Why the study?
Does the recovery time (TR) from ICD shock electrograms correlate with the most vulnerable intervals and Tpeak in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Does the recovery time (TR) from ICD shock electrograms correlate with the most vulnerable intervals and Tpeak in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
The recovery time of shock electrograms closely approximates the surface Tpeak, suggesting the upper limit of vulnerability method could be automated in ICDs.
TR approximates Tpeak for potential ICD automation of vulnerability timing; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: The upper limit of vulnerability (ULV) correlates with the defibrillation threshold and can be determined with 1 episode of ventricular fibrillation (VF). To automate the ULV in an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), the most vulnerable intervals must be identified from an ICD electrogram rather than the latest-peaking surface T wave (Tpeak). We hypothesized that the recovery time (TR), defined as the maximum derivative (dV/dt) of the T wave of the shock electrogram, correlates with the most vulnerable intervals. METHODS AND RESULTS: We determined ULV, defibrillation threshold, and the most vulnerable intervals in 25 patients at ICD implantation. The ULV was the weakest T-wave shock that did not induce VF. The most vulnerable intervals were the ones associated with the strongest shocks that induced VF. Telemetered shock electrograms were stored on digital tape and differentiated offline to measure TR. Tpeak and TR were highly correlated (Tpeak-TR=-2+/-11 ms; rho=0.80, P<0.001). At least 1 most vulnerable interval timed between -20 ms and +20 ms relative to Tpeak in all patients and between -40 ms and +20 ms relative to TR in 96% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The recovery time of shock electrograms provides accurate information about global repolarization. TR closely approximates Tpeak. The ULV method may be automated in an ICD by timing T-wave shocks relative to TR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Swerdlow et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: