Key result
Defibrillation threshold testing at implant did not significantly affect first shock efficacy for terminating VT/VF compared to omitting testing (88.4% vs 94.1%; P=0.97).
Why the study?
Does defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing at implant improve first shock efficacy in patients receiving subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators?
Cohort (n=178)
No
Does defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing at implant improve first shock efficacy in patients receiving subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators?
Omitting routine defibrillation threshold testing during subcutaneous ICD implantation does not appear to compromise the effectiveness of the device's first shock for terminating VT/VF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Omitting defibrillation threshold testing yields comparable first-shock efficacy; hypothesis-generating level 5 data leave open need for routine testing.
BACKGROUND: Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is recommended with the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (SICD). OBJECTIVE: To describe first shock efficacy for appropriate SICD therapies stratified by the presence of implant DFT testing. METHODS: We reviewed all patients receiving SICDs at our institution and stratified them based on whether implant DFT testing was performed. Appropriate shocks were reviewed to see if ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) terminated with a single shock. First shock efficacy was stratified by implant DFT status. RESULTS: 178 patients implanted with SICDs and followed in our center were included in this study. Of these, 135 (76%) underwent DFT testing (DFT (+) group). In the DFT (+), 80 appropriate shocks were needed to treat 69 episodes of VT/VF. The first shock was effective in 61 out of 69 episodes (88.4%), whereas multiple shocks were required to terminate VT/VF in the remaining eight episodes. Among 43 patients without implant DFT testing (DFT (-) group), 20 appropriate shocks to treat 17 episodes of VT/VF occurred in seven patients. VT/VF was successfully terminated with the first shock in 16 out of 17 episodes (first shock efficacy 94.1 %). There was no significant difference in first shock effectiveness between those with and without implant DFT testing (P = 0.97). CONCLUSION: A strategy that omits DFT testing at implant did not appear to compromise the effectiveness of the SICD. These data suggest that routine DFT testing at SICD implant might not be necessary. Randomized trials are needed to confirm this finding.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peddareddy et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Patients receiving subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (SICDs) (n=178). Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing at implant vs. Omission of DFT testing at implant was evaluated on First shock efficacy for terminating VT/VF (p=0.97). Defibrillation threshold testing at implant did not significantly affect first shock efficacy for terminating VT/VF compared to omitting testing (88.4% vs 94.1%; P=0.97).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: