Leong-Sit Peter, Gula Lorne J, Diamantouros Pantelis, Krahn Andrew D, Skanes Allan C, Yee Raymond, Klein George J
Division of Cardiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Am Heart J. 2006 Dec;152(6):1104-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.06.025.
Verification of defibrillation efficacy by defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing during implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation is the current standard. Generally, defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation at 10 J below the maximum output of a device is felt to establish an adequate safety margin. Nonetheless, DFT testing adds to cost and carries some potential for morbidity, whereas its impact on outcomes in the modern era of defibrillator technology is unclear. We aimed to determine the frequency that DFT testing resulted in a change at device implant and to identify clinical and echocardiographic predictors of the need for DFT testing.
We reviewed all implantable cardioverter-defibrillators that were implanted at the London Health Sciences Centre (Ontario, Canada) from June 1999 to August 2003 and used multivariate analysis to determine variables associated with DFT test failures and elevated DFT values. When a defibrillation failure was not observed, a lowest energy to defibrillate (LED) was recorded.
Among 168 implants, DFT testing was successful with a minimum 10-J safety margin in 152 (90%), whereas the remaining 16 required changes at device implant. In a multivariate analysis, use of amiodarone was independently associated with DFT failure (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-17.0). Significantly higher mean DFT/LED values were observed among patients on amiodarone (1.36 J; P = .0041). Those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy had a higher mean DFT/LED compared with those with ischemic cardiomyopathy (1.44 J; P = .028).
Use of amiodarone is associated with a 4-fold increase in risk of DFT failure and subsequent need for changes at implant to achieve a safe threshold. Defibrillation threshold testing appears to be most useful for patients taking amiodarone.
在植入式心脏复律除颤器植入过程中,通过除颤阈值(DFT)测试来验证除颤效果是当前的标准做法。一般来说,在低于设备最大输出能量10焦耳的情况下使室颤除颤被认为可建立足够的安全 margin。尽管如此,DFT测试会增加成本并存在一定的发病风险,而其在现代除颤器技术时代对治疗结果的影响尚不清楚。我们旨在确定DFT测试导致设备植入时发生改变的频率,并识别DFT测试必要性的临床和超声心动图预测因素。
我们回顾了1999年6月至2003年8月在伦敦健康科学中心(加拿大安大略省)植入的所有植入式心脏复律除颤器,并使用多变量分析来确定与DFT测试失败和DFT值升高相关的变量。当未观察到除颤失败时,记录最低除颤能量(LED)。
在168例植入手术中,152例(90%)DFT测试成功,且有至少10焦耳的安全 margin,而其余16例在设备植入时需要更改设置。在多变量分析中,使用胺碘酮与DFT失败独立相关(比值比,4.6;95%置信区间,1.2 - 17.0)。服用胺碘酮的患者中观察到的平均DFT/LED值显著更高(1.36焦耳;P = 0.0041)。与缺血性心肌病患者相比,非缺血性心肌病患者的平均DFT/LED更高(1.44焦耳;P = 0.028)。
使用胺碘酮会使DFT失败风险增加4倍,并随后需要在植入时进行更改以达到安全阈值。除颤阈值测试似乎对服用胺碘酮的患者最有用。