Glikson M, Luria D, Friedman P A, Trusty J M, Benderly M, Hammill S C, Stanton M S
Division of Cardiovascular and Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2000 Feb;11(2):127-35. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2000.tb00311.x.
The value of ventricular arrhythmia inductions as part of routine implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) follow-up in new-generation pectoral ICDs is unknown.
We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database analyzing data from 153 patients with pectoral ICDs who had routine arrhythmia inductions at predismissal, and 3 months and 1 year after implantation. Routine predismissal ventricular fibrillation (VF) induction yielded important findings in 8.8% of patients, all in patients with implantation defibrillation threshold (DFT) > or = 15 J or with concomitant pacemaker systems. At 3 months and 1 year, routine VF induction yielded important findings in 5.9% and 3.8% of tested patients, respectively, all in patients who had high DFT on prior testing. Ventricular tachycardia (VT) induction at predismissal, and 3 months and 1 year after implantation resulted in programming change in 37.4%, 28.1%, and 13.8% of tested patients, almost all in patients with inducible VT on baseline electrophysiologic study and clinical episodes since implantation.
Although helpful in identifying potentially important ICD malfunctions, routine arrhythmia inductions during the first year after ICD implantation may not be necessary in all cases. VF inductions have a low yield in patients with previously low DFTs who lack concomitant pacemakers. VT inductions have a low yield in patients without baseline inducible VT and in the absence of clinical events. Definite recommendations regarding patient selection must await larger prospective studies as well as consensus in the medical community about what comprises an acceptable risk justifying avoidance of the costs and inconveniences of routine arrhythmia inductions.
