Key result
Single ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone programming in an ICD led to inappropriate shocks for sinus tachycardia, resulting in shock-refractory VF and patient death.
Case Report (n=1)
Highlights the fatal risk of single VF zone programming without SVT discrimination in primary prevention ICDs.
Single VF zone programming risks fatal inappropriate shocks; case reports leave open manufacturer-specific optimization for prospective validation.
We report a case of inappropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy due to single ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone programming leading to patient death. A remote transmission was received from a patient with a cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator showing sinus tachycardia in the VF detection zone initiating inappropriate shocks and resulting in shock refractory VF. This case report highlights the importance of manufacturer specific ICD programming. In devices without discrimination in the VF zone, a higher rate single VF detection zone and/or addition of a ventricular tachycardia zone with supraventricular tachycardia discrimination should be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Griffiths et al. (2021) conducted a case report in Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) (n=1). Single ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone programming was evaluated on Patient death due to shock refractory VF. Single ventricular fibrillation (VF) zone programming in an ICD led to inappropriate shocks for sinus tachycardia, resulting in shock-refractory VF and patient death.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: