Utility of postoperative testing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators

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?"

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.

Implantation of additional subcutaneous array electrode reduces defibrillation threshold in ICD patients - preliminary results

INTRODUCTION

Among the recipients of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs), there is a group of patients in whom the defibrillation threshold (DFT) is too high to enable a sufficient safety margin between the DFT and the maximal available output of the device. The aim of the study was to investigate the ability of an additionally implanted single-coil subcutaneous array electrode to reduce the DFT in such patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medtronic 6996SQ electrode was implanted in 15 patients selected from our follow-up group of 741 ICD patients: 10 of them had insufficient post-implant DFT safety margin, and 5 had ineffective first maximal energy shock as recorded by the device. In 6 cases the patients had CRT-D devices, in 5 cases - dual-chamber ICDs, and in 4 cases - single-chamber ICDs. In all patients but one the defibrillating electrode was single-coil. In one patient it was dual-coil. The underlying disease was coronary artery disease in 10 patients, dilated cardiomyopathy in 4 patients and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 1 patient.

RESULTS

The subcutaneous electrode was successfully implanted in all the patients qualified for the procedure. No technical issues or perioperative complications were observed. Mean DFT was reduced from 33.3 ±4.1 J before the procedure to 25.3 ±4.4 J after the implantation procedure (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the use of a single-coil subcutaneous electrode to reduce the DFT is a safe and effective procedure. Further studies are necessary to confirm these results.

ICD implantation without intraoperative testing does not increase the rate of system modifications and does not impair defibrillation efficacy tested in follow-up

AIM

The need for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) defibrillation testing (DT) and subsequent intraoperative system modifications is discussed controversially. The study's goal was to prove that consequent abdication of intraoperative DT does not impair defibrillation efficacy and does not increase the rate of postoperative system revisions.

METHODS

In a prospective single-center observational study, 609 out of 648 consecutive patients underwent transvenous ICD implantation (left-sided, active can, dual coil lead, and biphasic shock waveform) waiving intraoperative DT. Defibrillation efficacy was validated prior to hospital discharge (PHD) by applying two 10 J safety margin (SM) shocks.

RESULTS

Following "schockless" implantation 580 out of 609 patients (95.2 %) met a 10 J SM with default programming. Shock path reversal provided 10 J SM in 13 out of 29 cases with initially failed DT. In four patients (0.7 %) maximum energy shocks were ineffective. There was no morbidity or mortality related to DT. The total rate of surgical ICD revisions was 1.8 %.

CONCLUSION

Routine ICD implantation without intraoperative DT does not lead to an increased rate of postoperative system modifications and does not decrease defibrillation efficacy as tested PHD.