Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 64(08): 679-687
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1583767
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing Should Not Be Generally Abandoned for All ICD Procedures—A Multicenter Study on 4,572 Consecutive Patients

Tibor Ziegelhoeffer
1  Department of Cardiac Surgery, Kerckhoff Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany
,
Alexander Siebel
2  Herz und Gefass-Klinik, Bad Neustadt/Saale, Bayern, Germany
,
Andreas Markewitz
3  Departmentof XVII –Cardiovascular Surgery, Bundeswehrzentralkrankenhaus Koblenz, Koblenz, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany
,
Nicolas Doll
4  Department of Cardiac Surgery, Sana HerzchirurgischeKlinik Stuttgart GmbH, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
,
Volker Bärsch
5  Department of Cardiology, St. MarienKrankenhaus, Siegen, Germany
,
Markus Reinartz
6  Department of Cardiology, KatholischesKlinikum Koblenz Montabaur, Koblenz, Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany
,
Brigitte Oswald
7  Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Universitatsklinikum Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Dieter Bimmel
8  Department of Cardiology, St. Marien Hospital, Bonn, Germany
,
Alexander Meyer
1  Department of Cardiac Surgery, Kerckhoff Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany
,
Timo Weimar
4  Department of Cardiac Surgery, Sana HerzchirurgischeKlinik Stuttgart GmbH, Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
,
Thomas Walther
1  Department of Cardiac Surgery, Kerckhoff Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany
,
Heiko Burger
1  Department of Cardiac Surgery, Kerckhoff Klinik, Bad Nauheim, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

08 January 2016

02 April 2016

Publication Date:
14 June 2016 (online)

Abstract

Background The ongoing technical advances in development of new implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) systems led some investigators to question the routine use of intraoperative defibrillation testing (DT). Therefore, we evaluated retrospectively in a multicenter study effectiveness, safety, and usefulness of intraoperative DT on unbiased large patient population.

Methods Data from 4,572 consecutive patients undergoing any ICD intervention were retrospectively analyzed. Besides efficacy of DT, risk factors for DT failure were identified in a multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results Overall 5,483 shock data from 4,532 patients were available. Not tested for medical reasons were 13.5%. DT-associated complications were not noted. Primary DT effectiveness was 95.8%, whereas 4.2% were ineffective. Optimization (51.6% increase of DT energy, 10.1% subcutaneous lead array (SQ array), 2% generator exchange, 4.8% lead reposition, 9.3% lead exchange, and 22.2% change of shock parameters) led to successful DT in 152 patients (96.2%). Subanalyses and logistic regression identified implantation of generator in any other position than left subpectoral, age, body mass index and left ventricular ejection fraction as independent predictors for primary DT failure.

Conclusion The number of patients, including those undergoing generator exchange, system upgrade, or system revision, with inappropriate intraoperative testshock is relatively high. The results of recent prospective clinical trials can be extrapolated only on first ICD implantations with high-energy generators. For patients undergoing subcutaneous ICD implantation, right-sided implantation, patients with channelopathies and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, as well as for procedures on already implanted ICD systems, the intraoperative DT might still be recommended.

Note

Some data from thisarticle such as number of primary ineffective testshocks and predictors for testshock failure were presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Freiburg, February 2014.