This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Curtis, A. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Curtis, A. B. Related Collections Electrophysiology Ablation/ICD/surgery Related Article

(Circulation. 2007;115:2370-2372.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Defibrillator Implantation Without Induction of Ventricular Fibrillation

Good Enough?

Anne B. Curtis, MD

From the University of South Florida, Tampa.

Correspondence to Anne B. Curtis, MD, University of South Florida, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Tampa, FL 33612. E-mail acurtis@hsc.usf.edu

Key Words: Editorials • arrhythmia • cardioversion • defibrillation • fibrillation • heart arrest • tachyarrhythmias

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

An increasing number of cardiac electrophysiologists are fortunate not to have endured the challenges of implanting monophasic waveform cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). With early technology, ICDs were routinely tested during the implantation procedure and then again before discharge, with a not-infrequent need for system revisions. With transvenous, high-output devices and biphasic shocks, the number of patients who have an inadequate defibrillation safety margin (DSM) has become so small that questions have been raised about the need for testing at all. However, given the fact that ICDs are designed to be potentially lifesaving, it is incumbent on physicians to obtain a high level of assurance that the device will work as designed if needed. It also should be noted that all clinical trials of ICD therapy for the prevention of sudden cardiac death incorporated testing for the adequacy of the DSM.

Article p 2382

Despite the fact that we usually call the sequence of induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF) and defibrillation at different energies in the electrophysiology laboratory "defibrillation threshold testing," it is, in fact, usually a DSM that is determined.¹ Particularly with the typical protocol of 2 defibrillations at a minimum of 10 J below the maximum output of the device, a true probability curve for defibrillation success cannot be constructed. Regardless, this protocol is well accepted in practice. An alternative approach is upper limit of vulnerability testing, which closely correlates with the defibrillation threshold.² This method requires only 1 initiation of VF, but strictly performed, multiple shocks may need to be . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Issue Highlights
Circulation 2007 115: 2369. [Extract] [Full Text]