Temporal stability of defibrillation thresholds with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Who Doesn't Get It?

Defibrillation testing has been routinely performed as part of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation procedure, and is currently supported by practice guidelines; however, more recently, this practice has been called into question. Such testing is safe, and serious complications are rare. With modern ICD systems, physicians will rarely encounter a patient in whom defibrillation will fail. This article reviews the literature regarding the utility, necessity, complications, and cost of routine operative and follow-up defibrillation testing, and, it is hoped, clarifies the issue of "Who doesn't get it?"

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with or without anatomical reverse remodeling does not affect defibrillation threshold

BACKGROUND

Recent clinical trials have documented beneficial reverse-remodeling effects with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of CRT with or without reverse anatomical remodeling of the left ventricle on defibrillation threshold (DFT) levels in a prospective and consecutive group of patients with class II-IV systolic heart failure.

METHODS

Study population consisted of 29 patients (14 women and 15 men; mean age 61±11 years old). All patients underwent baseline (within 24-hours of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator [CRT-D] implantation) and 6-month follow-up DFT testing. Reverse anatomical remodeling of the left ventricle was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at the end of 6 months of follow-up compared to baseline.

RESULTS

Baseline, average DFT was 8.8±5.9 J. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume was the only predictor of baseline DFT level (P=0.02) among the baseline demographics. Safety margin of at least 10 J was achieved in all patients. Average DFT at the end of 6 months of biventricular pacing was 9.2±6.9 J. One patient (3.4%) failed to have a safety margin of 10 J. Reverse anatomical remodeling was observed in 14 (48%) patients and did not have any effect on DFT level. There were no complications related to DFT testings.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline average DFT in patients undergoing CRT-D was ≤10 J in our study. CRT-D with or without anatomical reverse remodeling does not affect DFT at the end of 6 months of follow-up. High DFT level at the end of 6 months of follow-up is rare (3.4%) among patients with current CRT-D devices.