DFT Testing (dft + testing)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Is Defibrillation Testing Still Necessary?

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 4 2008
A Decision Analysis, Markov Model
Objective: To assess the impact of defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing of implanted cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) on survival. Background: DFT testing is generally performed during implantation of ICDs to assess sensing and termination of ventricular fibrillation. It is common clinical practice to defibrillate ventricular fibrillation twice at an output at least 10 J below the maximum output of the device, providing a 10 J safety margin. However, there are few data regarding impact of DFT testing on outcomes. Methods: Decision analysis and Monte Carlo simulation were used to assess expected outcomes of DFT testing. Survival of a hypothetical cohort of patients was assessed according to two strategies,routine DFT testing at time of ICD implant versus no DFT testing. Assumptions in the model were varied over a range of reasonable values to assess outcomes under a variety of scenarios. Results: Five-year survival with DFT and no-DFT strategies were similar at 59.72% and 59.36%, respectively. The results were not sensitive to changing risk estimates for arrhythmia incidence and safety margin. Results of the Monte Carlo simulation were qualitatively similar to the base case scenario and consistent with a small and nonsignificant survival advantage with routine DFT testing. Conclusions: The impact of DFT testing on 5-year survival in ICD patients, if it exists, is small. Survival appears higher with DFT testing as long as annual risk of lethal arrhythmia or the risk of a narrow safety margin is at least 5%, although the incremental benefit is marginal and 95% confidence intervals cross zero. A prospective randomized study of DFT testing in modern devices is warranted. [source]


The Effect of Induction Method on Defibrillation Threshold and Ventricular Fibrillation Cycle Length

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 4 2006
ENDRE ZIMA M.D.
Introduction: Since no clinical data are available on the comparison of the "shock on T-wave" and "high frequency burst" ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction modes during defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing, we aimed to compare these two methods during implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Methods: The DFT was determined with a step-down protocol using biphasic, anodal polarity (100%, 40%, 20% voltage control) shocks. Patients were randomized: VF was induced by 50 Hz burst in group B (n = 45) and T-wave shock in group T (n = 41). The DFT was defined as the lowest energy level that terminated VF; confirmed DFT (DFTc) was defined as the minimal energy level that consecutively terminated VF twice. Success rate of DFTc was calculated during an intraindividual test for the alternate induction method. Results: A total of 546 episodes of VF were induced: n = 278 (B) vs n = 268 (T). Incidence of VT during inductions was 9.9% (B) vs 2.7% (T), P < 0.05. Neither the DFT, 8.8 4.0 J (B) vs 9.7 4.2 J (T), nor the DFTc, 10.6 5.1 J (B) vs 10.8 4.2 J (T), proved to be significantly different. A significant correlation was found between VF cycle length (CL) and the concomitant DFT (r = 0.298, P < 0.05) in group T only. Subgroup analysis of patients under chronic class III antiarrhythmic treatment showed no increase of the DFT in either group and significantly lower incidence of VT induction in group T regardless of antiarrhythmic treatment. Conclusion: The DFT and the VFCL proved to be independent of the VF induction method. The T-wave shock was more unlikely to induce VT during DFT testing. These results suggest that both methods are reliable in DFT determination, though T-wave shock application is a more reliable method for DFT testing. [source]


Defibrillation Threshold Testing: Tradition or Necessity?

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 5 2009
CHRISTOF KOLB M.D.
Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have become an essential tool for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Traditionally, defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing is part of the "lege artis" ICD implantation. Taking into consideration that the absolute mortality reduction in primary prevention trials is estimated around 8% and in secondary prevention trials around 7%, it is only in these patients that an acceptable DFT is expected to affect survival. Using a high-energy ICD, the likelihood of obtaining an inadequate DFT is about 2.5%. Thus, the number of patients needed to be subjected to DFT testing in order to avert one potential death is about 500. Application of antitachycardia pacing for rapid ventricular tachycardias further reduces the percentage of patients dependent on reliable ICD defibrillation capability. Thus, the mortality rate that can be prevented by DFT testing is below 0.2%. This contrasts a 0.4% risk of life-threatening complications and a low but not negligible mortality risk owed to the procedure. Although in light of these data the balance between DFT-related risk and benefit seems to tilt toward the former, insights gained from prospective randomized trials will clarify whether the abandonment of routine DFT testing can be claimed on a rightful basis. [source]


The Impact of Catecholamines on Defibrillation Threshold in Patients with Implanted Cardioverter Defibrillators

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 11 2005
JAMES S. KALUS
Objectives: To determine the effect of physiologic catecholamine concentrations on the defibrillation threshold (DFT) in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators. Background: DFT is the minimum energy delivered by an implanted cardioverter defibrillator that successfully converts ventricular fibrillation. DFT testing is performed under conscious sedation. Since activities of daily living enhance sympathetic tone substantially over these nadir levels, it is important to explore the impact of catecholamines on DFT. Methods: In this double-blind study, we determined DFT by the step-down method. Patients (n = 50) were stratified by beta-blocker use and then randomized to a 7-minute infusion of epinephrine, norepinephrine, or placebo. After study infusion, DFT testing was repeated. Changes in DFT with different study medications were compared. Subgroup analyses of the effects of catecholamines on DFT, based on beta-blocker use, were also performed. Results: Norepinephrine reduced DFT from baseline measurements by 22.6% (P = 0.008). Neither epinephrine nor placebo impacted DFT (P = 0.999, P = 0.317, respectively). In the subgroup analyses, DFT was reduced with norepinephrine regardless of beta-blocker use, while epinephrine reduced DFT among those receiving beta-blockers. No change in DFT was observed in either of the placebo subgroups. Conclusions: Elevation of plasma norepinephrine concentrations reduces the DFT, while elevations in epinephrine had no effect. Norepinephrine seems to reduce DFT regardless of beta-blocker therapy but epinephrine's effects are beta-blocker dependent. [source]


Initial Experience with an Active-Fixation Defibrillation Electrode and the Presence of Nonphysiological Sensing

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 12 2001
RAHUL N. DOSHI
DOSHI, R.N., et al.: Initial Experience with an Active-Fixation Defibrillation Electrode and the Presence of Nonphysiological Sensing. Nonphysiological sensing by a pacing and defibrillation electrode may result in inappropriate defibrillator discharges and/or inhibition of pacing. Active-fixation electrodes may be more likely to sense diaphragmatic myopotentials because of the protrusion of the screw for fixation. In addition, the movement of the fixation screw in an integrated bipolar lead system could also result in inappropriate sensing. This may be increasingly important in patients who are pacemaker dependent because the dynamic range of the autogain feature of these devices is much more narrow. Five of 15 consecutive patients who received a CPI model 0154 or 0155 active-fixation defibrillation electrode with an ICD system (CPI Ventak AV3DR model 1831 or CPI Ventak VR model 1774 defibrillator) are described. In 2 of the 15 patients, nonphysiological sensing appearing to be diaphragmatic myopotentials resulted in inappropriate defibrillator discharges. Both patients were pacemaker dependent. Changes in the sensitivity from nominal to less sensitive prevented inappropriate discharges. In one patient, discreet nonphysiological sensed events with the electrogram suggestive of ventricular activation was noted at the time of implantation. This was completely eliminated by redeployment of the active-fixation lead in the interventricular septum. In two other patients, discreet nonphysiological sensed events resulted in intermittent inhibition of ventricular pacing after implantation. These were still seen in the least sensitive autogain mode for ventricular amplitude. These were not seen on subsequent interrogation 1 month after implantation. Increased awareness of nonphysiological sensing is recommended. The CPI 0154 and 0155 leads seem to be particularly prone to this abnormality. Particular attention should be made when deploying an active-fixation screw for an integrated bipolar lead. This increased awareness is more important when a given individual is pacemaker dependent, which may warrant DFT testing in a least or less sensitive mode in these patients. [source]


Electrophysiologist-Implanted Transvenous Cardioverter Defibrillators Using Local Versus General Anesthesia

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 1 2000
ANTONIS S. MANOLIS
With the advent of smaller biphasic transvenous implantable Cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and the experience gained over the years, it is now feasible for electrophysioiogists to implant them safely in the abdominal or pectoral area without surgical assistance. Throughout the years, general anesthesia has been used as the standard technique of anesthesia for these procedures. However, use of local anesthesia combined with deep sedation only for defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing might further facilitate and simplify these procedures. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility of using local anesthesia and compare it with the standard technique of general anesthesia, during implantation of transvenous ICDs performed by an electrophysiologist in the electrophysiology laboratory. For over 4 years in the electrophysiology laboratory, we have implanted transvenous ICDs in 90 consecutive patients (84 men and 6 women, aged 58 15 years). Early on, general anesthesia was used (n = 40, group I), but in recent series (n = 50, group II) local anesthesia was combined with deep sedation for DFT testing. Patients had coronary (n = 58) or valvular (n = 4) disease, cardiomyopathy (n = 25) or no organic disease (n = 3), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 35%, and presented with ventricular tachycardia (n = 72) or fibrillation (n = 16), or syncope (n = 2). One-lead ICD systems were used in 74 patients, two-lead systems in 10 patients, andan AVICD in 6 patients. ICDs were implanted in abdominal (n = 17, all in group I) or more recently in pectoral (n = 73) pockets. The DFT averaged 9.7 3.6 J and 10.2 3.6 J in the two groups, respectively (P = NS) and there were no differences in pace-sense thresholds. The total procedural duration was shorter (2.1 0.5 hours) in group II (all pectoral implants) compared with 23 pectoral implants of group I (2.9 0.5 hours) (P < 0.0001). Biphasic devices were used in all patients and active shell devices in 67 patients; no patient needed a subcutaneous patch. There were six complications (7%), four in group I and two in group II: one pulmonary edema and one respiratory insufficiency that delayed extubation for 3 hours in a patient with prior lung resection, both probably related to general anesthesia, one lead insulation break that required reoperation on day 3, two pocket hematomas, and one pneumothorax. There was one postoperative arrhythmic death at 48 hours in group I. No infections occurred. Patients were discharged at a mean time of 3 days. All devices functioned well at predischarge testing. Thus, it is feasible to use local anesthesia for current ICD implants to expedite the procedure and avoid general anesthesia related cost and possible complications. [source]