Shorofsky, Stephen R.

Background— Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator system efficacy is tested at implant by induction of ventricular fibrillation (VF). Defibrillation safety margin can be assessed without VF induction using upper limit of vulnerability methods, but these methods have required manual determination of T-wave timing. Methods and Results— To test the feasibility of an inductionless system of implant testing, a multicenter prospective study of an automated vulnerability safety margin system was conducted, which measured T-wave timing using an intracardiac electrogram during a ventricular pacing train. The system delivered up to 4 T-wave shocks of 18 J. Lack of VF induction by all 4 shocks was considered evidence of defibrillation adequacy. Patients subsequently underwent conventional defibrillation testing to meet a standard implant criterion. The 95% lower CI for defibrillation success at 25 J for noninduced patients was found using Bayesian statistics. Sixty patients were enrolled at 6 centers. Vulnerability testing and defibrillation success results were obtained from 54 patients. Vulnerability testing induced VF in 10 (19%) patients, of whom 2 required system revision. All patients not induced by vulnerability testing were successfully defibrillated twice at ≤25 J. The Bayesian credible interval was 97% to 100% for the population success rate of defibrillation at 25 J for automated vulnerability safety margin noninduced patients. Conclusions— An automated system identified all patients who failed conventional safety margin testing, while inducing only 19% of patients. Although limited by sample size, this study suggests the feasibility of automated implant testing that substantially reduces the need for VF induction in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Background— Delivery of inappropriate shocks caused by misdetection of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) remains a substantial complication of implanted cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) therapy. Whether use of optimally programmed dual-chamber ICDs lowers this risk compared with that in single-chamber ICDs is not clear. Methods and Results— Subjects with a clinical indication for ICD (n=400) at 27 participating centers received dual-chamber ICDs and were randomly assigned to strictly defined optimal single- or dual-chamber detection in a single-blind manner. Programming minimized ventricular pacing. The primary end point was the proportion of SVT episodes inappropriately detected from the time of programming until crossover or end of study. On a per-episode basis, 42% of the episodes in the single-chamber arm and 69% of the episodes in the dual-chamber arm were due to SVT. Mortality (3.5% in both groups) and early study withdrawal (14% single-chamber, 11% dual-chamber) were similar in both groups. The rate of inappropriate detection of SVT was 39.5% in the single-chamber detection arm compared with 30.9% in the dual-chamber arm. The odds of inappropriate detection were decreased by almost half with the use of the dual-chamber detection enhancements (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.94; P =0.03). Conclusions— Dual-chamber ICDs, programmed to optimize detection enhancements and to minimize ventricular pacing, significantly decrease inappropriate detection.