Impact of defibrillation testing on predicted ICD shock efficacy: Implications for clinical practice

Influence of "high" defibrillation thresholds on patient survival and impact of system modification

OBJECTIVE

To test whether a high defibrillation threshold (DFT) marks patients with poor outcomes which are improved when DFT is decreased by system modification (subcutaneous coil implant; SM).

BACKGROUND

The electrical substrate generating fast ventricular arrhythmias may generate poor outcomes among patients treated with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), even when arrhythmias are treated successfully. Since patients with high DFTs have increased mortality, we contrasted survival among patients with high DFT treated with and without SM.

METHODS

We studied consecutive patients undergoing ICD implantation and DFT testing at Cleveland Clinic over a 14-year period. High DFT was defined as successful defibrillation by shock strength >25 J or ≤10 J of maximal device output. Mortality was recorded using the Social Security Death Index. Survival was compared among those high DFT patients receiving SM versus the remainder.

RESULTS

Out of 6353 patients tested, 191 (3%) had high DFT (32.1 ± 3.7 J) versus 13.9 ± 4.9 J in the remainder ("acceptable DFT," p < .001). One hundred twenty-one high DFT patients (63%; 33.3 ± 3.4 J) underwent SM, which significantly decreased DFT (24.8 ± 5.9 J; p < .001). Seventy patients (37%; 30.3 ± 3.3 J) did not undergo SM. During follow-up, 38% (2363/6162; 7.8 yrs) patients with acceptable DFT died versus 48% high DFT patients (91/191; 5.6 yrs.; p < .001). Concomitantly, 48% patients with SM (58/121) died, as compared to 47% patients (33/70) without SM (p = .91); median follow-up 4.9 yrs).

CONCLUSION

Patients with high DFT have a higher mortality than those with acceptable DFT. The additional subcutaneous coil implant decreases DFT to an acceptable range but does not appear to improve survival. The electrical substrate underlying high DFT appears to determine survival.

Intra-operative defibrillation testing and clinical shock efficacy in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: the NORDIC ICD randomized clinical trial

AIMS

This trial was designed to test the hypothesis that shock efficacy during follow-up is not impaired in patients implanted without defibrillation (DF) testing during first implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between February 2011 and July 2013, 1077 patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to first time ICD implantation with (n = 540) or without (n = 537) DF testing. The intra-operative DF testing was standardized across all participating centres, and all ICD shocks were programmed to 40 J irrespective of DF test results. The primary end point was the average first shock efficacy (FSE) for all true ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (VT/VF) episodes during follow-up. The secondary end points included procedural data, serious adverse events, and mortality. During a median follow-up of 22.8 months, the model-based FSE was found to be non-inferior in patients with an ICD implanted without a DF test, with a difference in FSE of 3.0% in favour of the no DF test [confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to 9.0%, Pnon-inferiority <0.001 for the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -10%). A total of 112 procedure-related serious adverse events occurred within 30 days in 94 patients (17.6%) tested compared with 89 events in 74 patients (13.9%) not tested (P = 0.095).

CONCLUSION

Defibrillation efficacy during follow-up is not inferior in patients with a 40 J ICD implanted without DF testing. Defibrillation testing during first time ICD implantation should no longer be recommended for routine left-sided ICD implantation.

The NO Regular Defibrillation testing In Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (NORDIC ICD) trial: concept and design of a randomized, controlled trial of intra-operative defibrillation testing during de novo defibrillator implantation

AIMS

Although defibrillation (DF) testing is still considered a standard procedure during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion and has been an essential element of all trials that demonstrated the survival benefit of ICD therapy, there are no large randomized clinical trials demonstrating that DF testing improves clinical outcome and if the outcome would remain the same by omitting DF testing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between February 2011 and July 2013, we randomly assigned 1077 patients to ICD implantation with (n = 540) or without (n = 537) DF testing. The intra-operative DF testing was standardized across all participating centres. After inducing a fast ventricular tachycardia (VT) with a heart rate ≥240 b.p.m. or ventricular fibrillation (VF) with a low-energy T-wave shock, DF was attempted with an initial 15 J shock. If the shock reversed the VT or VF, DF testing was considered successful and terminated. If unsuccessful, two effective 24 J shocks were administered. If DF was unsuccessful, the system was reconfigured and another DF testing was performed. An ICD shock energy of 40 J had to be programmed in all patients for treatment of spontaneous VT/VF episodes. The primary endpoint was the average efficacy of the first ICD shock for all true VT/VF episodes in each patient during follow-up. The secondary endpoints included the frequency of system revisions, total fluoroscopy, implantation time, procedural serious adverse events, and all-cause, cardiac, and arrhythmic mortality during follow-up. Home Monitoring was used in all patients to continuously monitor the system integrity, device programming and performance.

CONCLUSION

The NO Regular Defibrillation testing In Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation (NORDIC ICD) trial is one of two large prospective randomized trials assessing the effect of DF testing omission during ICD implantation.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01282918.

Clinical impact, safety, and efficacy of single- versus dual-coil ICD leads in MADIT-CRT

BACKGROUND

Current data on efficacy, safety and impact on clinical outcome of single- versus dual-coil implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads are limited and contradictory.

METHODS

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) at implantation and first shock efficacy were compared in patients implanted with single- versus dual-coil ICD leads in MADIT-CRT. The risk for atrial tachyarrhythmias and all-cause mortality were evaluated. Short- (< 30 days after the implantation) and long-term (throughout the entire study duration) complications were assessed.

RESULTS

Patients with dual-coil ICD leads had significantly lower DFTs compared to patients with single-coil ICD leads (17.6 ± 5.8 J vs 19.4 ± 6.1 J, P < 0.001). First shock efficacy was similar among patients with dual and single-coil ICD leads (89.6% vs 92.3%, P = 1.00). When comparing patients with dual versus single-coil ICD leads, there was no difference in the risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias (HR = 1.57, 95% CI: 0.81-3.02, P = 0.18), or in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.58-2.07, P = 0.77). Patients implanted with single- or dual-coil ICD lead had similar short and long-term complication rates (short-term HR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.56-1.65, P = 0.88, long-term procedure-related HR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.62-1.59, P = 1.00, long-term ICD lead related: HR = 1.2, 95% CI: 0.5-2.9, P = 0.68) during the mean follow-up of 3.3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with single-coil ICD leads have slightly higher DFTs compared to those with dual-coil leads, but the efficacy, safety, and clinical impact on atrial tachyarrhythmias, and mortality is similar. Implantation of single-coil ICD leads may be favorable in most patients.