Key result
Implantation of ICDs without defibrillation threshold testing resulted in similar rates of overall mortality (16% vs 20%) and sudden cardiac death (0.6% vs 3%) compared to routine testing at 2 years.
Why the study?
Does omitting defibrillation threshold testing during ICD implantation affect mortality or arrhythmic outcomes in patients with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=291)
Yes
Does omitting defibrillation threshold testing during ICD implantation affect mortality or arrhythmic outcomes in patients with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 16% vs 20%
p-value: p=ns
Omitting defibrillation threshold testing during primary prevention ICD implantation in ischemic cardiomyopathy appears safe, with no significant differences in mortality or arrhythmic outcomes at 2 years.
Omitting DFT testing was associated with similar outcomes in ischemic cardiomyopathy; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Even though the intraoperative threshold testing of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) may cause hemodynamic impairment or be unfeasible, it is still considered required standard practice at the time of implantation. We compared the outcome of ICD recipients who underwent defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) with that of patients in whom no testing was performed. METHODS: A total of 291 subjects with ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy received transvenous ICDs between January 2000 and December 2004 in five Italian cardiology centers. In two centers, DFT was routinely performed in 137 patients (81% men; mean age 69+/-9 years; mean ejection fraction 26+/-4%) (DFT group), while three centers never performed DFT in 154 patients (90% men; mean age 69+/-9 years; mean ejection fraction 27+/-5%) (no-DFT group). RESULTS: We compared total mortality, total cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), and spontaneous episodes of ventricular arrhythmia (sustained ventricular tachycardia, VT, and ventricular fibrillation, VF) between these groups 2 years after implantation (median 23 months, 25th-75th percentile, 12-44 months). On comparing the DFT and no-DFT groups, we found an overall mortality rate of 20% versus 16%, cardiovascular mortality of 13% versus 10%, SCD of 3% versus 0.6%, VT incidence of 8% versus 10%, and VF incidence of 6% versus 4% (no significant difference in any comparison). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in the incidence of clinical outcomes considered emerged between no-DFT and DFT groups. These results should be confirmed in larger prospective studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bianchi et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (n=291). No defibrillation threshold testing (no-DFT) vs. Defibrillation threshold testing (DFT) was evaluated on Total mortality (p=ns). Implantation of ICDs without defibrillation threshold testing resulted in similar rates of overall mortality (16% vs 20%) and sudden cardiac death (0.6% vs 3%) compared to routine testing at 2 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: