm appropriate sensing of ventricular fibrillation and to establish an adequate safety margin for defibrillation. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding benefits of routine DFT testing. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess its mortality benefit. We searched MEDLINE for studies comparing mortality outcomes in ICD recipients who underwent DFT testing to those who did not. For the second analysis, studies comparing outcomes in patients with high- vs low-energy DFT were included. Odds ratio and standard errors were calculated, and inverse variance method in a random-effect model was used to combine effect sizes. Fifteen studies with 10,975 subjects comparing outcomes in patients who underwent routine DFT testing during ICD implantation and those who did not were included. There was no difference in the group that did not undergo DFT testing with regards to all-cause mortality (OR 0.935; CI 0.725-1.207; P = 0.606), cardiac mortality (OR 0.709; CI 0.385-1.307; P = 0.271), noncardiac mortality (OR 0.921; CI 0.701-1.210; P = 0.554), and arrhythmic mortality (OR 1.152; CI 0.831-1.596; P = 0.396). Percentage of successful appropriate first shocks among the two groups showed no difference. Five studies with 2278 subjects were included in the second analysis comparing patients with low DFT vs high DFT. Patients with high DFT had no significant increase in all-cause mortality compared to patients with low DFT (OR 0.527; CI 0.034-8.107; P = 0.646). Patients requiring higher DFT had no increased all-cause mortality compared to patients with lower DFT. Routine DFT testing during ICD implantation does not confer any significant benefit.

The association between defibrillation shock energy and acute cardiac damage in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to establish a minimally invasive defibrillation testing (DT) protocol for patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODS

Two different energy DTs were performed, immediately after (15 J-DT) and 7 days after (≤10 J-DT) device implantation, in 20 consecutive ICD implantation patients. Cardiac-troponin T (c-TNT) and heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) levels were measured before implantation, 2 h after implantation, and 1 day after each DT. For an additional 122 patients with ICD, we retrospectively analyzed 203 DTs immediately and 7 days after device implantation.

RESULTS

Serum c-TNT levels were significantly elevated 2 h after 15 J-DT [0.008 (0.004-0.019) vs. 0.053 (0.037-0.068) ng/mL, p<0.001], but not ≤10 J-DT [0.007 (0.004-0.018) ng/mL]. Similarly, serum H-FABP levels were significantly elevated 2 h after 15 J-DT (2.9±1.5 vs. 6.4±3.4 ng/mL, p<0.001), but not ≤10 J-DT (2.7±1.5 ng/mL). The changes in c-TNT and H-FABP levels between baseline and 2 h after DT were significantly greater for 15 J-DT compared with ≤10 J-DT [c-TnT: 0.039 (0.029-0.060) vs. 0 (0-0.003) ng/mL, p<0.001; H-FABP: 3.6±2.8 vs. -0.16±1.1 ng/mL, p<0.001]. The success rates of the initial shocks delivered for ventricular fibrillation were no different between ≤10 J-DT (85% [78/92]) and ≥15 J-DT (92% [103/111]).

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated levels of myocardial damage markers such as c-TNT and H-FABP were not found after ≤10 J-DT. In addition, an acceptable success rate was confirmed in ≤10 J-DT.

Systematic Review of Defibrillation Threshold Testing at De Novo Implantation

Background—

Recent results from the largest multicenter randomized trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]) on defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing suggest that while shock testing seems safe, it does not reduce the risk of failed shocks or prolong survival. A contemporary systematic review of DFT versus no-DFT testing at the time of implantable cardioverter–defibrillator implantation was performed to evaluate the current evidence and to assess the impact of the SIMPLE study.

Methods and Results—

Electronic searches were performed using 6 databases from their inception to March 2014. Relevant studies investigating implant DFT were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical end points. Predefined outcomes for interrogation were all-cause mortality, composite end point of implantable cardioverter–defibrillator efficacy (arrhythmic deaths and ineffective shocks), and composite safety end point (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days). Meta-analysis was performed including 13 studies and 9740 patients. No significant differences between DFT versus no-DFT cohorts were found in terms of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.15; P =0.41), composite efficacy outcome (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–3.37; P =0.51), and 30-day postimplant complications (risk ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.87–1.60; P =0.29). No significant difference was found in the trends observed when the results of the SIMPLE study were excluded or included.

Conclusions—

This systematic review of contemporary data suggests a modest average effect of DFT, if any, in terms of mortality, shock efficacy, or safety. Therefore, DFT testing should no longer be compulsory during de novo implantation. However, DFT testing may still be clinically relevant in specific patient populations.