Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 2000 21(2):162-169; doi:10.1053/euhj.1999.1716
Copyright © 2000 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brunn, J.
Right arrow Articles by Block, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brunn, J.
Right arrow Articles by Block, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Is there a need for routine testing of ICD defibrillation capacity?. Results from more than 1000 studies

J. Brunnf1, D. Böcker, M. Weber, M. Castrucci, R. Gradaus, M. Borggrefe, G. Breithardt and M. Block

Hospital of the Westfälische Wilhelms-University of Münster, Department of Cardiology and Angiology and Institute for Arteriosclerosis Research, Münster, Germany

revised March 12, 1999; accepted April 28, 1999

Abstract

Aims Benefits and complications of postoperative implantable cardioverter-defibrillator tests are controversial matters. This study sought to assess the necessity of defibrillation function tests after implantation.

Methods and Results We retrospectively analysed 1007 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator tests in 587 systems and 556 patients. Nine hundred and thirty implantable cardioverter-defibrillator tests (89·4%) were routinely performed. Seventy-one tests (7%) were performed after a change in the antiarrhythmic drug regimen and six tests (0·60%) because of a suspected dysfunction of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. During routine tests, four systems (0·4%) failed to defibrillate the patient. However, in all but one test, abnormalities of the system had been observed before the test. After the addition of antiarrhythmic drugs, two of 71 implantable cardioverter-defibrillator systems (2·8%) failed to defibrillate the patient. One of six systems tested due to a suspected dysfunction failed to defibrillate the patient. During 16 tests (1·6%), complications occurred.

Conclusions Our experience demonstrates that postoperative tests of the defibrillation function of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators rarely reveal dysfunctions. As testing is unpleasant for the patient and not free of complications, tests might be restricted to those patients in whom a dysfunction is suspected and to those patients in whom class I or class III antiarrhythmic drugs have been added to the antiarrhythmic drug regimen.

Key Words: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator test, antiarrhythmic drug, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator dysfunction, defibrillation

f1 Correspondence: Jürgen Brunn, MD, Universitätsklinik, Medizinische Klinik C, Kardiologie und Angiologie, D-48129 Münster, Germany.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EuropaceHome page
D. Bansch, H. Kottkamp, G. Gronefeld, J. Vogt, C. Israel, D. Bocker, G. Hindricks, K.-H. Kuck, and on behalf of the Quick-ICD investigators
The quick-implantable-defibrillator trial
Europace, December 1, 2007; 9(12): 1144 - 1150.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 EuropaceHome page
A. Buob, S. Siaplaouras, D. Tscholl, H.-J. Schäfers, M. Böhm, and J. Jung
Clinical value of routine predischarge testing after ICD-implantation
Europace, January 1, 2004; 6(2): 159 - 164.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
H.V. Huikuri
Routine tests should be challenged in cardiology
Eur. Heart J., January 2, 2000; 21(2): 100 - 101.
[PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.