Frommeyer Gerrit, Zumhagen Sven, Dechering Dirk G, Larbig Robert, Bettin Markus, Löher Andreas, Köbe Julia, Reinke Florian, Eckardt Lars
Division of Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Münster, Germany
Division of Electrophysiology, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Münster, Germany.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Mar 15;5(3):e003181. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.115.003181.
The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S-ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard-of-care prospective single-center S-ICD registry.
In the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S-ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66-0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22-0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of <10 J was not attained. Nevertheless, in these 4 patients, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively terminated with an internal 80-J shock.
Although it has been shown that defibrillation testing is not necessary in transvenous ICD systems, it seems particular important for S-ICD systems, because in nearly 25% of the cases the primary intraoperative test was not successful. In most cases, a successful defibrillation could be achieved by changing shock polarity or by optimizing the shock vector caused by the pulse generator or lead repositioning.
最近发表的随机SIMPLE试验结果对常规术中除颤测试的作用提出了质疑。然而,在植入完全皮下植入式心律转复除颤器(S-ICD)系统期间仍建议进行测试。为了解决S-ICD系统中除颤测试是否仍然必要的问题,我们分析了一个大型的、符合医疗标准的前瞻性单中心S-ICD注册研究的数据。
在本研究中,102例连续患者接受了S-ICD植入,用于一级预防(n = 50)或二级预防(n = 52)。除4例患者外,所有患者均进行了除颤测试。在98例患者中的74例(75%;95%CI 0.66 - 0.83)中,首次程控的体内电击有效终止了室颤。在98例患者中的24例(25%;95%CI 0.22 - 0.44)中,首次体内电击无效,需要进一步进行体内或体外电击。在这些患者中,将电击极性程控为反向(n = 14)或重新定位感知电极(n = 1)或脉冲发生器(n = 5)导致除颤成功。在4例患者中,未达到<10 J的安全裕度。然而,在这4例患者中,80 J的体内电击有效终止了室性心律失常。
虽然已经表明经静脉ICD系统中除颤测试并非必要,但对于S-ICD系统似乎尤为重要,因为在近25%的病例中,术中首次测试未成功。在大多数情况下,通过改变电击极性或优化由脉冲发生器引起的电击向量或重新定位电极可实现成功除颤。