Why the study?
Should defibrillation safety margin testing be omitted during ICD implantation?
Should defibrillation safety margin testing be omitted during ICD implantation?
The editorial argues against the routine omission of defibrillation safety margin testing during ICD implantation, emphasizing the need for assurance of device function.
n increasing number of cardiac electrophysiologists are fortunate not to have endured the challenges of implanting monophasic waveform cardioverterdefibrillators (ICDs). With early technology, ICDs were routinely tested during the implantation procedure and then again before discharge, with a not-infrequent need for system revisions. With transvenous, high-output devices and biphasic shocks, the number of patients who have an inadequate defibrillation safety margin (DSM) has become so small that questions have been raised about the need for testing at all. However, given the fact that ICDs are designed to be potentially lifesaving, it is incumbent on physicians to obtain a high level of assurance that the device will work as designed if needed. It also should be noted that all clinical trials of ICD therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death incorporated testing for the adequacy of the DSM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anne B. Curtis (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: