Key result
In an unselected population of patients undergoing ICD implantation, performing defibrillation testing was not associated with improved survival or higher first shock efficacy compared to withholding testing.
Why the study?
Does defibrillation testing at the time of ICD insertion improve shock efficacy or reduce mortality in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Observational (n=545)
Yes
Does defibrillation testing at the time of ICD insertion improve shock efficacy or reduce mortality in patients undergoing ICD implantation?
Defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation does not appear to improve first shock efficacy or overall mortality compared to withholding testing.
BACKGROUND: Ventricular fibrillation is routinely induced during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator insertion to assess defibrillator performance, but this strategy is experiencing a progressive decline. We aimed to assess the efficacy of defibrillator therapies and long-term outcome in a cohort of patients that underwent defibrillator implantation with and without defibrillation testing. METHODS: Retrospective observational series of consecutive patients undergoing initial defibrillator insertion or generator replacement. We registered spontaneous ventricular arrhythmias incidence and therapy efficacy, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients underwent defibrillator implantation (111 with and 434 without defibrillation testing). After 19 (range 9-31) months of follow-up, the death rate per observation year (4% vs. 4%; p = 0.91) and the rate of patients with defibrillator-treated ventricular arrhythmic events per observation year (with test: 10% vs. without test: 12%; p = 0.46) were similar. The generalized estimating equations-adjusted first shock probability of success in patients with test (95%; CI 88-100%) vs. without test (98%; CI 96-100%; p = 0.42) and the proportion of successful antitachycardia therapies (with test: 87% vs. without test: 80%; p = 0.35) were similar between groups. There was no difference in the annualized rate of failed first shock per patient and per shocked patient between groups (5% vs. 4%; p = 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, that included an unselected population of patients with a defibrillator, no difference was found in overall mortality, first shock efficacy and rate of failed shocks regardless of whether defibrillation testing was performed or not.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hadid et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion or generator replacement (n=545). Defibrillation testing vs. No defibrillation testing was evaluated on Death rate per observation year (p=0.91). In an unselected population of patients undergoing ICD implantation, performing defibrillation testing was not associated with improved survival or higher first shock efficacy compared to withholding testing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: