Key result
ICD defibrillation testing shows no significant difference in HF hospitalization or mortality versus no testing.
Why the study?
Does intraoperative defibrillation testing during ICD implantation improve outcomes or safety in patients with heart failure and severe left ventricular dysfunction?
RCT (n=145)
Does intraoperative defibrillation testing during ICD implantation improve outcomes or safety in patients with heart failure and severe left ventricular dysfunction?
Hazard Ratio: 0.53 (95% CI 0.21–1.31)
Absolute Event Rate: 19% vs 10%
p-value: p=0.14
In patients with heart failure and severe LV dysfunction, omitting defibrillation testing during ICD implantation did not increase perioperative complications and was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in death or HF hospitalization.
Supports omitting routine defibrillation testing in severe LV dysfunction; extends evidence favoring de-implementation but leaves confirmation to larger trials.
INTRODUCTION: The need to perform defibrillation testing (DT) at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) insertion is controversial. In the absence of randomized trials, some regions now perform more than half of ICD implants without DT. METHODS: During the last year of enrolment in the Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial, a substudy randomized patients to ICD implantation with versus without DT. RESULTS: Among 252 patients screened, 145 were enrolled; 75 randomized to DT and 70 to no DT. Patients were similar in terms of age (65.9 ± 9.3 years vs 67.9 ± 8.9 years); LVEF (24.7 ± 4.6% vs 23.6 ± 4.6%), QRS width (154.8 ± 23.5 vs 155.8 ± 23.6 ms), and history of atrial fibrillation (5% vs 6%). All 68 patients in the DT arm tested according to the protocol achieved a successful DT (≤25 J); 96% without requiring any system modification. No patient experienced perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), intubation or unplanned ICU stay. The length of hospital stay was not prolonged in the DT group: 20.2 ± 26.3 hours versus 21.3 ± 23.0 hours, P = 0.79. One patient in the DT arm had a failed appropriate shock and no patient suffered an arrhythmic death. The composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 10% of patients in the no-DT arm and 19% of patients in the DT arm (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.21-1.31, P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, perioperative complications, failed appropriate shocks, and arrhythmic death were all uncommon regardless of DT. There was a nonsignificant increase in the risk of death or HF hospitalization with DT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Healey et al. (2012) conducted an RCT in Heart failure and severe left ventricular dysfunction (n=145). Defibrillation testing vs. No defibrillation testing was evaluated on Composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.21-1.31, p=0.14). Defibrillation testing during ICD implantation showed a nonsignificant increase in heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality compared to no testing (19% vs 10%; HR 0.53; P=0.14).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: