(Circulation. 1997;96:1217-1223.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
Probability of Successful Defibrillation at Multiples of the Defibrillation Energy Requirement in Patients With an Implantable Defibrillator
From the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Ctr, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Correspondence to S. Adam Strickberger, MD, University of Michigan Medical Center, 1500 E Medical Center Dr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0022.
Background The probability of successful defibrillation has been determined in normal animals but not in patients undergoing defibrillator implantation. Therefore, the purpose of this prospective study was to determine the probability of successful defibrillation in humans on the basis of a step-down defibrillation energy requirement.
Methods and Results Fifty-three consecutive patients underwent five separate inductions of ventricular fibrillation after the defibrillation energy requirement was determined with the use of small decrements and a step-down protocol (20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, and 0.8 J). The first shock energy for defibrillation was either 1.0, 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, or 2.0 times the defibrillation energy requirement, and the likelihoods of successful defibrillation were 70±27%, 84±12%, 86±25%, 80±29%, and 88±32%, respectively (P=.03). The frequencies of uniformly successful defibrillation (5 of 5 defibrillation attempts) were 30%, 27%, 60%, 64%, and 73%, respectively (P=.01). Seven patients in whom the defibrillation energy requirement was <4 J had an overall rate of successful defibrillation of 54±20% compared with 86±20% in the remaining 47 patients (P=.002). The likelihood of successful defibrillation at twice the defibrillation energy requirement was 98% in the 46 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of >4 J and 67% in the 7 patients with a defibrillation energy requirement of <4 J (P=.17). An absolute safety margin of 7 J was associated with a 96% probability of successful defibrillation.
Conclusions The probability of successful defibrillation is 70% at the defibrillation energy requirement. The probability plateaus at 88%, at twice the defibrillation energy requirement. A 96% probability of successful defibrillation is achieved at an absolute safety margin of 7 J, and a 98% success rate is achieved at energies that are twice the defibrillation energy requirement if the defibrillation energy requirement is >4 J. If the defibrillation energy requirement is <4 J, larger multiples of the defibrillation energy requirement are needed to achieve a high probability of successful defibrillation.
Key Words: fibrillation • defibrillation • implantable defibrillator • arrhythmias
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  B. Lemke, T. Lawo, M. Zarse, A. Lubinski, U. Kreutzer, J. Mueller, A. Schuchert, S. Mitzenheim, D. Danilovic, T. Deneke, et al. Patient-tailored implantable cardioverter defibrillator testing using the upper limit of vulnerability: the TULIP protocol Europace, August 1, 2008; 10(8): 907 - 913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Day, B. Olshansky, S. Moore, S. Brown, K. Q. Stolen, D. R. Lerew, and for the INTRINSIC RV Study Investigators High defibrillation energy requirements are encountered rarely with modern dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems Europace, March 1, 2008; 10(3): 347 - 350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Hohnloser, P. Dorian, R. Roberts, M. Gent, C. W. Israel, E. Fain, J. Champagne, and S. J. Connolly Effect of Amiodarone and Sotalol on Ventricular Defibrillation Threshold: The Optimal Pharmacological Therapy in Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients (OPTIC) Trial Circulation, July 11, 2006; 114(2): 104 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A.M.J. Theuns, T. Szili-Torok, and L. J. Jordaens Defibrillation efficacy testing: Long-term follow-up and mortality Europace, January 1, 2005; 7(6): 509 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. A. Strickberger and G. J. Klein Is defibrillation testing required for defibrillator implantation? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 7, 2004; 44(1): 88 - 91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Rashba, M. R. Olsovsky, S. R. Shorofsky, M. M. Kirk, R. W. Peters, and M. R. Gold Temporal decline in defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral lead system J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 2001; 38(4): 1150 - 1155. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Schulte, J. Sperzel, J. Carlsson, T. Schwarz, W. Ehrlich, H. F. Pitschner, and J. Neuzner Dual-coil vs single-coil active pectoral implantable defibrillator lead systems: defibrillation energy requirements and probability of defibrillation success at multiples of the defibrillation energy requirements Europace, January 1, 2001; 3(3): 177 - 180. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Windecker, R. E. Ideker, V. J. Plumb, G. N. Kay, G. P. Walcott, and A. E. Epstein The influence of ventricular fibrillation duration on defibrillation efficacy using biphasic waveforms in humans J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 1, 1999; 33(1): 33 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. Gold, S. Higgins, R. Klein, F. R. Gilliam, H. Kopelman, S. Hessen, J. Payne, S. A. Strickberger, D. Breiter, and S. Hahn Efficacy and Temporal Stability of Reduced Safety Margins for Ventricular Defibrillation: Primary Results From the Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) Circulation, April 30, 2002; 105(17): 2043 - 2048. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|