Multicenter evaluation of implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing after implant: the Post Implant Testing Study (PITS)

Utility of postoperative testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can provide life-saving therapies for ventricular arrhythmias. Arrhythmia induction and defibrillation threshold testing is often performed at implantation and postoperatively during long-term follow-up to ensure proper device function.

METHODS

We sought to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of occult device malfunction at follow-up defibrillation testing in asymptomatic individuals. A cohort of 853 patients underwent 1,578 defibrillation tests during the 13-year study period. Defibrillation efficacy was evaluated primarily by the two-shock (2S) method, with an adequate safety margin ≥ 10 joules (J) less than the maximum energy delivered by the ICD.

RESULTS

A total of 38 testing failures requiring intervention were discovered during testing (2.4% of all tests). There were 11 ICD system failures resulting in failure to defibrillate, six with underdetection of ventricular fibrillation, and 21 clinically significant increases in defibrillation threshold. There was a higher incidence of failure in older ICD systems (1996-2002) compared to newer ICD systems (2003-2009), reaching statistical significance (3.6% vs 1.0%; P < 0.01). There were 178 subjects (20.8%) with a >20-J safety margin on previous testing, detected R waves >7.0 mV, and all system components implanted after 2003 at the time of testing who did not have any testing failures (0% vs 5.6%; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative defibrillation testing identifies a small number of ICD malfunctions in asymptomatic individuals. ICD testing failure is seen more frequently in older systems and in those with borderline results from prior interrogation or testing. These findings suggest that serial postoperative defibrillation testing is not indicated in asymptomatic patients without suspicion for specific problems.

Testing the Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator After Implantation?Is It Necessary?

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.

The dilemma of ICD implant testing

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.

Indications for predismissal testing with arrhythmia-induction in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Arrhythmia induction during implantation of cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) is a standard procedure. However, controversy exists regarding the need for routine arrhythmia induction before discharge from hospital (pre-hospital discharge (PHD) test). In order to reduce the number of tests we identified risk factors that predict relevant ICD malfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

965 patients receiving a first device implantation (n=724) or device/system replacement (n=241) between 1998 and 2004 were analysed. During implantation 176 (18%) complications (intraoperative undersensing of induced arrhythmias, unsuccessful arrhythmia-therapy or low DFT safety margin) occurred. Frequent (>4 times) intraoperative lead repositioning due to low sensing values was present in 44 patients (5%). 9% of the patients with first ICD implantation, 21% with device replacement and 27% with system replacement developed complications during PHD testing with arrhythmia induction. Intraoperative complications, although corrected during implantation, were independent risk factors for malfunction during PHD testing (p<0.05). Additional predictors for malfunction were intraoperative lead repositioning (>4 times) and a history of both VF and VT (p<0.05). Patients without intraoperative complications rarely developed malfunction during PHD testing (3.7% first device, 6.25% system replacement). Only in patients undergoing device replacement was a higher risk for failure (13%) evident. No risk factors could be identified for these subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Routine arrhythmia induction during PHD is recommended in ICD patients with intraoperative complications, although corrected during implantation, as well as frequent intraoperatives lead repositioning. Patients undergoing device/system replacement uncomplicated implantation are not generally at low risk for device failure.

Effect of defibrillation testing on management during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation

BACKGROUND

Verification of defibrillation efficacy by defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is the current standard. Generally, defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation at 10 J below the maximum output of a device is felt to establish an adequate safety margin. Nonetheless, DFT testing adds to cost and carries some potential for morbidity, whereas its impact on outcomes in the modern era of defibrillator technology is unclear. We aimed to determine the frequency that DFT testing resulted in a change at device implant and to identify clinical and echocardiographic predictors of the need for DFT testing.

METHODS

We reviewed all implantable cardioverter-defibrillators that were implanted at the London Health Sciences Centre (Ontario, Canada) from June 1999 to August 2003 and used multivariate analysis to determine variables associated with DFT test failures and elevated DFT values. When a defibrillation failure was not observed, a lowest energy to defibrillate (LED) was recorded.

RESULTS

Among 168 implants, DFT testing was successful with a minimum 10-J safety margin in 152 (90%), whereas the remaining 16 required changes at device implant. In a multivariate analysis, use of amiodarone was independently associated with DFT failure (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-17.0). Significantly higher mean DFT/LED values were observed among patients on amiodarone (1.36 J; P = .0041). Those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy had a higher mean DFT/LED compared with those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (1.44 J; P = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of amiodarone is associated with a 4-fold increase in risk of DFT failure and subsequent need for changes at implant to achieve a safe threshold. Defibrillation threshold testing appears to be most useful for patients taking amiodarone.

Value of Pre-Hospital Discharge Defibrillation Testing in Recipients of Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators

Opinions vary regarding the need to perform defibrillation testing prior to hospital discharge in recipients of state-of-the-art cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). Our protocol is to perform predischarge ICD testing 1 day after implant. This report includes 682 consecutive implants. Adverse observations at testing were grouped into (1) risk of defibrillation failure, (2) surgical complications, (3) sensing/pacing issues or narrow defibrillation margin warranting closer follow-up, or (4) findings correctable by device reprogramming. Among the 682 patients, 63% had single-chamber and 37% dual-chamber or biventricular ICDs. In 48 patients (7%) there were 69 concerns and/or interventions, with overlaps among the four categories, including one failure to defibrillate (0.15%), and six other patients at risk. Surgical complications included 11 hematomas (1.6%), and six lead dysfunctions. Closer follow-up was indicated in 19 patients (2.7%), for high pacing thresholds in seven, sensing issues in seven, and <10 J defibrillation margin in five. Device reprogramming was needed in 31 patients (4.5%), for tachycardia detection and therapy settings in 12, and for pacing/sensing functions in 22 patients. In eight patients ventricular fibrillation could not be induced. There was no morbidity or mortality due to testing. The state-of-the-art ICDs delivering biphasic shocks are remarkably reliable. The routine pre-hospital discharge defibrillation testing of such ICDs may be optional and left to the physicians' discretion.