Key result
Defibrillation testing during ICD implantation is well-tolerated, failing in ~4% of patients.
Why the study?
Does defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation identify patients with ineffective safety margins requiring intervention?
Cohort (n=634)
Does defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation identify patients with ineffective safety margins requiring intervention?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Routine defibrillation testing during ICD implantation identifies a small subset of patients (4%) with ineffective safety margins who require additional interventions like subcutaneous electrode arrays.
AIM: To test of the implantable-cardioverter-defibrillator is done at the time of implantation. We investigate if any testing should be performed. METHODS: All consecutive patients between January 2006 and December 2008 undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation/replacement (a total of 634 patients) were included in the retrospective study. LVEF < 20% and incomplete revascularisation in patients with CAD had no impact on SMT. CONCLUSION: Defibrillation testing is well-tolerated. An ineffective SMT occurred in 4% and two third of those needed implantation of a subcutaneous electrode array to pass a SMT > 10 J.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roos et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in ICD implantation/replacement (n=634). Defibrillation testing (SMT) was evaluated on Ineffective SMT. Defibrillation testing during ICD implantation was well-tolerated, with ineffective testing occurring in 4% of patients, two-thirds of whom required a subcutaneous electrode array.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: