Advertisement

Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators: Is Defibrillation Threshold Testing Still Necessary in all Patients?

  • Franco Naccarella
  • Fabio Iachetti
  • Angela Wang
  • Cristina Felicani
  • Giovannina Lepera
  • Elvira Moccia
  • Leilei Sun
  • Luca Casari
  • Giorgio Morselli
  • Patrizia Capogreco
  • Gerald Naccarelli
Conference paper

Abstract

The defibrillation threshold (DFT) is the minimum amount of energy required to reliably defibrillate the heart during potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Knowledge of the patient’s DFT allows the physician and other clinicians to be sure that the ICD is programmed to deliver sufficiently high-energy shocks to defibrillate the heart.

Keywords

Lead System Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Defibrillation Threshold Defibrillator Therapy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kenny T (2006) The nuts and bolts of ICD therapy. Blackwell Futura, Oxford, pp 26–36Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pacifico A et al (2002) Implantable defibrillator therapy: a clinical guide. Kluwer, The Netherlands, pp 113–145Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellenbogen KA, Wood MA (2005) Cardiac pacing and ICD, 4th edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 387–394Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singer I, Lang D (1996) The defibrillation threshold. In: Knoll MW, Lehmann MH (eds) Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy. The engineering clinical interface Norwell. Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands, pp 89–129Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shorofsky SR, Peters RW, Rashba EJ, Gold MR (2004) Comparison of step-down and binary search algorithms for determination of defibrillation threshold in humans. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 27:218–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malkin RA, Herre JM, McGowen L et al (1999) A four-shock Bayesian up-down estimator of the 80% effective defibrillation dose. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 10:973–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeigler VL et al (2001) Implantable cardioverter defibrillators. In: Zeigler VL, Gillette PC (eds) Practical management of pediatric cardiac arrhythmias. Futura, Armonk, NY, pp 350, 359, 409Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swerdlow CD (2001) Implantation of cardioverter defibrillators without induction of ventricular fibrillation. Circulation 103:2159–2164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feder (2007) FDA panel unimpressed by heart device. The New York Times 3/2-2007 (also see Corbett-Dooren The Wall Street Journal 3/2-2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guo JH (2006) Critical comments on: Kenny T (2006) The nuts and bolts of ICD therapy. Blackwell Futura, Armonk, NY, pp 26–27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shorofsky SR, Gold MR (1996) Effects of waveform and polarity on defibrillation thresholds in humans, using a transveous lead system. Am J Cardiol 78:313–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olsovsky MR, Shorofsky SR, Gold MR (1998) Effect of shock polarity on biphasic defibrillation thresholds using an active pectoral lead system. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 9:350–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bardy GH, Johnson G, Poole JE et al (1993) A simplified, single-lead unipolar transvenous cardioversion-defibrillation system. Circulation 88:543–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gold MR, Foster AH, Shorofsky SR (1996) Effects of an active pectoral-pulse generator shell of defibrillation efficacy with a transvenous lead system. Am J Cardiol 78:540–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gold MR, Olsovsky MR, Pelini MA et al (1998) Comparison of single-and dualcoil active pectoral defibrillation lead systems. J Am Coll Cardiol 31:1391–1394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higgins SL, Alexander DC, Kuypers CJ, Brewster SA (1995) The subcutaneous array: a new lead adjunct for the transvenous ICD to lower defibrillation thresholds. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 18:1540–1548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Epstein AE, Ellenbogen KA, Kirk KA et al (1992) Clinical characteristics and out come of patients with high defibrillation thresholds: a multicenter study. Circulation 86:1206–1216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gold MR, Higgins S, Klein R et al (2002) Efficacy and temporal stability of reduced safety margins for ventricular defibrillation. Primary results from the Low Energy Safety Study (LESS) Circulation 105:2043–2048PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Iachetti F, Naccarella F, Naccarelli G et al (2007) Remote monitoring systems of implanted devices: critical evaluation in US, Europe and Italy. MESPE Journal (in press)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raitt MH, Johnson G, Dolack GL et al (1995) Clinical predictors of the defibrillation threshold with unipolar implantable defibrillation system. J Am Coll Cardiol 25:1576–1583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hodgson DM, Olsovsky MR, Shorofsky SR et al (2002) Clinical predictors of the defibrillation thresholds with an active pectoral pulse generator lead system. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol 25:408–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tokano T, Pelosi F, Flemming M et al (1998) Long-term evaluation of the ventricular defibrillation energy requirement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 9:916–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Franco Naccarella
    • 1
  • Fabio Iachetti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Angela Wang
    • 3
  • Cristina Felicani
    • 4
  • Giovannina Lepera
    • 1
  • Elvira Moccia
    • 5
  • Leilei Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Luca Casari
    • 6
  • Giorgio Morselli
    • 1
  • Patrizia Capogreco
    • 1
  • Gerald Naccarelli
    • 7
  1. 1.Cardiology DepartmentAzienda USL of BolognaBologna
  2. 2.TELBIOSScienfic Park S. Raffaele HospitalMilanItaly
  3. 3.University of BeijingChina
  4. 4.Internal Medicine Department Policlinico Sant’ OrsolaBologna
  5. 5.Institute of Forensic Medicine Gemelli University Hospital RomeRome
  6. 6.TECHNOCHIM ROCHE MilanModenaItaly
  7. 7.Penn State UniversityHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations