This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wood, M. A. Articles by Ellenbogen, K. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wood, M. A. Articles by Ellenbogen, K. A. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB AMIODARONE HYDROCHLORIDE Medline Plus Health Information Pacemakers and Implantable Defibrillators Related Collections Ablation/ICD/surgery Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs

(Circulation. 2006;114:98-100.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Follow-Up Defibrillator Testing for Antiarrhythmic Drugs

Probability and Uncertainty

Mark A. Wood, MD; Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD

From the Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Va.

Correspondence to Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, Medical College of Virginia, PO Box 980053, Richmond, VA 23298-0053. E-mail kellenbogen@pol.net or kaellenb@vcu.edu

Key Words: Editorials • death, sudden • defibrillation • tachyarrhythmias • tachycardia

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Probabilism: The doctrine that probability is a sufficient basis for belief or action.

Uncertainty: The condition of being in doubt.

It has been rigorously demonstrated that implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) prolong life as primary and secondary prevention therapies for the management of malignant ventricular tachyarrhythmias. Despite 20 years of clinical use, however, there exist many unresolved issues in ICD therapy.¹ Even the most fundamental aspect of ICD implantation, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, is not standardized. Determining a DFT is fundamentally different from determining a pacing threshold.^1,2 The latter is essentially a fixed value at a given combination of pulse width and voltage. Clinically, there is a sharp demarcation of pacing voltages that capture and those that do not. In contrast, defibrillation is characterized as a probabilistic event based on our current understanding. The dose-response curve for defibrillation is described as sigmoidal in shape with a higher likelihood of success at higher energies.^1,2 The possibility of an "outlier" event, defibrillation at low energy, or failure at higher energy remains present. Defining a true defibrillation threshold, ie, that energy above which defibrillation will always succeed and below which it will always fail, is not the goal of defibrillation testing in the clinical setting. Instead, the clinical approach to ICD implantation defines an energy level delivered from a device that has a reasonable likelihood of success. The physician then programs this energy plus an additional safety margin that he or she trusts will compensate for the probabilistic nature of defibrillation. There are . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Patel, G.-X. Yan, D. Kocovic, and P. R. Kowey Should Catheter Ablation be the Preferred Therapy for Reducing ICD Shocks?: Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Versus Drugs for Preventing ICD Shocks: Role of Adjuvant Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol, December 1, 2009; 2(6): 705 - 712. [Full Text] [PDF]