Why the study?
Does prompted versus routine follow-up DFT testing yield different rates of clinically significant changes requiring device reprogramming or revision in congenital heart disease and pediatric ICD recipients?
Population
64 patients with congenital heart disease or pediatric status who underwent 79 follow-up defibrillation…
Comparison
Prompted follow-up DFT testing vs Routine follow-up DFT testing
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
Mean postimplant duration of 32 +/- 23 months for routine…
Authors
Loading...
Supports prompted DFT testing in pediatric/congenital ICD recipients; leaves open whether routine testing improves outcomes.
Does prompted versus routine follow-up DFT testing yield different rates of clinically significant changes requiring device reprogramming or revision in congenital heart disease and pediatric ICD recipients?
Follow-up DFT testing, particularly when clinically prompted, has a high yield for detecting abnormalities requiring device reprogramming or revision in congenital heart disease and pediatric populations.
Stephenson et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: