QRS prolongation is associated with high defibrillation thresholds during cardioverter-defibrillator implantations in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in patients with subcutaneous ICD: A subanalysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial

BACKGROUND

The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy by using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRospective randomized compArative trial of subcutanEous implanTable cardiOverter-defibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation Testing (PRAETORIAN-DFT) investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is noninferior to defibrillation testing (DFT) with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events.

OBJECTIVE

This prespecified subanalysis assessed the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias.

METHODS

This multicenter investigator-initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT and PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implantation. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia in <5 seconds from shock delivery within 2 attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm.

RESULTS

In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 (95%) underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 (97%) had successful DFT and 12 (3%) had failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT, and a PRAETORIAN score of <90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (odds ratio 33.77; confidence interval 6.13-279.95; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A PRAETORIAN score of <90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in patients with S-ICD, and a PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.

Patients with a high defibrillation threshold: Approaches to management

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have revolutionized the prognosis for patients at elevated risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias. For safety, defibrillation should be effective with a minimum of 10 J below the device's maximum energy. While modern ICDs rarely deliver ineffective shocks in primary prevention, the surge in managing severe heart failure patients has led to an increased number of patients with high defibrillation thresholds (DFTs). This article elucidates the potential causes of high DFT, including clinical factors, lead and device placement, the presence of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD), prolonged ventricular arrhythmias, shock vectors, waveform tilt, medications, and manufacturer-specific options. We also detail management strategies, highlighting alternative shock coil placements, practical recommendations, and case studies from our institution. Our management algorithm suggests addressing preventable causes, re-evaluating coil positions, considering non-invasive system modifications, upgrading to a higher-capacity device, and adding extra coil(s).

Single Coil Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Leads in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC) may require higher energies to terminate ventricular fibrillation (VF); thus, dual coil defibrillation leads are often implanted. However, single coil leads may be preferred in young patients. All patients with HCM implanted with a transvenous ICD from years 2000 to 2014 were included. Of 249 patients, 223 underwent VF testing including 150 with a dual coil lead and 73 a single coil. Patients tested with dual coil compared with single coil had lower successful VF energies (15.7 ± 6.1 joule to 20.2 ± 7.9 joule (p <0.0001)). Adequate safety margin for defibrillation was noted in 97.3% of patients. Notably, 6 (4 with single coil leads) had inadequate safety margins (defined as ≥10 joule). Three of these 6 patients required replacement of a single coil lead with a dual coil lead. The remaining 3 underwent waveform tilt alteration, higher energy ICD, or removal of the can from the shock vector. There were no clinical or implant predictors of inadequate safety margins. In follow-up of 16 ± 30 months (range 0 to 170), there were 24 arrhythmias including 13 VF, all successfully terminated. In conclusion, in HC patients undergoing ICD implantation, single coil leads can provide adequate safety margins. In conclusion, defibrillation testing should be considered in all HC patients undergoing ICD implantation, and should be performed in those undergoing implantation with a single coil lead.

Defibrillation threshold testing during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation: 5-year follow-up

PURPOSE

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is a routine practice in some Asian countries for patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). However, there are few long-term data about the necessity of intraoperative DFT testing in an Asian population. We investigated the safety of DFT testing and the long-term clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing ICD implantation.

METHODS

All patients undergoing de novo transvenous ICD implantation were randomized to undergo periprocedural DFT testing. The study included 67 patients (50 males; 51.5 ± 16.9 years) who underwent ICD implantation with (n = 33) or without (n = 34) intraoperative DFT testing between March 2012 and February 2014. We compared first-shock success, composite safety end points (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days), arrhythmic death, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The baseline clinical characteristics and the procedural-related adverse event rate (3.0% with DFT vs. 0% with non-DFT, p = 0.214) did not differ between groups. The programmed output of the first shock was lower in the DFT testing group (22.9 ± 4.4 J vs. 25.3 ± 5.4 J, p = 0.007). However, there were no significant differences between groups for all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 17.6%, p = 0.526) or first-shock success rate for ventricular arrhythmia (100% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.471).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no between-group differences in periprocedural safety, complications, and long-term clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that DFT testing in Asian patients allows reduction of the programmed output of the first shock, but does not affect long-term clinical outcomes.

Predictors of high defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibillator using a transvenous dual-coil lead

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation testing (DT) is considered a standard procedure during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. However, little is known about the factors that are significantly related to patients with high defibrillation threshold (DFT) using the present triad system.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 286 consecutive patients who underwent ICD implantation with a transvenous dual-coil lead and DT from December 2000 to December 2011. We defined patients who required 25 J or more by the implanted device as the high DFT group, and those who required less than 25 J as the normal DFT group. For each patient, assessment parameters included underlying disease, comorbidities, NYHA functional class, drugs, and echocardiographic measures. The high DFT group consisted of 12 patients (4.2%). Multivariate analysis identified 3 independent predictors for high DFT: atrial fibrillation (odds ratio (OR) 4.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-22.33, P=0.023), hypertension (OR 4.01, 95% CI 1.08-15.96, P=0.039), thickness of interventricular septum (IVS) >12 mm (OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.17-20.31, P=0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial fibrillation, hypertension and IVS hypertrophy were significantly associated with high DFT. Identification of such patients could help to lower the risk of complications with DT.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Can the noninvasive diagnostic testing identify high risk patients?

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in the young, particularly among athletes. Identifying high risk individuals is very important for SCD prevention. The purpose of this review is to stress that noninvasive diagnostic testing is important for risk assessment. Extreme left ventricular hypertrophy and documented ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation increase the risk of SCD. Fragmented QRS and T wave inversion in multiple leads are more common in high risk patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provides complete visualization of the left ventricular chamber, allowing precise localization of the distribution of hypertrophy and measurement of wall thickness and cardiac mass. Moreover, with late gadolinium enhancement, patchy myocardial fibrosis within the area of hypertrophy can be detected, which is also helpful in risk stratification. Genetic testing is encouraged in all cases, especially in those with a family history of HCM and SCD.

Defibrillation thresholds in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is performed in part to ensure an adequate safety margin for the termination of spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias. Left ventricular mass is a predictor of high DFTs, so patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) are often considered to be at risk for increased defibrillation energy requirements. However, there are little prospective data addressing this issue.

OBJECTIVE

To assess DFTs in patients with HCM and evaluate the clinical predictors of elevated DFTs.

METHODS

Eighty-nine consecutive patients with HCM and 600 control patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy underwent a uniform modified step-down DFT testing protocol. DFT was compared between the control and HCM populations. Predictors of elevated DFT were evaluated in the HCM group.

RESULTS

There was no difference in DFT between HCM and control groups (10.4 ± 5.8 J vs 11.2 ± 5.6 J, respectively). Among patients with HCM, clinical parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular septal thickness, left ventricular mass, and QRS duration were not predictive of an elevated DFT. Only 3 patients (3.4%) with HCM had a DFT >20 J.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCM do not have elevated DFTs as compared to more typical populations undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implant; high-energy devices or complex lead systems are not needed routinely in this population.

Effect of substance abuse on defibrillation threshold in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The use of recreational drugs has been observed to have deleterious effects on the heart. The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of substance abuse on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who had undergone ICD placement at a tertiary university medical center in Detroit, Michigan. Subjects were identified based on self-reported drug use and placed into one of the three groups: controls, cocaine, and other illicit drugs. Due to a disparity in race among groups, the main analysis on DFT value was conducted on African-American patients only. Furthermore, exploratory analyses were conducted to investigate the effects of marijuana use and race on DFT values.

RESULTS

A history of cocaine use (n = 17) significantly increases DFT among African Americans (17.3 ± 8 Joule [J] vs 12.5 ± 5 J in cases vs controls, P < 0.05), while previous use of marijuana does not significantly influence DFT. African-American patients with a history of illicit drug use had indications for ICD implantation at an earlier age and that within the control (nondrug using) group; African Americans (n = 73) had higher DFT compared to Caucasians (n = 32), (14.5 ± 0.5 J vs 9.7 ± 0.6 J, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A history of cocaine use in African Americans with ICD is a risk factor for high DFT and race itself (being African American) may be a risk for high DFT. Use of high-energy ICDs and other DFT lowering techniques may be considered for patients who have used or continue to use cocaine or in whom DFT testing cannot be performed at the time of implantation.