Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Systems—A Simple Issue?

Background: The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) system. To address the q...

Verfasser: Frommeyer, Gerrit
Zumhagen, Sven
Dechering, Dirk G.
Larbig, Robert
Bettin, Markus
Löher, Andreas
Köbe, Julia
Reinke, Florian Johann
Eckardt, Lars
FB/Einrichtung:FB 05: Medizinische Fakultät
Dokumenttypen:Artikel
Medientypen:Text
Erscheinungsdatum:2016
Publikation in MIAMI:24.03.2016
Datum der letzten Änderung:16.04.2019
Angaben zur Ausgabe:[Electronic ed.]
Quelle:Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) 5 (2016) 3, e003181, 1-7
Schlagwörter:defibrillator testing; device complications; implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, subcutaneous; sudden cardiac death
Fachgebiet (DDC):610: Medizin und Gesundheit
Lizenz:CC BY-NC 4.0
Sprache:English
Anmerkungen:Finanziert durch den Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2015/2016 der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster (WWU Münster).
Format:PDF-Dokument
ISSN:2047-9980
URN:urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-86249707176
Weitere Identifikatoren:DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003181
Permalink:https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-86249707176
Onlinezugriff:jaha_2016_5_3_e003181.pdf

Background: The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S‐ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard‐of‐care prospective single‐center S‐ICD registry. // Methods and Results: In the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S‐ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66–0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22–0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of